Tuesday, March 1, 2011

Shakespeare - Twelfth Night

"Sexist."


"While I tried to read this without thinking about my past experiences reading plays, I was quickly reminded that I simply do not like them. The format doesn't cut it for me ... The story didn't pull me in and all of the 'exit or enter so and so' was annoying to me. Not to mention all the endless talking! Blah blah blah blah blah!"


"THIS BOOK IS TERRIBLE. AVOID AT ALL COSTS. there are way too many subplots to like, consider. it sucks."


"I mean the thing is, I read loads of books, I read books when I was at school and i'd even sometimes read one of my books in class. The teacher spotted me reading once and asked me why I do so bad in class when I obviously read a lot and I told her quiet bluntly that I find shakespeare to be boring and that it takes too long to get anywhere. (Quiet ironic considering my favourite author is often criticized for having a slower style of writing)

They should let kids do Tolkien or Terry Pratchett instead."


"Absolute shit to be perfectly honest."


"it didnt make any more special that there was twins in the play."


"Perhaps Shakespeare simply thought it would be funny to have an effeminate man and a manly woman. Perhaps he just liked the idea of a boy, dressed as a girl, pretending to be a man. All of these elements are very comical, they are also completely absurd, but I don't think that that was his intention of he was putting on this performance for a collection of whores and thieves (as was often his crowd).

It would be fair to say that my opinion, in general, is that Shakespeare couldn't write a good plot. The man can spit out a good line but lines of wit and beauty have very little to do with the overall plotting of a thing. Really, how many later writers had completely unbelievable, ridiculous plots but were hailed because of their writing style? Ironically, it is the inverse that is now true. Try to find acclaim for a contemporary science fiction or fantasy author - it doesn't exist! Back then we cared about the form but not the content and now we are the exact opposite, but we make an exception if you were from the time before we changed our minds. Why it is that people can't simply stick to one idea of what is good or what is not is beyond me.

Anywho, the play is amusing, some of the lines are quite good, but overall it makes no sense Dues Ex Machina may as well be the name of it and the characters are one dimensional. Oh, and it's also Shakespeare. So I guess that makes all the shit disappear."


"im sure the english language was quite different before such a popular author came along, but that doesnt meen we have to enjoy his works now, so very long later, the acter Thesbus revolutionised acting, that doesnt meen all his plays were any good!"


"Honeslty I really wanted Olivia or the Count Orsino to die because,I think it would have made a better ending rather than having a doulbe-wedding."


"This is one of the best play wrtier by shakebear and it is very inteirces and I love it. This is a reomitca comedy."

SHAKEBEAR


"Apparently he's written comedy. I've never laughed once ... We could have read Fight Club, or Jumper. Something marginally interesting. And legible."


"It's like someone in a few hundred years saying that avatar is amazing because of the special effects, and how they helped revolutionise cinema and truly showed how good 3d could be. My answer (not that i'll be around) would be pretty much the same 'it may have been good then but not by todays standards.' Of course this is all subject to opinion, and each to their own.
Personally, i'd much rather have done about lord of the rings, or fight club. I think at that age, something you could relate to (like martina cole, tess gerritsons, lee child, stephen leathers books) would be better. It is much easier to learn something you enjoy doing and can relate to."


"I do feel we should cease the study and analysis of his plays in English lessons. A return to correct spelling, grammar and punctuation would be good. Not only is the analysis not as generally useful, but I think that the dialect he uses is anachronistic in today's society."


"I think Shakespeare is famous only because he happens to be an old author whose works survived all these years. It's like classical/baroque music, for all we know there were dozens more composers who were as good as, or better than, Vivaldi, Bach, Mozard, etc. but these guys are all we have."


"Sorry, but I don't have to automatically like the original architect's work just because it was made by the original architect."


"He wrote in the 16th and 17th century, which is 400 years ago. Do you really think people will enjoy the Harry Potter books in 400 years time? No, because they will be seen as boring and old."

1 comment:

  1. Many of these reviews are silly--but, honestly, Twelfth Night is terrible. It's a romantic comedy that isn't romantic and isn't funny. None of the characters have any motivation for anything that they do, except for the comic relief, whose motivation is that they are idiots. Viola spends her first scene mourning for her brother, then instead of, say, walking up the beach a bit to see if he's also washed up and needs help, she immediately forgets him and falls inexplicably in love at first sight with a man who's inexplicably in love with a woman who falls inexplicably in love with Viola. None of them have a personality nor a reason for their love; the audience doesn't even know whom to root for or why. Sebastian is left hanging until he can be introduced as a deus ex machina in the final scene, in which we're expected to believe that A) the twins are so alike that no one can tell them apart, yet B) they don't recognize each other.

    There is not a single breath of true love, a single funny line, a single compelling character, nor the slightest hint of a true (rather than accidental) theme. Shakespeare never even bothered to publish this play in his lifetime.

    ReplyDelete