1. For you, what
was the most important element or aspect that changed from reading the play to
watching it live? Be as specific as
possible: did the language change? The
pace? The emotion? How did it become a slightly (or
dramatically) different play through an actual performance? What could you not have seen merely reading
the play…and on the flip side, what would you have missed if you had only seen the play?
2. In a review
at London Theatre.co.uk, the reviewer, Peter Brown, writes: “Tim McInnnerny presents a more swashbuckling Iago than the
customary definition of a scheming, political conniver that we're often treated
to in other productions. McInnerny is a professional soldier first and foremost
- no trace of a political bureaucrat here. He forcibly captures our attention,
particularly in the soliloquies, but some of his gestures were rather
repetitive, even for a well-disciplined, solidering type.” Do you agree with this? Was this the ‘Iago’ that you saw when reading
the play? Was he ‘evil’ enough? Conniving enough? Or did he show you a different (better?
worse?) Iago? Explain…
3. Discuss the performance of Act V in particular: did you get the same feeling (or not) of catharsis that you had when reading the play? Was the emotion/tension heightened—or lessened? Did you feel the play was necessarily tragic? Even though you knew what was going to happen, did you still experience doubt or fear for the characters? Or was there something you read in the play that you didn’t see (and wanted to see) on stage?
4. In general,
what do you think a live performance adds to a play? Like any concert, the players/musicians are
right in front of you, which means they can make mistakes, or even improvise in
ways we don’t see in the play or hear on the album. Why might you argue that we need more live
performances of Shakespeare to complement what we read in class, and to help us
understand his unique power in literature and the modern world?
No comments:
Post a Comment