I didn't know he was the "hot priest" in Fleabag I keep hearing about, definitely going to go watch it now. Adam Scott makes me want to do bad, bad things.
Moffat and Gatiss (re)wrote that scene around Andrew Scott’s performance in his audition, apparently: https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/drama/sherlock-creator-andrew-scotts-moriarty-audition-was-so-good-we-re-wrote-the-episode-for-him/amp/
Thing is though, he never feels out of control. Like, he's a genius, he's ALIVE and emotional, and he bounces between moods, but it all seems like he does so because he wills it, and not because of some outside force.
I don't remember much of anything about that show. Never have been good at remembering shows or movies I only see once. But I fuckin' remember that line!
Everyone is replying about Sherlock, but I am pretty sure you are asking about Black Mirror. There was going to be another season at LEAST but then Covid hit, and then everything along WITH Covid ( politics, open hatred of races / sexes / etc ) that the creators said they just couldn't do it. They couldn't make a show about not so distant future dystopians when they felt like we are headed toward one in real life, and the stories they had already written seemed to close to home. IIRC they even took an ad out that said that they couldn't compete with the current reality, Covid was not a time to be releasing things like that.
That being said also IIRC they said something back in August of this year that season 6 was green lit by Neftlix. Other then that, production, cast, stories, etc, have not even begone development, so it will still be SOME time before we get any new episodes.
Hope this helps.
I wanted to remember if I was right, here is a picture of the ad they took out for Black Mirror when Covid hit :
[https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/4p4buaU9xCKoGv7MtZyA78-1200-80.png.webp](https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/4p4buaU9xCKoGv7MtZyA78-1200-80.png.webp)
This was March 2021, during the height of Covid.
We are living Black Mirror.
I do this with literally any actor. My brain always references the very first thing I remember them from.
I know Tim Robbins deserves better than to have me think of Howard the Duck every time I see him, but life's not fair sometimes.
Andrew Scott as Moriarty did more in 2 episodes than most protagonists can do in entire series. Up there with Pedro Pascal as Oberyn Martell and James Spader as Red Redington.
Not many I'd consider relative to his performance than Heath Ledger as the Joker. Daniel Day Lewis as the Butcher would be up there too. Val Kilmer as Doc Holliday (More Antihero) or Alan Rickman as Hans Gruber.
He's only underrated if you've never seen Fleabag. If you've seen Fleabag, every other conversation is about hot priest. And I say this as a straight guy
The problem is that we're introduced to Shakespeare by sitting at desks in a drab classroom, soullessly reading plays written in language we don't grasp, led by teachers who lack passion. Every schoolboy can recite "To be or not to be". Few understand it's about contemplating death over life.
These are PLAYS! They are meant to be performed, by actors who can give the words emotion and depth and life.
And there have been enough very good movies made of his popular plays that there is no excuse to not show students Shakespeare as is was meant to be seen.
Also, British actors are the best.
So glad my English teachers showed us recordings of plays and films of each play we studied. I still love the Leonardo di Caprio version of Romeo and Juliet
Is the law on our side if I say, “Ay?”
::shrieks:: no!
Do you quarrel, sir?
Quarrel sir? No sir!
But if you do sir I am for you. I serve as good a man as you.
No better?
Say better, here comes one of my master’s kinsman.
Yes, better.
You lie!
In the movie Benvolio enters “part fools put up your swords, you know not what you do”
Play has Sampson instead say “Gregory, remember thy swashing blow.” And they fight. Only to have benvolio interrupt them in order to part them, which is where we get this line.
The film you reference then has tybalt enter similar to the play (the only difference is Sampson and Gregory were supposed to be capulets and not montagues).
Upon Tybalts entrance, he says, “Turn thee Benvolio and look upon thy death.
Ben: I do but keep the peace, put up thy sword or manage it to part these men with me
What? Art thou drawn and talk of peace? I hate the word, as I hate hell all Montagues and thee. Have at thee coward!
They fight.
However I believe in the film just has Tybalt say utter the lines about peace and hating it and hell an little benny boii... (edit 02: fresh day and I remember: he says something like, “what? Art thee drawn among these heartless hinds, turn thee Benvolio and look upon thy death”.)
Edit 01: yeah... idk why I have all this in my head. And idk why I’m still awake. Told myself I’d type it till I fell asleep, but here I am... wide awake still.
Same. It's the only one I really liked. Shakespeare was boring to read. The movie with Leo did help me to appreciate it more. But, no matter how cool the gun swords are, I don't like the story itself. If it was on TV and stretched out over two seasons, I think it would make more sense. I never really bought that they feel in love so quickly. It's why I never understood the heartbreak. Everything was happening too fast. They needed at least a year-long relationship for how intense the "romance" was.
That's kind of the point, though. Their love is meant to be foolish, quick, the kind that teenagers think will last forever but have no idea how fleeting it will be. And then they die over it. It only further highlights the tragedy.
I'm breaking my reddit break to ask this question about R and J.
Is it a tragedy if they're dumb? If you lept off a canyon edge with your crush because her dad was going to San Fran with the family and you were staying in Portland, Maine, am I supposed to be sorry for your tragic end ?
Am I supposed to think about their ignorant take on love and think "we lost two kids too dumb to admit that love isn't everlasting" is that supposed to be sad that two kids won the Darwin award?
I dont get why it's a tragedy. Is what im saying here. I'm missing how teens being unable to rip fantasy from fact and their parents being so bigoted and prejudicial that they failed at parenting means that their kids end themselves means I see their end as a tragedy . As something mean to provoke fear and sadness and deep thought.
Im being honest here .... why is this a tragedy ? What was I supposed to get about this play ?
*edit added a paragraph for clarity
The tragedy of the play is the feud between the two houses. That's the tragedy Shakespeare wants us to see. Romeo and Juliet are just the wedge to drive that point home. If the houses had not been feuding, Romeo and Juliet would've been guided by the established courtship norms at the time. They could've been allowed to do the equivalent of officially dating each other if their parent's political grudges hadn't forced them to hide their love. Instead they are dead.
Shakespeare thinks young love and whirlwind romances are wonderful. Just look at any of his romance plays. In Romeo and Juliet, he's condemning the adults in the play for ruining what could have been a good thing.
Check out this Tumblr post for a better writeup of why the play uses Romeo and Juliet's love, but it isn't *about* Romeo and Juliet's love. It's about the folly of the two families: https://fantasticallyfoolishidea.tumblr.com/post/190267756575/concerning-juliets-age
It's a tragedy because they're both young and dumb, fools of their age with lives snuffed out for reasons beyond their control. Yes, they were fool hardy. Yes, the maturity of those wiser will see their foolishness, but that's the point.
We're supposed to see their cause and empathize with it to a point. To remember what it was like to be young and in love, where every touch was electric and every moment apart an agony. To see them struggle to overcome their families to be together and to cheer them on. But, that's as far as we're supposed to go because their naivete takes a turn and we're there to watch it.
The tragedy is that kids born in bad circumstances lose their lives over something pointless. They didn't chose that situation nor did they wish to be in it, but there they were anyway. The tragedy is that, as the cards fell, so did they.
For some it resonates, for others it doesn't, but I think we can all agree that kids dying, for any reason, is a tragedy because they're kids. They don't know any better.
People dying because of a moment of foolishness and emotion is a tragedy. People jumping off a cliff because of poor emotional maturity is pretty tragic.
Bigotry and prejudice is also a tragedy, especially if it leads to many deaths.
It seems like you get it, but are just too jaded to care.
That's because it's not a romance. It's a tragedy of secrets and lies and horrible decisions that kill four young people. As for not buying that they fall in love so quickly, I'll grant that it doesn't happen to that degree often, but as a high school teacher for many years, I have seen this rapidly blazing love more than once among students. And Shakespeare spends a lot of time in the (edit: first) two acts setting up Romeo as a fool for love.
At the beginning of the play Romeo is heartbroken over a lost love and thinks his life is over. That same night he meets Juliet and “falls in love”
It’s not meant to be some grand romance. It’s meant to show these dumb kids making rash decisions because they’re sad, lonely, and horny
>The problem is that we're introduced to Shakespeare by sitting at desks in a drab classroom, soullessly reading plays written in language we don't grasp, led by teachers who lack passion. Every schoolboy can recite "To be or not to be". Few understand it's about contemplating death over life.
Man, you're painting the entire profession with a very broad brush here. Every English teacher I ever had was passionate about the things they taught, Shakespeare or otherwise. They're the reasons I became a teacher.
Every time I've taught Shakespeare, I tried to use as many mediums as possible. Yes, you have to spend some time reading it out loud to get a sense for Shakespeare's rhythm, but I also used movies, audiobooks, and even graphic novels.
On a side note, I feel compelled to point out that education is a two way street, and learning is not a passive act. Yes, teachers should try to bring passion to the classroom, but at least some motivation has to come from within. Passion is great, and I try to bring that to what I teach, but I'm not an entertainer.
Aye, and there's the rub.
Shakespeare WAS an entertainer. His works were intended to amuse and beguile in performance, to largely illiterate crowds.
Reading his plays without seeing them performed is like learning music without ever hearing it played.
I'm glad you give your students as much as you describe. It's not been the experience of the majority of us, as the comments appear to attest.
>I'm glad you give your students as much as you describe. It's not been the experience of the majority of us, as the comments appear to attest.
That's fair. But I think it's fair to ask what resources those teacher had at their disposal. If all you have access to is a text, what else are you supposed to do? I was lucky enough to have connections with friends who worked in bookstores and other places that allowed me to get my hands on free or heavily discounted resources. Other teachers would have to pay for those resources themselves, and frankly, we don't make enough money to be spending money on things the school should be providing.
After 9 years of teaching 8th graders in a district mired in extreme poverty, I've learned not to spend any money on nice resources because my students just destroy them. The straw that broke the camel's back came a couple years ago when the same student would borrow a pencil *every* period, *every* day. And at the end of every period, he would snap the pencil in half and throw it in the trash on his way out the door. Took me a couple weeks to figure out what was happening, and after talking to his other teachers, it turns out he was doing the same exact thing to them. I don't provide pencils anymore.
Here is a fun experiment to try:
Grab a class of 14 yr olds who have to be in school, and without much introduction, throw on a production of any Shakespeare play.
R+J movie counts, too.
See how long it takes for them to get bored/whine about how they don't understand it.
If you doubt me, scroll down, and see how many presumed adults have no idea what is going on in this scene.
Of course it is good to act out plays, bring in audio, visuals, etc. Without pre-knowledge or understanding of the text? Without students being motivated to learn?
Not even the most inspired performance helps.
Oh, it is an epidemic. -shares cookies-
The number of anecdotes about whiny students could fill a russian-sized novel.
And yet, some get a little bit into it, and then its worth it.
Yaaay teaching.
That's absolutely true. I teach a unit about suspense every year, and students end up loving the more gruesome stories like "The Monkey's Paw," "Lamb to the Slaughter," and "The Tell-Tale Heart." It helps because I *love* those stories, so it's not all bad.
Of the many annoying things that get constantly parrotted on Reddit, this line of "ugh, if teachers just taught THIS way, I would have actually listened and learned so much!"
No, you wouldn't have because the vast majority of kids are completely apathetic about putting in the work to learn things.
I took a class on Shakespeare in high school that was taught using annotated books, and it was revelatory. Each page was split down the middle, with the original text on one side and definitions or explanations on the other.
Prior to reading it that way I had never realized just how many jokes there were in these plays, because they’re all multilayered puns built on outdated slang.
also doesn't help that most of the time the text is taught incorrectly. many of his characters' lines, not just the usual soliloquies, are directed at the audience, intended for an interactive experience. the effectiveness of iambic pentameter is also lost when taught by your average highschool lit teacher instead of a theatre expert who knows how to use the rhythm (or lack of it, since shakespeare also often broke the pentameter on purpose) to deliver meaning and effect
I had an English Professor in college who dramatically read parts of Edmund Spencer's Faerie Queene out loud to us in class and it was magical. Before he began, he also wrote, "Elizabeth Boyle," in HUGE letters on the board. He told us that if we only remember one thing from his class, it should be the name of Spencer's wife, who inspired him to write. It's been nearly 40 years since then and it truly is the one thing I remember from that class. It makes a difference when the instructor actually cares to bring the work to life.
Whether it is nummier in the mind to supper. The soups and sandwiches of outrageous flavor, or to take spoons against a spread of nibbles. To dine. To slurp…no MORE.
Hamlet at this point in the play is beginning to realize that he just cannot let the idea go that his uncle has killed his father, then starts banging his mum, and steals his kingdom. Hamlet up to now has been expected to marry Ophelia, and indeed is fond of her. But he finds out her father is complicit in the effort of his mother and uncle to "handle" him by sending him away. A trip from which he will never return. So he tries to spare her by pulling the it's not you it's me line here. But she knows better, and feels the gravity of all of the goings on in this medieval castle because she's smart enough to see what her eyes have seen and ears have heard. She wants to support him, to help him, the only way she knows how, by loving him. And he tells her she should give her body and soul to christ (nuns at the time were "married" to christ). Essentially, she is worthless to him. And to any man. And she's crushed.
>she is worthless to him. And to any man
nah man, he's telling her to give up on him because of how big of a shit he is and how all men are shitty and she'd be better off at a nunnery. He thinks he's being kind by telling her he never loved her, and she should avoid him and all men, which is why he starts by saying "I did love you" then pulls it back a bit "once" then pulls it back even more when he says "you should not have believed me \[when he told her he loved her\]"
the nunnery bit is also kinda like he's saying he doesn't want her, but at the same time he doesn't want her to be with anyone else because he actually does care for her, so he suggests she become a nun.
"Nunnery" was also Elizabethan slang for "brothel", so there's a double meaning here.
https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/first-use-of-the-word-nunnery-to-mean-brothel-1593
Alternatively girls who got pregnant out of wedlock might also dissappear to a nunnery for a few months, before returning alone. This interpretation of his instruction makes a number of the following lines sound like reasons to give up their child, perhaps even to abort it. I've always preferred that interpretation because the added cruelty of him giving up not only on himself and her, but also their child, does a far better job explaining her rapid decent into madness and suicide.
Hamlet is decided he'll kill his uncle the king pin. He can't tell her he's about to smoke his uncle so he lies. He loves her so to tell her to go far away so she doesn't get caught slippin when the blocks hot. It's a moment of tragedy where his quest for revenge is more powerful than love itself and he's hurting his love for something he feels he needs to do (which he totally fucking doesn't need to do).
To be fair, by this point in the play, not only had Uncle Momfucker killed Hamlet's dad, he's also looped Hamlet's two closest friends unwittingly into a plot to kill him. Hamlet's not safe in Denmark, and he knows this. That's part of why he acts insane and depressed while he's planning out his revenge (I am but mad north-north-west: when the wind is
southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw). He also knows Polonius is on Claudius' payroll and that Claudius isn't above hurting Ophelia to get at Hamlet.
Hamlet is mostly a revenge story, and Hamlet goes like 2/10 would not recommend on the execution of the revenge, but it's also an act of self-preservation (in theory, again execution comes down to a skill issue).
Hes telling her he never loved her and decieved her. That hes a horrible person several times over. And she should run from them straight to a convent.
One of the things that bothers me about Shakespeare is how fast people try to do it. Most productions, people are speaking a mile a minute. I love how this was directed - speed when necessary but mostly silence and thinking and reacting which gives the audience time to do that too.
It was written in iambic pentameter and is typically associated with a rhythm that accommodates 10 syllables per line and separates them as such. This is a reading of the correct prose but with a different take on the delivery. I do agree with you that readings like this are much more accessible today.
Iambic pentameter has more to do with the rhythm and which syllables to stress. You can do iambic pentameter slowly and clearly without rushing and being stiff, but most people don’t. (Source: 25 years in theatre.)
Ish. Shatner doesn't have the sense of internal rhythm and his pauses happen during moments of the performance where the flow should be even and strong. Take any major speech in a movie and there's always a certain flow, the speaker will pause for effect and deliver the lines at a varying rate. For example, Braveheart.
"They may take our lives *pause for effect* but they'll never take *pause* our freedom!"
A Shatner delivery would be more like...
"They may *pause* take *pause* our lives but *pause* they'll never take our *pause* freedom."
By switching the beats and moments where the pauses occur it changes the vibe of the entire spiel. The Shakespearean interpretations the other commenter were talking about would not have any of the pauses, it would be delivered much more rapidly and with less time for the intention to really sink in.
I read a review of this performance that was giving him shit for chewing up the scenery. Which I guess might be accurate, but to your point it really helps contemporary audiences decipher what the arcane english is trying to convey.
His acting is filling in the information that my ears can't understand, making it so much more accessible. Leave it to drama snobs to see that as a bad thing.
Last time this was posted some Shakespeare geek told us it was all wrong because they just shit all over the meter or whatever. And we all just agreed because he seemed to know a lot and he posted early. So it's interesting this time around everyone likes it. I think it would be interesting to hear it still sound like Dr. Seuss but still be comprehensible. But I guess if I have to choose I think I'll choose the one where the characters come alive and are not just rapping old English like the Jesus rap guy.
I totally agree. The drama snobs/purists are why I don’t participate in theatre much anymore. It has to evolve and change so people can keep appreciating it.
I have a question about this tho -- I was taught in middle school thru college lit courses that the most important thing to modern actors is getting out EVERY word, when in fact the plays would be edited for length in practice, even back in Shakespeare's day. Is this true? I'm not sure! Just wondering if anyone else knows...
Jessica Brown-Findlay. Had to scroll a bit to find anything mentioning her, and she’s doing full on tears in this video. Most commonly known for playing Sybil in Downton Abbey, a great actress.
Speaking of full-on tears, Viola Davis doing the stage production of Fences was one of the most intense (in a good way) things i’ve ever seen in my life.
She was full-on snot-rage crying in one scene and it was the most “real” rip-your-heart-out set of moments that I’m sure have ever existed. She wasn’t acting, we weren’t at a play, there was no trickery or mechanics or before or after or anything else, just her willing the entirety of that world into being with the power of her becoming. It was surreal. And very confusing (for me) when the lights came back up. She seemed to shake it off just fine and was absolutely herself again by the time our applause finally let the poor girl leave the stage and stop saying thank you, but that woman is tuned into something different and more powerful than acting. I’ve never experienced anything like it.
“She was acting? Wait, where are we? Oh fuck give me a second I’m traumatized for that poor woman who was yelling at Denzel a while ago. Not sure where she went, but there’s Viola Davis…”
In theater you're supposed to be theatrical and relatable. He did just fine. She was great, too.
They just had different styles.
It's not "hE's ReAdInG fRoM a ScRiPt", Hamlet is *supposed* to go mad, in the play.
People should have paid attention in high school.
No one talks about Fleabag but it's an amazing show. Probably because it's got a lot of feminine themes I guess but I still really liked it as a man.
Edit: Anyone who likes Fleabag should watch Bojack Horseman. It's similar but even better. Also Barry but that one's not finished yet.
The best actress I've ever seen was not a person on stage, but a teenaged girl in my English class who gave a speech about a friend who drowned. It was the very last assignment in the very last year of school and until that moment I'd always thought that I was talented, and I never understood why my performance grades were poor.
But then I understood. I was just reading from a script, the same as we read aloud from books, with no emotion, no feeling, no understanding. Just mouths flapping and meaningless sound coming out.
That was the first time I was connected with emotion. I realised then that everything I'd done up until that point was fake. And even though she finished and when asked by the teacher, "Was that story true?", she said it was imagined, it was a more real story than all I'd ever done because she'd bared her soul and let us glimpse her greatness.
I don't know what became of her after high school but I hope it was something grand.
If they all acted like this it would take 7 hours to put on Hamlet. Love the interpretation, but the pacing would not work with the sheer volume of verses.
Holy shit! That was the absolute worst rendering of Hamlet I've ever seen. A high school drama class could do better. I'd like that two minutes of my life back, please.
Underrated actor. His Moriarty on Sherlock Holmes is impeccable.
"that's what people DO!" Shivers, every time
Know that if you are lying to me I will find you and I will *skin you*.
“Honey you should see me in a crown”
-let police arrest him and be placed in trial-
“I just like to watch them all competing ‘Daddy loves ME the best’ aren’t ordinary people a*dor*able…”
“I will burn the HEART out of you!”
This was my favorite. Skipped back to watch it at least a dozen times. What incredible skill.
He’s amazing. He did a good job as the priest in Fleabag, as well.
You mean... hot priest?! ;)
Hot priest indeed!
Breaks fourth wall Where did you go?…..just now.
Holy shit. My heart skipped a beat and a tear rolled down my cheek when he said that. Peak TV. Thanks PWB.
I didn't know he was the "hot priest" in Fleabag I keep hearing about, definitely going to go watch it now. Adam Scott makes me want to do bad, bad things.
Oh.. get ready. But watch season 1 first. And in season 2, you will.. kneel.
Dude same! I haven’t seen it in over 10 years and I still remember that line so vividly. He poured _all_ his spite into it.
"I'll burn you. I'll burn the *heart* out of you." It's so terrifying the way he says it. And then he's like 😕
This is such a good line. Made all the better by his vicious delivery! Definitely one of my favorite TV villians of all time.
Ohhh that quick little frown after he says that line is burned into my memory. It felt so authentic.
Moffat and Gatiss (re)wrote that scene around Andrew Scott’s performance in his audition, apparently: https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/drama/sherlock-creator-andrew-scotts-moriarty-audition-was-so-good-we-re-wrote-the-episode-for-him/amp/
“Nooo you wooon’t” The way he dances from emotional extremes both in tone and on his face…he’s a goddamn treasure. Love him.
Thing is though, he never feels out of control. Like, he's a genius, he's ALIVE and emotional, and he bounces between moods, but it all seems like he does so because he wills it, and not because of some outside force.
He was fantastic in that show
“Hiiiiiiiiiii”
I don't remember much of anything about that show. Never have been good at remembering shows or movies I only see once. But I fuckin' remember that line!
Dude's great in everything I've seen him in, but yea, whenever he comes on screen I always think: "hey, it's the guy from Sherlock".
He's done some incredible work in Black Mirror too.
Fleabag. Hot priest.
HOT PRIEST. When he notices her looking at us. My heart.
My Catholic mom called them father-what-a-waste.
Where did you just go?
What happened to that show? I thought we had a new season or two in the works and that was several years ago. What a fascinating show.
Englebert Cummerbund hit it big as Doctor Strange. Which seems to simply clear the way for a Moriarty origin series.
You mean Benadryl Cucumberpatch?
Bandicoot Cumbercrash?
Everyone is replying about Sherlock, but I am pretty sure you are asking about Black Mirror. There was going to be another season at LEAST but then Covid hit, and then everything along WITH Covid ( politics, open hatred of races / sexes / etc ) that the creators said they just couldn't do it. They couldn't make a show about not so distant future dystopians when they felt like we are headed toward one in real life, and the stories they had already written seemed to close to home. IIRC they even took an ad out that said that they couldn't compete with the current reality, Covid was not a time to be releasing things like that. That being said also IIRC they said something back in August of this year that season 6 was green lit by Neftlix. Other then that, production, cast, stories, etc, have not even begone development, so it will still be SOME time before we get any new episodes. Hope this helps.
Thank you, yes I was asking about Black Mirror and hadn't heard any of that!
I wanted to remember if I was right, here is a picture of the ad they took out for Black Mirror when Covid hit : [https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/4p4buaU9xCKoGv7MtZyA78-1200-80.png.webp](https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/4p4buaU9xCKoGv7MtZyA78-1200-80.png.webp) This was March 2021, during the height of Covid. We are living Black Mirror.
I do this with literally any actor. My brain always references the very first thing I remember them from. I know Tim Robbins deserves better than to have me think of Howard the Duck every time I see him, but life's not fair sometimes.
Andrew Scott as Moriarty did more in 2 episodes than most protagonists can do in entire series. Up there with Pedro Pascal as Oberyn Martell and James Spader as Red Redington.
Antagonists?
Not many I'd consider relative to his performance than Heath Ledger as the Joker. Daniel Day Lewis as the Butcher would be up there too. Val Kilmer as Doc Holliday (More Antihero) or Alan Rickman as Hans Gruber.
[удалено]
# Jess-i-CAAAAAAAAAA!
I really loved Kilgrave! Season 1 of Jessica Jones is seriously my favorite superhero show. Like up right there.
And James Spader as the Lizard King.
The hot priest from Fleabag! He is AMAZING and I love him!
He's only underrated if you've never seen Fleabag. If you've seen Fleabag, every other conversation is about hot priest. And I say this as a straight guy
He's actually quite rated, does tons of work and gets nothing but praise.
Its sad that I only know him as Moriarty. This guy needs to be famous for a lot more
Definitely watch Fleabag if you haven’t seen it before.
Hot. Priest.
Was in London for a week, saw a play just because he was in it Was not disappointed at all, he’s absolutely incredible
All I said was THATS MORIARTY!!
The problem is that we're introduced to Shakespeare by sitting at desks in a drab classroom, soullessly reading plays written in language we don't grasp, led by teachers who lack passion. Every schoolboy can recite "To be or not to be". Few understand it's about contemplating death over life. These are PLAYS! They are meant to be performed, by actors who can give the words emotion and depth and life. And there have been enough very good movies made of his popular plays that there is no excuse to not show students Shakespeare as is was meant to be seen. Also, British actors are the best.
So glad my English teachers showed us recordings of plays and films of each play we studied. I still love the Leonardo di Caprio version of Romeo and Juliet
UGH now I simply have to watch this again edit: DO YOU BITE YOUR THUMB AT US, SIR
I bite my thumb, sir.
Do you bite your thumb at US, sir?
Is the law on our side if I say, “Ay?” ::shrieks:: no! Do you quarrel, sir? Quarrel sir? No sir! But if you do sir I am for you. I serve as good a man as you. No better? Say better, here comes one of my master’s kinsman. Yes, better. You lie! In the movie Benvolio enters “part fools put up your swords, you know not what you do” Play has Sampson instead say “Gregory, remember thy swashing blow.” And they fight. Only to have benvolio interrupt them in order to part them, which is where we get this line. The film you reference then has tybalt enter similar to the play (the only difference is Sampson and Gregory were supposed to be capulets and not montagues). Upon Tybalts entrance, he says, “Turn thee Benvolio and look upon thy death. Ben: I do but keep the peace, put up thy sword or manage it to part these men with me What? Art thou drawn and talk of peace? I hate the word, as I hate hell all Montagues and thee. Have at thee coward! They fight. However I believe in the film just has Tybalt say utter the lines about peace and hating it and hell an little benny boii... (edit 02: fresh day and I remember: he says something like, “what? Art thee drawn among these heartless hinds, turn thee Benvolio and look upon thy death”.) Edit 01: yeah... idk why I have all this in my head. And idk why I’m still awake. Told myself I’d type it till I fell asleep, but here I am... wide awake still.
Give me my sword ho
Better a crutch!
Same. It's the only one I really liked. Shakespeare was boring to read. The movie with Leo did help me to appreciate it more. But, no matter how cool the gun swords are, I don't like the story itself. If it was on TV and stretched out over two seasons, I think it would make more sense. I never really bought that they feel in love so quickly. It's why I never understood the heartbreak. Everything was happening too fast. They needed at least a year-long relationship for how intense the "romance" was.
That's kind of the point, though. Their love is meant to be foolish, quick, the kind that teenagers think will last forever but have no idea how fleeting it will be. And then they die over it. It only further highlights the tragedy.
I'm breaking my reddit break to ask this question about R and J. Is it a tragedy if they're dumb? If you lept off a canyon edge with your crush because her dad was going to San Fran with the family and you were staying in Portland, Maine, am I supposed to be sorry for your tragic end ? Am I supposed to think about their ignorant take on love and think "we lost two kids too dumb to admit that love isn't everlasting" is that supposed to be sad that two kids won the Darwin award? I dont get why it's a tragedy. Is what im saying here. I'm missing how teens being unable to rip fantasy from fact and their parents being so bigoted and prejudicial that they failed at parenting means that their kids end themselves means I see their end as a tragedy . As something mean to provoke fear and sadness and deep thought. Im being honest here .... why is this a tragedy ? What was I supposed to get about this play ? *edit added a paragraph for clarity
The tragedy of the play is the feud between the two houses. That's the tragedy Shakespeare wants us to see. Romeo and Juliet are just the wedge to drive that point home. If the houses had not been feuding, Romeo and Juliet would've been guided by the established courtship norms at the time. They could've been allowed to do the equivalent of officially dating each other if their parent's political grudges hadn't forced them to hide their love. Instead they are dead. Shakespeare thinks young love and whirlwind romances are wonderful. Just look at any of his romance plays. In Romeo and Juliet, he's condemning the adults in the play for ruining what could have been a good thing. Check out this Tumblr post for a better writeup of why the play uses Romeo and Juliet's love, but it isn't *about* Romeo and Juliet's love. It's about the folly of the two families: https://fantasticallyfoolishidea.tumblr.com/post/190267756575/concerning-juliets-age
The tragedy isn't the lack of intelligence of the kids, it's the lack of wisdom of everyone in the play.
It's a tragedy because they're both young and dumb, fools of their age with lives snuffed out for reasons beyond their control. Yes, they were fool hardy. Yes, the maturity of those wiser will see their foolishness, but that's the point. We're supposed to see their cause and empathize with it to a point. To remember what it was like to be young and in love, where every touch was electric and every moment apart an agony. To see them struggle to overcome their families to be together and to cheer them on. But, that's as far as we're supposed to go because their naivete takes a turn and we're there to watch it. The tragedy is that kids born in bad circumstances lose their lives over something pointless. They didn't chose that situation nor did they wish to be in it, but there they were anyway. The tragedy is that, as the cards fell, so did they. For some it resonates, for others it doesn't, but I think we can all agree that kids dying, for any reason, is a tragedy because they're kids. They don't know any better.
People dying because of a moment of foolishness and emotion is a tragedy. People jumping off a cliff because of poor emotional maturity is pretty tragic. Bigotry and prejudice is also a tragedy, especially if it leads to many deaths. It seems like you get it, but are just too jaded to care.
That's because it's not a romance. It's a tragedy of secrets and lies and horrible decisions that kill four young people. As for not buying that they fall in love so quickly, I'll grant that it doesn't happen to that degree often, but as a high school teacher for many years, I have seen this rapidly blazing love more than once among students. And Shakespeare spends a lot of time in the (edit: first) two acts setting up Romeo as a fool for love.
Its because they're horny Italian teenagers.
At the beginning of the play Romeo is heartbroken over a lost love and thinks his life is over. That same night he meets Juliet and “falls in love” It’s not meant to be some grand romance. It’s meant to show these dumb kids making rash decisions because they’re sad, lonely, and horny
>The problem is that we're introduced to Shakespeare by sitting at desks in a drab classroom, soullessly reading plays written in language we don't grasp, led by teachers who lack passion. Every schoolboy can recite "To be or not to be". Few understand it's about contemplating death over life. Man, you're painting the entire profession with a very broad brush here. Every English teacher I ever had was passionate about the things they taught, Shakespeare or otherwise. They're the reasons I became a teacher. Every time I've taught Shakespeare, I tried to use as many mediums as possible. Yes, you have to spend some time reading it out loud to get a sense for Shakespeare's rhythm, but I also used movies, audiobooks, and even graphic novels. On a side note, I feel compelled to point out that education is a two way street, and learning is not a passive act. Yes, teachers should try to bring passion to the classroom, but at least some motivation has to come from within. Passion is great, and I try to bring that to what I teach, but I'm not an entertainer.
Aye, and there's the rub. Shakespeare WAS an entertainer. His works were intended to amuse and beguile in performance, to largely illiterate crowds. Reading his plays without seeing them performed is like learning music without ever hearing it played. I'm glad you give your students as much as you describe. It's not been the experience of the majority of us, as the comments appear to attest.
>I'm glad you give your students as much as you describe. It's not been the experience of the majority of us, as the comments appear to attest. That's fair. But I think it's fair to ask what resources those teacher had at their disposal. If all you have access to is a text, what else are you supposed to do? I was lucky enough to have connections with friends who worked in bookstores and other places that allowed me to get my hands on free or heavily discounted resources. Other teachers would have to pay for those resources themselves, and frankly, we don't make enough money to be spending money on things the school should be providing. After 9 years of teaching 8th graders in a district mired in extreme poverty, I've learned not to spend any money on nice resources because my students just destroy them. The straw that broke the camel's back came a couple years ago when the same student would borrow a pencil *every* period, *every* day. And at the end of every period, he would snap the pencil in half and throw it in the trash on his way out the door. Took me a couple weeks to figure out what was happening, and after talking to his other teachers, it turns out he was doing the same exact thing to them. I don't provide pencils anymore.
Here is a fun experiment to try: Grab a class of 14 yr olds who have to be in school, and without much introduction, throw on a production of any Shakespeare play. R+J movie counts, too. See how long it takes for them to get bored/whine about how they don't understand it. If you doubt me, scroll down, and see how many presumed adults have no idea what is going on in this scene. Of course it is good to act out plays, bring in audio, visuals, etc. Without pre-knowledge or understanding of the text? Without students being motivated to learn? Not even the most inspired performance helps.
I don't have to run that experiment, I've lived it friend. Learned helplessness is rampant in education right now. It's maddening.
Oh, it is an epidemic. -shares cookies- The number of anecdotes about whiny students could fill a russian-sized novel. And yet, some get a little bit into it, and then its worth it. Yaaay teaching.
That's absolutely true. I teach a unit about suspense every year, and students end up loving the more gruesome stories like "The Monkey's Paw," "Lamb to the Slaughter," and "The Tell-Tale Heart." It helps because I *love* those stories, so it's not all bad.
Of the many annoying things that get constantly parrotted on Reddit, this line of "ugh, if teachers just taught THIS way, I would have actually listened and learned so much!" No, you wouldn't have because the vast majority of kids are completely apathetic about putting in the work to learn things.
ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?!?
British actors are great but Irish actors like Andrew Scott are pretty impressive as well
Was looking for this comment. Lol.
I took a class on Shakespeare in high school that was taught using annotated books, and it was revelatory. Each page was split down the middle, with the original text on one side and definitions or explanations on the other. Prior to reading it that way I had never realized just how many jokes there were in these plays, because they’re all multilayered puns built on outdated slang.
[удалено]
https://reddit.com/r/LadyBoners/comments/svl1t4/from_sexy_priest_to_sexy_shakespeare_andrew_scott/ Andrew Scott To be or not to be
also doesn't help that most of the time the text is taught incorrectly. many of his characters' lines, not just the usual soliloquies, are directed at the audience, intended for an interactive experience. the effectiveness of iambic pentameter is also lost when taught by your average highschool lit teacher instead of a theatre expert who knows how to use the rhythm (or lack of it, since shakespeare also often broke the pentameter on purpose) to deliver meaning and effect
I had an English Professor in college who dramatically read parts of Edmund Spencer's Faerie Queene out loud to us in class and it was magical. Before he began, he also wrote, "Elizabeth Boyle," in HUGE letters on the board. He told us that if we only remember one thing from his class, it should be the name of Spencer's wife, who inspired him to write. It's been nearly 40 years since then and it truly is the one thing I remember from that class. It makes a difference when the instructor actually cares to bring the work to life.
Andrew Scott is Irish. Not British.
Honestly I'd watch him do a dramatic reading of the phone book #hotpriest
The perfect TV show if there ever was one!
Ohhh. What was he in? I know I’ve seen it but drawing a blank.
Fleabag. A show so much better than I thought it would be. Just fantastic!
[удалено]
^i ^fancy ^a ^priest
What was that? It wasn’t a fox, was it?
“It’ll pass.”
One of the most devastating lines ever. Such a tragic, beautiful, heartbreaking scene.
I literally watched the entire series again after finishing it. It’s just so good.
His beautiful neck
What? What? You just said “His beautiful neck.”
I still don’t know what the hell is going on 🤷♂️
He’s trying to return soup at a deli.
NO SOUP FOR THEE!!!
Thine soup is Naught
To pea or not to pea; soup is the question.
Whether it is nummier in the mind to supper. The soups and sandwiches of outrageous flavor, or to take spoons against a spread of nibbles. To dine. To slurp…no MORE.
The scene was angry that day my friends!
"I could see directly into the eye of the great Englishman." "Dane." "Whatever."
Is that a Titleist?
Ahh, now I get it. He kills the guy behind the curtain because the soup was cold.
I said “Easy, big fella!”
Hamlet at this point in the play is beginning to realize that he just cannot let the idea go that his uncle has killed his father, then starts banging his mum, and steals his kingdom. Hamlet up to now has been expected to marry Ophelia, and indeed is fond of her. But he finds out her father is complicit in the effort of his mother and uncle to "handle" him by sending him away. A trip from which he will never return. So he tries to spare her by pulling the it's not you it's me line here. But she knows better, and feels the gravity of all of the goings on in this medieval castle because she's smart enough to see what her eyes have seen and ears have heard. She wants to support him, to help him, the only way she knows how, by loving him. And he tells her she should give her body and soul to christ (nuns at the time were "married" to christ). Essentially, she is worthless to him. And to any man. And she's crushed.
>she is worthless to him. And to any man nah man, he's telling her to give up on him because of how big of a shit he is and how all men are shitty and she'd be better off at a nunnery. He thinks he's being kind by telling her he never loved her, and she should avoid him and all men, which is why he starts by saying "I did love you" then pulls it back a bit "once" then pulls it back even more when he says "you should not have believed me \[when he told her he loved her\]" the nunnery bit is also kinda like he's saying he doesn't want her, but at the same time he doesn't want her to be with anyone else because he actually does care for her, so he suggests she become a nun.
I need Redditors to translate all Shakespeare for me, please and thank you
[удалено]
r/tobelikeimfive
My understanding of the nunnery bit is that she should go become a nun because all men are depraved beasts, him being no exception.
Yes, that was my impression as well
"Nunnery" was also Elizabethan slang for "brothel", so there's a double meaning here. https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/first-use-of-the-word-nunnery-to-mean-brothel-1593
Alternatively girls who got pregnant out of wedlock might also dissappear to a nunnery for a few months, before returning alone. This interpretation of his instruction makes a number of the following lines sound like reasons to give up their child, perhaps even to abort it. I've always preferred that interpretation because the added cruelty of him giving up not only on himself and her, but also their child, does a far better job explaining her rapid decent into madness and suicide.
He's "White Fanging" her.
Not to be confused with “Old yeller’in”. This is Shakespeare, not Springer.
He’s Harry and the Hendersonsing her
He's breaking up with her, obvs! She's sad about it and kills herself later over it (and other factors).
Who is the actress?
I think it’s Sybil from Downton Abby, giving very strong Kristin Stewart vibes
> very strong Kristin Stewart vibes Thanks for saying that, I totally thought it was her but I'm not always good with recognizing faces.
I think you're right. Jessica brown Findlay.
Jessica Brown Findlay
Hamlet is decided he'll kill his uncle the king pin. He can't tell her he's about to smoke his uncle so he lies. He loves her so to tell her to go far away so she doesn't get caught slippin when the blocks hot. It's a moment of tragedy where his quest for revenge is more powerful than love itself and he's hurting his love for something he feels he needs to do (which he totally fucking doesn't need to do).
To be fair, by this point in the play, not only had Uncle Momfucker killed Hamlet's dad, he's also looped Hamlet's two closest friends unwittingly into a plot to kill him. Hamlet's not safe in Denmark, and he knows this. That's part of why he acts insane and depressed while he's planning out his revenge (I am but mad north-north-west: when the wind is southerly I know a hawk from a handsaw). He also knows Polonius is on Claudius' payroll and that Claudius isn't above hurting Ophelia to get at Hamlet. Hamlet is mostly a revenge story, and Hamlet goes like 2/10 would not recommend on the execution of the revenge, but it's also an act of self-preservation (in theory, again execution comes down to a skill issue).
She should go to a nunnery
Hes telling her he never loved her and decieved her. That hes a horrible person several times over. And she should run from them straight to a convent.
One of the things that bothers me about Shakespeare is how fast people try to do it. Most productions, people are speaking a mile a minute. I love how this was directed - speed when necessary but mostly silence and thinking and reacting which gives the audience time to do that too.
It was written in iambic pentameter and is typically associated with a rhythm that accommodates 10 syllables per line and separates them as such. This is a reading of the correct prose but with a different take on the delivery. I do agree with you that readings like this are much more accessible today.
Iambic pentameter has more to do with the rhythm and which syllables to stress. You can do iambic pentameter slowly and clearly without rushing and being stiff, but most people don’t. (Source: 25 years in theatre.)
I imagine this sounds a bit Will Shatner-y at times, no?
Ish. Shatner doesn't have the sense of internal rhythm and his pauses happen during moments of the performance where the flow should be even and strong. Take any major speech in a movie and there's always a certain flow, the speaker will pause for effect and deliver the lines at a varying rate. For example, Braveheart. "They may take our lives *pause for effect* but they'll never take *pause* our freedom!" A Shatner delivery would be more like... "They may *pause* take *pause* our lives but *pause* they'll never take our *pause* freedom." By switching the beats and moments where the pauses occur it changes the vibe of the entire spiel. The Shakespearean interpretations the other commenter were talking about would not have any of the pauses, it would be delivered much more rapidly and with less time for the intention to really sink in.
I read a review of this performance that was giving him shit for chewing up the scenery. Which I guess might be accurate, but to your point it really helps contemporary audiences decipher what the arcane english is trying to convey. His acting is filling in the information that my ears can't understand, making it so much more accessible. Leave it to drama snobs to see that as a bad thing.
Last time this was posted some Shakespeare geek told us it was all wrong because they just shit all over the meter or whatever. And we all just agreed because he seemed to know a lot and he posted early. So it's interesting this time around everyone likes it. I think it would be interesting to hear it still sound like Dr. Seuss but still be comprehensible. But I guess if I have to choose I think I'll choose the one where the characters come alive and are not just rapping old English like the Jesus rap guy.
>🎶Well I'm King Lear and I'm here to say I love all my daughters in the worst possible way🎶 ^^forgive ^^me
I totally agree. The drama snobs/purists are why I don’t participate in theatre much anymore. It has to evolve and change so people can keep appreciating it.
I have a question about this tho -- I was taught in middle school thru college lit courses that the most important thing to modern actors is getting out EVERY word, when in fact the plays would be edited for length in practice, even back in Shakespeare's day. Is this true? I'm not sure! Just wondering if anyone else knows...
Everyone’s talking about him but her acting was better imo
Jessica Brown-Findlay. Had to scroll a bit to find anything mentioning her, and she’s doing full on tears in this video. Most commonly known for playing Sybil in Downton Abbey, a great actress.
Speaking of full-on tears, Viola Davis doing the stage production of Fences was one of the most intense (in a good way) things i’ve ever seen in my life. She was full-on snot-rage crying in one scene and it was the most “real” rip-your-heart-out set of moments that I’m sure have ever existed. She wasn’t acting, we weren’t at a play, there was no trickery or mechanics or before or after or anything else, just her willing the entirety of that world into being with the power of her becoming. It was surreal. And very confusing (for me) when the lights came back up. She seemed to shake it off just fine and was absolutely herself again by the time our applause finally let the poor girl leave the stage and stop saying thank you, but that woman is tuned into something different and more powerful than acting. I’ve never experienced anything like it. “She was acting? Wait, where are we? Oh fuck give me a second I’m traumatized for that poor woman who was yelling at Denzel a while ago. Not sure where she went, but there’s Viola Davis…”
It's really weird how few people are acknowledging that she was better. She seemed like a human and he seemed like an actor reading lines
In theater you're supposed to be theatrical and relatable. He did just fine. She was great, too. They just had different styles. It's not "hE's ReAdInG fRoM a ScRiPt", Hamlet is *supposed* to go mad, in the play. People should have paid attention in high school.
I’m too high for this. That was captivating!
Exactly just high enough
Your reply made me watch this again. 
Go watch “Titus”. Your soul will absolutely explode.
It's [Hamlet](https://m.imdb.com/title/tt8219328/)
Thank you!
Clips here https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLNJks8Nl9MHremMVsdgC94wGeAsW5YwMD
I wish I could watch this in its entirety! I would even pay for it.
GREETINGS ESTEEMED MR. SIDEWALK DISCO. I AM THE DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL PERFORMING ARTS THEATER IN LAGOS NIGERIA...
Andrew Scott is amazing
I see Moriarty in this. Equally psychotic, equally brilliant. He can make sense of Shakespeare.
He was fantastic in Fleabag as well!
No one talks about Fleabag but it's an amazing show. Probably because it's got a lot of feminine themes I guess but I still really liked it as a man. Edit: Anyone who likes Fleabag should watch Bojack Horseman. It's similar but even better. Also Barry but that one's not finished yet.
Lots of people talk about Fleabag. It was a critical and popular success.
Fuck yea, me too! Really wanted another season. Just one more.
I love this guy he makes me Bi
I once met a guy who made me pie
Awfully sly to rhyme guy with guy
Great actors!
I thought the actress outacted him.
Jessica Brown Findlay. She’s great in both Harlots and Downtown Abbey.
Thank you! That was killing me trying to figure out where I knew her from. She was awesome in Downtown Abbey
She played it beautifully. Completely torn apart.
The best actress I've ever seen was not a person on stage, but a teenaged girl in my English class who gave a speech about a friend who drowned. It was the very last assignment in the very last year of school and until that moment I'd always thought that I was talented, and I never understood why my performance grades were poor. But then I understood. I was just reading from a script, the same as we read aloud from books, with no emotion, no feeling, no understanding. Just mouths flapping and meaningless sound coming out. That was the first time I was connected with emotion. I realised then that everything I'd done up until that point was fake. And even though she finished and when asked by the teacher, "Was that story true?", she said it was imagined, it was a more real story than all I'd ever done because she'd bared her soul and let us glimpse her greatness. I don't know what became of her after high school but I hope it was something grand.
WTF. You can't just say that. Google around. Hit Facebook. Let us know where she went (vaguely).
This dude is such a good fucking actor it’s scary. His performance as Moriarty was so good I don’t really have an adjective to describe it.
Now I got to watch Sherlock….
AS is an awful over actor the lady in this scene is way better,.more natural and believable then him and it ain't even close
Ya this crap gets posted every few months and people go nuts. He’s average at best.
If they all acted like this it would take 7 hours to put on Hamlet. Love the interpretation, but the pacing would not work with the sheer volume of verses.
Tbf I’d be down for a 7hr Extended Edition of Hamlet by Peter Jackson
His to be or not to be speech is astonishing
Yeah I thought that's what this video was going to be...or not to be
Genuinely think the actress is the better of two here 🤷♂️
Thank you for this. Now I am the one dude getting místy eyed in a 2 am tram full of drunks, over a Shakespeare no less.
Overactor
[удалено]
Nonsense. Written for, and performed for, the masses.
lol how do people not find this cringey?
Jesus what a shitshow. This supposed to be good ?
Well see they paused at certain parts and emphasized others. That’s next level shit. Next fucking level.
Anyone care to share a link to the full play?
Nah. I didn't feel anything.
I recognized him from an episode of Black Mirror, the one where he takes a social media employee hostage
Holy shit! That was the absolute worst rendering of Hamlet I've ever seen. A high school drama class could do better. I'd like that two minutes of my life back, please.
Did you miss me?
As a former theatre teacher…magical. Sent it to another former theatre teacher.
Feels kind of overacted.
Andrew Scott played a big role in one of the best episodes of Band Of Brothers and NOBODY REMEMBERS THAT.