|
|
Post by miriel68 on Feb 26, 2017 17:27:08 GMT
It is always interesting to compare one's reaction to the same show/ text etc. I am not implying that you don't have critical abilities, only that you are inclined to be positive where I am more negative, generally. And I dislike generally click-bait articles, because they try to do-something-out-of-nothing and are not really interested in giving any worthy information.  |
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on Feb 27, 2017 0:11:51 GMT
Well, I have always said that I prefer to dwell on the positives in life, so you are right on that. But I have my more cynical days too, that's for sure. Usually I would agree with you on the worth of click-bait articles but sometimes I do find that they can occasionally contain information that is new to me (such as this one did about the length of the AS play and some of the initial reactions of people who had sat through it in the previews). Of course if the source material is coming from a site that is just an outfit that regurgitates previous articles (I'm thinking of something like Inquirer.net that just rehashes others sources news after the fact) then you likely won't find out any real new info, but with most newspapers such as The Guardian, Telegraph, Times, etc. you will find out something new even if it is put there to get clicks on the Cumberbatch name and fame. :-)) |
|
|
|
Post by onebluestocking on Feb 27, 2017 7:17:14 GMT
I wondered if the writer just had an axe to grind against BC. Or didn't like the staging, etc. of his production. I loved BC's Hamlet, but I'm no Shakespeare expert, and the music, lighting, general "rock concert" atmosphere rubbed some traditional Shakespeare buffs the wrong way. Most still liked his performance, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on Feb 28, 2017 13:38:59 GMT
I wondered if the writer just had an axe to grind against BC. Or didn't like the staging, etc. of his production. I loved BC's Hamlet, but I'm no Shakespeare expert, and the music, lighting, general "rock concert" atmosphere rubbed some traditional Shakespeare buffs the wrong way. Most still liked his performance, though. Well I would say that the blogger had an axe to grind against BC but not the writer of the article in the Telegraph. I have seen a fair number of Hamlets in my time and I think BC was the best (I know I am bias I can't undo that part of me) and I also think L. Turner was exceptional as the director of the production - I liked all her choices and think that she really gave the production a focus that was truly relevant to the times we live in. :-)) |
|
|
|
Post by miriel68 on Feb 28, 2017 22:59:25 GMT
Ok, so not because I want to convince you at all cost or something, but just for the pleasure of a friendly discussion: the writer of the Telegraph chose an idiotic title "better than Cumberbatch etc.) and of all tweets and opinions in the internet chose that of some BC hater and finishes his text with the comment "Tellingly, Cumberbatch's production is at the bottom of her list." Now, this last statement 1. has nothing to do with Scott's Hamlet 2. inserts a insidious little word "tellingly". Tellingly for whom? If he disagrees with her obviously biased comment, why to quote it and in such a prominent place of this text?  |
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on Mar 1, 2017 0:38:25 GMT
I just took that to mean that to the writer (BTW headlines are never written by the reporters who do the articles, it's done by the editors and/or pagination personnel - Union rules) of the article thought that since the blogger dissed BC's Hamlet so bad in the body of the piece that it wasn't any surprise that in the list ranking all the performances that she had seen, he finished in dead last. I don't think that the writer of the article was giving an opinion of BC's Hamlet - just commenting that blogger's low ranking of BC's performance wasn't unexpected.
:-))
|
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on Mar 2, 2017 14:16:34 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by miriel68 on Mar 2, 2017 16:36:36 GMT
Thank you for this round up: very interesting, and I am as disappointed you you (for you and for me) that we won't be able to see this take on Hamlet. Well, if I hadn't known before (but I had), these reviews do show that British theatre critics are better not being taken too seriously. From 2 to 5 stars: something is seriously rotten in the king of Denmark. A diffference of one star is understandable, especially for average production, but 3? And how annoying that they must mention Cumberbatch production again and again.
btw. you are right of course about the titles.
|
|
