How does /lit/ feel about blind casting? Pic related, the Globe Theatre's 2010 production of Romeo and Juliet.
Personally I think it's fine for most stage productions, since casting choices are limited, but for film production of Shakespeare, especially when it aims to be a well funded period reproduction (as with the Hollow Crown series), I find it very jarring because it pulls me out of the immersion.
I miss the days when all the female roles where played by traps. wtf went wrong?
who gives a shit? do you whinge and whine about the costumes too? or the props?
all you need for good drama is a few good actors/actresses. you don't even really need women to play the women. costumes should tell you how one character relates to another, but they don't really need to be accurate to the period. why should the skin color match? what difference does it make?
the globe theater puts on shakespeare in RP anyway, which should be a much worse barrier to your variety of immersion. Some of the puns and rhymes don't even fucking work. Does that bother you more or less than having a black Romeo?
I just want the record to state that the original thread read "bling casting" before OP deleted it and remade this thread reading "blind casting."
>>8112402
Omg that's so racist you should check your white privilege and apologize
>>8112411
>an actor's person is irrelevant to their character
This is what a pleb trying to be patrician looks like.
Doesn't work too well, does it?
>>8112419
Blind people aren't a race.
Actually, are they?
>>8112411
by the way, I don't mean to come across as nasty about it. I'm not calling you a racist/etc. I sympathize with your feelings about it. And in a period reconstruction I should like to see a minimum of black actors. But if Shakespeare did not hesitate to make his Romans into Elizabethans, I don't see why we are so much more broad-minded for insisting that our Elizabethans should look like Elizabethans.
not literature
>>8112402
do not like seeing white woman with black man. It's like cuck porn. It just makes me angry. Do not like it at all
>>8112402
It depends on the character tbhfam.
maybe it's just me, but black actors portray emotional depth with a certain grace that's more true to life. I like seeing humorous Asian/middle Eastern characters. I like intelligent older women(just watched Lars and the Real Girl and idk her name but the doctor was excellent).
Maybe it's just because where I live I'm exposed to a very mixed racial demographic.
>>8112438
I'm done with white women
they expect a lot and dont give much in return
>>8112402
Blind people should be allowed to act on stage, provided the floor is cleared of impeding objects.
Any other type of casting is ableist.
>>8112455
Lel I bet you actually think hot Asian women are better.
>>8112463
why would you use lel instead of lol? Think about it. It doesn't mean anything, its just the modification of the actual acronym lol. You don't even know why you use it. Somewhere, sometime you saw a few people post it and hopped right on board. Too mainstream for lol right? Thats so old, its meaning makes sense but you dont feel comfortable expressing your approval of things on the internet with the common old "lol" thats been around for so long. You'll man up and use the purposely misspelled version with no discernible humor or purpose besides making you look like a complete idiot while you maintain the false concept that other people find it amusing or appropriate and using purposely misspelled words shows the world that youre not afraid of anything and are part of some grand inside joke that no one finds funny. Theres a lot going through your head, but you realize I am right. You will try though, to get the best of this exchange. What are you going to go for? Newfag? Summer? oh damn there are so many options to choose from. An implication that I'm underage perhaps? Thats always fresh. Maybe you'll just shut down. I think you should go with something about butthurt or being mad or even comment on the length of the unproportionally long comment that so swiftly brought to your attention that you are a faggot that tries oh so hard to fit in. I'm sure you could find some grammar or spelling errors as a last resort. I cant wait, Its always fun playing insult roulette
>>8112476
The only thing fun is how out of touch you are with the memestream.
>>8112452
>Maybe it's just because where I live I'm exposed to a very mixed racial demographic.
Or maybe it's because you've been taught to unconsciously hate white people and fetishize minorities
>>8112411
>do you whinge and whine about the costumes too? or the props?
Yes, if they're distracting and ruin the entire play
>>8112494
This. I want to enjoy Shakespeare without being distracted by elaborate cuck fantasies
>>8112489
>you've been taught etc.
Not everyone is as impressionable as you.
I've always had very close white friends.
>>8112411
>who gives a shit? do you whinge and whine about the costumes too? or the props?
I do. I want to see more girls getting wet before BBC
>>8112506
>I'm not biased! I have lots of white friends!
Really dude? This is THE stereotypical response to being outed as a racist.
>>8112463
in my country they tend to be slightly brutal capitalists who vote unerringly liberal
so no
>>8112509
I don't know what you want me to tell you, but that feels a whole lot like a self-fulfilling prophecy.
>you're indoctrinated to hate white people
>you're best childhood friends were white?
>obviously racist
how does that even follow when my ONLY claim was that I don't mind seeing a cast with a mixed demographic?
>>8112402
This kind of autism makes me wonder if you know Verona's not in London.
Who gives a shit? The most important part for any Elizabethan work is that the actors fucking understand their lines and what they mean. Otherwise it's just three hours of torture where one sad cunt who cares about the play is the only one of the ten people on stage actually trying to tell you a story.
I'd take a blind casting over an amateur casting of Shakespeare any day.
>>8112411
Did you read the entire OP closely? And comprehend the distinction between play and film?
>>8112521
u just got meme'd on dude
>>8112426
This is actually the board for stage drama.
>>8112527
>Did you read the entire OP closely?
fuck no
if I wanted to read closely I'd read a book, not 4chan
>>8112545
Maybe you should if you intend to fly off the handle.
>>8112411
>globe
>RP
m8 they haven't tried to go back in time to the 50s to capture that vital radio market. What production did you see? I've seen a couple there, and RP wasn't standard. True, one was MacBeth but I've never heard this.
>>8112529
I've been meme'd
>>8112521
> my ONLY claim was that I don't mind seeing a cast with a mixed demographic?
No, you made many claims, including the claim that black actors somehow "portray emotional depth with a certain grace that's more true to life," which is more fawning over noble savage bullshit, and that you like to see humorous Asian characters.
It's pretty prejudiced stuff. You then tried to defend your racial preference for minorities in traditionally white roles by claiming, "I don't hate whites, I (used to) have lots of close white friends!"
It was disgusting, and while your response did fulfill the racist prophecy I cast for you, it's not like you were forced to answer by means of the most stereotypical cowardly subterfuge possible. The simple fact that you confirmed my prediction doesn't mean that it was designed in such a way that one couldn't possible avoid doing so.
>>8112547
fuck off
look, I'll tell you what I think. Yes, it's weird that they chose black actors for a period piece. But among a hundred other historical inaccuracies of dress, set design, etc., it is only worse in that nobody is stupid enough to miss it.
I'd like to see the filmmakers give a shit about accuracy. They don't. They haven't and they never will.
>>8112602
There is a difference between someone wearing plate mail a few hundred years too early, and someone wearing a WWII helmet in a Medieval piece. One you'll notice but can still ignore, the other makes it almost impossible to continue being immersed.
Blind casting is horseshit cultural marxism seeping into the already infested world of theatre faggotry. And this is coming from someone who did theatre for over a decade.
Blind casting is a meme. Plain and simple. It's done as a cheap way to get people talking about your production, nothing more. Then, when you get critisized for it, you can just cry rascism and theatre fags will flock to your defense.
And before I get told to go back to /pol/, this isnt a whites only thing. There was a production of Emperor Jones being put on when I was in college. For those of you unfamiliar with Emperor Jones, the lead character, Jones, is an escaped slave who flees to an island nation. Really good play. Talks about inherent rascism, examination of how class plays into oppression. Good show.
Jones dialogue, and he has a shit load of it, is written in stump speech. "I done gibs dem all dey gots fo wat it blah blah blah". Thats how his text is wirtten. Show I was referring to? 90 pound asian girl as Jones.Absolutle horseshit.
Another one was a famous Indian play about a poet that becomes a courtier, abandoning his love to an abusive relationship and returning at the end, only to find out that life is not like his poetry: it goes on without him. Cast? Lilly fucking white. All of them. all dressed in traditional Indian garb. It's rediculous.
Normally you can hope, pray, with regular shows that the rights holders have "integrity" clauses in the rights contract to stop this kinda shit. But the worst is with Shakespeare.
ROMEO AND JULIET ARE WHITE.
CESAR AND ANTONY ARE WHITE
OTHELLO IS FUCKING BLACK
But, everyone needs to be edgy and race and gender swap them to be different. Disgusting, and shits on original intent with post modernist bullshit.,
>>8112638
Very coming-of-age post
>>8112643
What do you mean?
>>8112638
>Romans
>white
Did I just get memed? I think I just got memed.
>>8112633
Not him, if you want to act like immersion in Shakespeare's times is necessary to you, don't refer to it as a medieval piece.
I think you have idiosyncratic foibles about what's historically accurate and what's not, and they aren't historically accurate or all that artistically inclined.
I don't think you know enough about Elizabethan theatre to be scandalized that a Webster production is put on without pearl dust or candles, or anything that would ruin immersion for someone with genuine knowledge of it or earlier theatre.
I think what ruins your immersion is that your preconceptions of history are constantly being challenged by the reality of the history of theatre production, which has always tended to innovate to get the crowds in, and you want to go back to the details in your historically inaccurate fantasy world, not in Shakespeare's or anyone else's world. You're actively resisting immersion in something new because your fantasy's cloth is too thin to support accuracy or innovation. It's not good.
>>8112702
I think you need to refer again the distinction I made in the OP between a stage production and a film production. What works fine on stage, does not necessarily work fine on film.
>>8112752
>What works fine on stage, does not necessarily work fine on film
...and you think film should be the one that's closer to your understanding of Elizabethan history of the two? This is worse than I thought.
>negroes committing suicide over women
>ever
>implying they wouldn't just hit it, quit it, gtfo
"like shit nigga just turn your head away from the dead bitch s m d h 100 100"
>>8112762
The Henry plays not Elizabethan history, they are set in the Middle Ages.
I'm saying a film production that spends millions for expensive props, is going for something different than a play. When you have long battle scenes, this right here is a sharp distinction. Shakespeare's plays couldn't do this, and he even offers such a disclaimer at the beginning of Henry V. We're talking about two very different mediums, which consequently follow very different conventions. For instance, in a play, an actor who is meant to be speaking softly is still going to be relatively loud, whereas in a film that would be extremely jarring.
>>8112782
>The Henry plays not Elizabethan history, they are set in the Middle Ages.
Because when Shakespeare put those on in the Elizabethan era, he was working really closely with the costumers to make sure they got all the previous century's details right?
>battle scenes
>Shakespeare's plays couldn't do this
So, what you're saying is that it wasn't historical inaccuracy that spoils Shakespeare's plays for you, but that you would have been upset if you had sat in on Henry V in the original Globe when Shakespeare first had it out, because you can't see Agincourt's full battlefield like it's the 1400s again? I feel the need to remind you that Verona is not in England, and France wasn't part of England by its first performance either.
What you're saying is that because you like to look at films where there's lots of people replicated through computer imaging, that that is closer experience to Agincourt than Shakespeare got. You're not worried about losing immersion in Shakespeare, you're worried about whether Michael Bay would have done the 15th Century better than the 16th Century knew how.
>an actor who is meant to be speaking softly
Christ on a bike, you're grasping at anything that might make you seem like you've seen enough lives plays to have this conversation.
Yes, I understand, you don't want a movie which looks anything like something which could or would have been produced for entertainment in Shakespeare time or before it to immerse yourself in. What you don't want to stop steeping in are all the things that this millennium told you film should do, and I'm sure you never lost immersion watching 300, but have read exactly none of the Greeks because they really ruin your immersion when they don't conform to the movies.
I feel bad for what your generation is going to do to the Bard to make him better once Stoppard dies and stops holding back the tide.
>>8112937
You seem to continue to willfully and utterly disregard the distinction between film and play. "Well Shakespeare wouldn't have been able to/didn't care about doing x." Yeah, no kidding. We're not talking about a play, we're talking about a film with an enormous budget, which happens to use Shakespeare's play as source material. We're not talking about the same medium, because if we were, it would just be a single angle continuous shot of a stage with no props. Film incorporates visuals far, far, far more than plays do, which are barely more than radio shows where you can see the performers.
there's literally nothing wrong with casting a blind person
>>8113185
Yeah, now you just look ignorant of both stage mechanics, early film, and the range of special effects which are available to both stage and film. The Smashing Pumpkins' Tonight Tonight video is so iconic because they went back to how special effects used be shot when film relied on stage effects. John Dee wasn't called a fucking wizard in Elizabeth's time because his sets were only good for "medieval" [sic&kek] shows in the past.
>barely more than radio shows where you can see the performers
Yes, I know you don't like to go to the theatre and want everything to pander to your safety zone of post 90s film, but they learnt a lot of that from old stage management being revived in the 90s too. You want an enormous budget film not because it helps you immerse yourself in Shakespeare better, but because you have no other way of immersing yourself in anything. The stage, radio, special effects that aren't a very niche very recent style, and heaven forbid being actually 3d without glasses are all going to make you lose immersion, not because of a flaw in media, but because you can't suspend your disbelief outside of a tiny corner of mainstream mediocre action films. Anything outside your formulaic view of a medium you don't even barely understand and you're lost. It's not a good thing, and will limit you. To end on a positive note, there's loads of games of Agincourt you could play online for free, which would really immerse you better in medieval times better than Shakespeare could since he never gives a choose your own ending or audience participation cue, and you could feel much more at home there than discussing theatre.
>>8113209
I've read most of Shakespeare's plays and loved them, and I watch his plays regularly and love them. Film, however, is not a play. It seems you are irked by this, and demand it be treated to precisely the same conventions or else it is "just a video game". I understand your aesthetic, but if you want to fully embrace it, you can also decry dimension in art as filthy innovation as well and taking away the imagination needed for flat art.
>>8113213
>boring first year reference to Clement Greenberg
I'm not irked, I'm providing reasons why you seem like an eighteen year old begging for everything to be as limited as you. And eighteen is generous.
>>8112402
It doesn't bother me.
Why aren't you complaining about pronunciation? Surely that is also an immersion breaker considering nobody talked in Standard English dialect back then.
>>8113218
I don't even know who that is.
You're providing snotty condescension and pretty much nothing else. You seem incapable, completely, utterly, totally, redundantly incapable of grasping that film has different standards and expectations than stage does. What is more, you, miraculously enough, manage to resent this without even grasping it.
>>8113225
I read Shakespeare in Elizabethan pronunciation, or at least the closest approximation we have which preserves the rhymes and puns. I don't expect it to be pronounced this way on stage or film because a lot of people would have difficulty understanding it.
>>8113227
He's the champion of flat painting, eg Jackson Pollock.
I'm providing you with name drops so you can wikipedia scholar your complete lack of technical, aesthetic and literary understanding into something more than the idea that nobody else knows what a film or play is. I'm explaining how film and the stage are much broader in their effects than what you can come up withbattle scenes are an effect, a big budget is notYou're talking with someone who has a broad knowledge on these things and rather than expanding your horizons, you're digging in your heels like a petulant child.
Here's a mind blower- the Romans used stage sea battles in the Flavian Amphitheatre. Going big isn't a new thing that you need film for, and film is not more immersive than real life battleships shooting napalm at each other. It's just that you're not schooled enough or broadly experienced enough to know anything outside of b-b-but only film seems real to me. It'll come with time but if you consider someone who's given you so many points on Elizabethan to modern special effects a detriment to your education, there's really nothing I can do. Enjoy your Mel Gibson's Henry V.
>>8113230Elizabethan English is pronounced like a lot of East Coast American EnglishI know, you like to sound like you know something but try knowing something instead, it's much easier to manoeuvre
>>8113240
By flat painting, I mean Medieval art, not art that doesn't even represent anything physical anyway.
I don't care what your expertise is, you've done nothing with it but attempt to aggrandize yourself and intimidate me into submission with appeal to authority. You've provided exactly not argument whatsoever except try to equate film standards with stage standards, and then try to equate having a black queen of England in the Middle Ages with any and all deviation with historical perfection.
You argue in absolutes and insults, your expertise is limp and worthless.
>>8113243
It's not pronounced like it at all. People on the East coast don't pronounce "Goth" like "goat", or "my" as "me".
>>8113247
By flat painting, art terminology means the modern movement proposed by Greenberg.this really is fresher art course shit man, are you sure you want me to keep explaining shit to you by typing dumb shit?
I didn't argue in absolutes, you did. You're now starting to argue like a girl by making shit upblack queen, wtf, you are going to have to contact the aliens for where I said that in our discussionbecause your argument of "errybody else too dumb to know what a movie is and how it not a play" has fallen flat. Meanwhile I've been infodumping around the same goddamned delusional argument with quite some variety for hours now. Do you really think this makes you look gracious or well informed, or your argument that nobody understands film or stage like you do stronger?
>>8113251
Trevor Nunn disagrees, but he's just a director of the RSC, knighted for his work on Shakespeare and considers scholarship on him his religion, so what the hell would he know compared with you and your >40 years experience in the field.
>>8113268
>By flat painting, art terminology means the modern movement proposed by Greenberg
By quibbling over semantics, you completely disregard the point.
>Meanwhile I've been infodumping
But not actually making an argument. Your infodumps seem to serve not other purpose but to increase your credibility, and therefore strengthen your argument from authority. They are not, in themselves, an argument.
>Trevor Nunn disagrees
Then unfortunately he's wrong, because there is a pronounciation that makes rhymes and puns work, and there is one which obscures them. Much Ado About Nothing, for instance, is a pun because it sounds (in Elizabethan English) exactly like "Much Ado About Noting", "noting" of course meant to take a sexual interest in someone back then.
>>8113282
It's not semantics, it's what the term means.
Your argument is repeated throughout this thread as many variations on the phrase "you don't understand how a film is different to a play". My counterargument is that you've shitty and limited exposure to both and want to kill off the possibilities of both because of a problem you have, not a problem with the media themselves which are far more flexible and hardy than you.
>here let me read you some footnotes
omg next you'll being saying country matters *did* mean something dirty in Hamlet. you'll be disappointed to find that pronouncing it that way happens on both sides of the Atlantic still. it's why there's the elocution lesson on "This That These and Those that's the way the T-H goes".
Who exactly are you trying to convince you have a leg to stand on at this stage?or film set if you're more comfortable with thatI'm all for correcting this shit as you come out with it, but I think you're soiling your trip forever if you didn't want to be the village idiot. For a tripfag who needs the ego boost of recognition, maybe pick a fight where you're not missing years of study and basic information. I mean, do you really think you're coming out of calling scholarship wrong because you haven't read enough scholarship clean? It's not like the RSC are going with your plan over Nunn's and they'd probably think you a green ink writer, not a scholar. I really don't know who you're pretending for now besides yourself
>>8113296
>It's not semantics, it's what the term means.
Yeah, you shifted the point of what I was saying, to the meaning of the term, while completely ignoring the substance of what I was saying.
>My counterargument is that you've shitty and limited exposure to both and want to kill off the possibilities of both because of a problem you have, not a problem with the media themselves which are far more flexible and hardy than you.
Saying film is "robust", is not actually an argument here. Film can do all sorts of things, but if it isn't consistent with itself, it falls flat. Just like if I do a film that aims for realism, and then later introduce a vampire in the last act, it will be jarring, and probably won't work. Just like if you put a great deal of effort into recreating a period, but then completely ignore a glaring detail that would leap out even to those who have zero expertise in the period, it is bad film making, it is not at all consistent with the style the film has chosen. If you're doing a modern or other sort of retelling, that is something else, but if you aim for a detailed period retelling, it's bad film making.
> you'll be disappointed to find that pronouncing it that way happens on both sides of the Atlantic still.
No one says it that way on the East Cost.
>I mean, do you really think you're coming out of calling scholarship wrong because you haven't read enough scholarship clean?
I'm calling it wrong because it is flat out wrong, and "sovereign eye" "alchemy" from Sonnet XXIII don't rhyme in East Coast pronunciation. East Coast pronunciation would a gross, jarring break from Middle English, whereas Early Modern English is the pronunciation which bridges Middle English and Modern English.
>>8112402
The worst thing about this casting is the age, not the race. The guy looks like he's 35 years old, he's 20 years too late to play the part.
>>8113349
Let's be honest, no 15-year-old could act properly in a serious, lengthy play from 17th century.
>>8113319
The substance of what you're saying isn't historical. It's a story you made up, which is why you don't have any technical terms for medieval art. If you want to talk about art, not fucking up the terminology will make you look more like you have an articulate point. Since you didn't, I figured I'd teach you something. Like I have been doing every time you reply with some new ahistorical nontechnical ill informed fantasy of how the world would work if only everybody listened to you like an unfailing font of knowledgeand us not knowing the difference between films and plays you'd think we'd be grateful and unquestioning instead of telling you what further research you need to do to sound knowledgeable
>"robust"
Ah, the thesaurus rape approach to quotation.
>stoker didn't know shit why are they still using him as a plot line in films
Yes, your observation that vampire films never do that as genre wide trope really convinced me you knew who the vampire was before reading Twilight.This is the fantasy shit I'm talking about. Think it through, even if it felt like you were right the first time. Considering even when you're wrong you still like to claim you're better versed than someone whose studied something longer than you were alive and has received recognition from his own field and others from his work, that "I'm right" thought you keep having might be considered overblown optimism on your part by others
>recreating the period
The problem with this is a lot of things which really did happen in the period don't mesh with your gloss of history. You're trying to point out errors which would need everyone to adopt a revisionist view of history to see as errors. You don't have the knowledge of history or Shakespeare to do that. Seriously, man, take a second to think about how you dismissed a 40 year noted scholar on the subject out of hand, just because the alternative would be you were wrong on at Mongolian handweaving swapmeet. That shit isn't making you right, it's making you wrong and opposed to knowing better. Put your ego on chill, I'm trying to help you even though you're projecting all this emotion on to me and generally acting like an underagedb& or spoiled girl. It's not a good look, and even if it were, if you're really interested in film, theatre, or history, you could be gather resources to get better at them, instead of needing to make out you're perfect and it's just history, film, theatre, Shakespeare, and academia who are bein' foo's.
>No one says it that way on the East Coast.
See, when you make sweeping statements like this hoping no facts will come to fuck your shit up, it's asking for me to explain which accents say it that wayand you'll freak when some of them aren't of white descent, though most of the accents carried from 16th Century England to the East Coast of America are the same accents which still pronounce it "noting" in the UK today
>>8113319
>solid wrong
You're making out like the East Coast is just one accent, when it's a series of amalgams of accents from earlier in Europe, most of which, whether German or English, have the "noting" pronunciation from the 16th Century on. I'm adding the East Coast to things you haven't had enough exposure to.
I'm calling you wrong because I know the linguists involved in tracking these accents have spent more time on checking their hypotheses than you. That smarmy little voice saying "I couldn't possibly be wrong, history will agree whether I learn it or not" is leaving you down again. [I think the migration of these accents is and their pockets based on early settlement is fascinating, but you obviously don't and want to keep it a special Elizabethan English thing.]
Double post, but damn, you keep hoping that if it comes out of your fingertips it's divinely inspired and don't need no research or fact. I've told you how callow that looks right?
>>8112769
You should all get laid with normal people.
>>8112402
When white people do it, it's "whitewashing" and an expression of evil, racism and imperialism. When other people do it, it's "colorblind casting" and an expression of good, tolerance and a 'celebration of humanity'.
Bullshit from start to end. There is nothing contemptible about either casting, although it can harm historic realism and plausibility, but the way it gets labeled certainly is.
>>8113355
They did it all the time when Shakespeare was writing them.
>all these Americans who think black people only arrive in England after they got them
>all these people think actors weren't whores below the social status of rich black man
frankly I think the problem is not enough whoring, who gives a shit what they look like under stage make up or their skirts
As long as they are good actors, I don't really care. You can also do interesting things with it, as casting a black Iago along with a black Othello, or even make both Othello and Iago white and see how that changes the interaction.
I think having quotas is stupid (i.e. having 50% of the cast being black or something like that). You should care about their acting, not their skill color.
In any case, theater is illusion. Things like "immersion" and shit like that don't mean anything.
>>8113425
i think immersion is just the willing suspension of disbelief coleridge talks about, so if you're not getting it, the problem's usually on the user end if it's not bad acting.
>>8113416
I know that, but were they actually good actors?
And, again, I doubt any 15-year-olds today can act complex roles with countless difficult words for like three hours. If there are any, there are few and you probably won't find two of them in one theater.
>>8113434
I've seen a few good ones pass through the local Shakespeare society. Usually they just get smaller parts, but Mercutio was played by a scenery chewing sixteen year old last time I saw their Romeo and Juliet. I think you're underestimating what a teenager boy will do to get famous and laid. Half of them would memorize the bible if they thought that would work.
>>8113441
Well, then I retract my statement.
>>8112402
If it's period reproduction, I'm slightly against it. If it's modern, I've no moral problems if they don't push their own agenda into them.
But unfortunately that's often not the case. Modern theatre is so absolutely liberal that it's often completely disgusting. They tend to push their agenda everywhere and all the time, even into the places that have no literal background, changing the theme and morals of the pieces all the time.
>>8113455
You're not entirely wrong: there have been some who were as bad as the bad adult actors in the troupe, but being 15 gives them time to get better unlike the older ones.
I'm pretty sure they have an all ages policy for the group, so normally they have kids around 10-12 to play pages and a lot of those are very nervous. However, because they're no longer doubling being a page boy and being the lead female, it makes both jobs easier.
Some of the doubling roles like the Duke/Oberon in Midsummer's Night's Dream are hard for adult actors, so if you had to play half the women and any young male parts, I'd say it comes to the same level of challenge if not more.
Most companies are wary about doubling up the Duke/King and Hippolyta/Queen roles in Midsummer's Night Dream with adult actors these day if they have enough bodies, so I can't really fault them for not forcing a 12 year old to learn three roles when they have two older females to fill two of those roles.
It does make me wonder though if any company is dividing parts like they used among a smaller troupe.This is probably going to lead to three drag queens performing Merchant of Venice
>>8113487
>It does make me wonder though if any company is dividing parts like they used among a smaller troupe.
There certainly are. I haven't seen it personally, but there was staging of a relatively obscure Dubrovnik renaissance comedian where 6 actors played 30 roles , like they did in 16th century. If this is done with such little-known (outside the writer's country) plays, it's probably done with Shakespeare as well.
it changes nothing really. it doesn't lessen the bard's work because everyone's already familiar with it. it doesn't permanently change all productions from that point on. it doesn't educate people into believing that there were prominent black houses in italy, and if it did that's just another addition to the countless things people are wrong about so that changes nothing. there's no moral imperative to use art to educate. there's still such thing as artistic liberty and historicity isn't of the highest importance in the arts, especially well-known works such as romeo and juliet. it's not appropriation because the directors and those adapting the play are still white, so whites are still in control. if you are still unconvinced, 'whiteness' doesn't excuse an englishman writing about italians. also it makes an interesting case study about how taboo interracial relationships are so it is relevant to our time
that pretty much exhausts all possible avenues of argument. it's totally harmless and people who get upset about these things i don't think actually care about theatre except when they see something they don't like i.e. blacks
I like it. Anyone else remember when that black director cast a white guy as MLK? That shit was hilarious.
>>8112455
>they expect a lot and dont give much in return
that's a jewish lie designed to get your race bred out of existence like the neanderthals
>>8112638
>rediculous
kill yourself
I don't really care who they cast in a role so long as they're casting them because they'll do a fantastic job.
A lot of the time though it seems more like they are casting a black person to play a white character to be edgy. It does force me to scrutinize the actor as well -- if you're cast in a weird role and you're not fantastic then I'm going to be more critical.
Actually blind casting is fine. I don't believe most of it is actually blind
>>8113539
Didn't know "Jew" stood for /r9k/
>>8112476
lel look at this one...
>>8112633
>Muh immersion
This isn't a video game.
>>8112402
I think with some things it's okay, but for historical works (like R & J) they need to stay true to the source material. I mean, having a black Romeo and not mentioning or rewriting the play to deal with the racism of that time period is disingenuous, and quite frankly, a little disrespectful to the races that delt/deal with that shit. But why in the fuck woild you rewrite Romeo and Juliette? You wouldn't, so cast actors that fit into the roles. It's why I like films like QT's "The Hateful Eight". Sure, listening to those slurs is awful, and the subject matter can be uncomfortable, but at least it's an honest reflection of the time period.
Not OP but where's the best place in NYC to go to see Shakespeare and other classic plays? I'm tired of just reading all the Greek and English dramas missing the vital element of the stage.
Saw Cymbeline at the Globe in January and the entire casting was blind; there was irish, welsh, pakistani, scottish, northern, black across the whole cast and I actually found myself really appreciating it. I'm scottish so I found myself thinking "aw cool there's that accent I recognise and that brings something to the character for me". I thought about it afterwards and really approved of the idea that anyone no matter the ethinic origin would be able to identify someone on stage during that production in that, admittedly kind of silly, but special way. My point is it makes it feel less like Shakespeare belongs to a bunch old Etonian RP cunts and more like he belongs to everyone.
>>8114426
So basically you prefer blind casting because it benefits your self-interest
>The Globe
http://www.dailywire.com/news/2404/new-director-shakespeare-globe-theater-determined-hank-berrien
Rice, who has only directed one play of Shakespeare before, has decided that she knows writing better than the Bard, stating, “There’s no way that every line can still be relevant, in my opinion. There is a great case to be made for great editing, making the plays a little bit shorter and punching through the language that has stood the test of time and we do understand.” She told The Guardian,
“I have tried to sit down with Shakespeare but it doesn’t work. I get very sleepy and then suddenly I want to listen to The Archers … He was writing 400 years ago, there is no way in the world every line can still be relevant.”
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
==JUST==
I don't get why people get so up in arms when
someone changes something fictional to begin with
The theatre who puts on the play can take any artistic liberties they want to. Why restrict art?
>>8112402
>I find it very jarring because it pulls me out of the immersion.
The story for me is mostly the blind passion between the two characters. As long as chemistry is present I don't think any immersion would be lost
>>8113522
Most people try to do something new with Shakespeare now though, especially since the Globe is back.
I did get to see that tiny ninja Shakespeare thing, and it's well worth going to if he calls through town, because at times you forget it's one guy operating cheap children's toys in a shoebox.
>>8113535
>it doesn't educate people into believing that there were prominent black houses in italy, and if it did that's just another addition to the countless things people are wrong about so that changes nothing.
Yeah, tbqh if Romeo and Juliet and Shakespeare's other plays in the city were "educating" people to believe that Verona was like that, the belief they were black isn't the worst inaccuracy about that.
>>8113834
>rewriting the play to deal with the racism of that time period is disingenuous, and quite frankly, a little disrespectful to the races that delt/deal with that shit.
yeah it's really oppressive how instead of focusing on fratricide as a family tradition in Verona, like it was, he focused on killing people outside your family, and staged a fratricide for power in Denmark instead. it's like he's Hitler of the Tudor era.
>>8114579
Why restrict the discussion of art?
Just because you're doing something different doesn't mean it's good. Nobody is saying it should be illegal to put on a mediocre and pandering interpretation, people are simply identifying mediocre, pandering interpretations and examining why they failed.
>>8114600
but the play is so popular that its getting mentioned here. that seems like a success for me
>>8114625
I'm talking about artistic failure, not financial. I'm sure the producers earned a lot of money and publicity by appealing to the prejudices of the democratic taste.
>>8112402
i felt this romeo in particular wasn't that good. he was fine during the comedic and action parts but he only really displayed one tone of voice and it grated after a while. juliet was okay (i think she's now in game of thrones). i think blind casting is fine unless the race of the character is important, as in othello or whatever.
another this about this production was that neither of the montague parents were black, which was a weird choice. i can imagine kids being confused by it.
>>8114671
>i think blind casting is fine unless the race of the character is that of a minority, as in othello or whatever.
>>8114546
well, I kind of copped to that but I meant to generalise the point more. I think it's in everyones interests if each person in the audience they can identify with. I think it's far from the most important thing in terms of character I just raised the point because before that production I don't think I'd experienced any particular upshot to blind casting as an audience member.
>>8114679
but his race is important in the plot. he has to be visibly different to the rest of the cast otherwise it wouldn't make sense
It doesn't matter. None of this matters.
While we're sort of on the subject, there's a deaf actor at the OSF that does all his lines in ASL, with an 'interpreter' speaking the lines. The other actors in his scenes communicate with him in ASL while also speaking their lines. It's strange but completely engrossing, and offers opportunities and choices that wouldn't be there otherwise.
It's a brave new world, you fucking faggots, and most of the people in it aren't simple reproductions of your sad self.
>>8114426
>im barely able to contain my class hatred toward my social betters
embarrassing my man
>>8114783
>Shakespeare would have loved it.
You are so full of shit.
>>8114783
Agreed man :) diversity rocks!
I approve of it on the sole grounds that it appears to really annoy people who are cunts. Annoying people who are cunts is an almost absolute moral good and I must therefore give my full support to the practice.
>>8114857
exactly why I'm voting for Donald J. Trump.
>>8112402
Assuming it's a straight adaptation I agree, stage fine, film lame, though it's not enough to ruin it if it's otherwise good.
If it's taking liberties with the script it's fine in both cases.
>>8114866
I'm not sure your vote actually has any impact on people, but knock yourself out.
>>8114877
It will once hes in office.
>>8114889
kek
>>8112463
>Higher IQ
>Less prone to eat like pigs and become obese
>More likely to study something useful and respectable (engineering, CS, medicine, etc.) than a useless liberal arts degree
>Don't age like milk
Asian women are better.
>>8115133
there are people in /lit/ who actually believe in IQ without a shred of skepticism?
this place turned into a mess while I was gone lmfao
>>8115139
>there are people in /lit/ who actually believe in IQ without a shred of skepticism?
I trust the APA and psychometricians educated at Harvard a lot more than some smug no name loser on 4chan 2bh
>>8115169
You think it's only on 4chan that people question the validity of IQ as a successful tool of measurement of man?
>>8115133
neck yourself asap
>>8115183
I think it's only progressives, dilettantes speaking outside their field, and people who don't perform well on IQ tests that deny their validity i.e. people with political or personal interests in maintaining the myth that everybody has an equal potential for intelligence.
The vast majority of people who actually study intelligence on an academic level believe in the reliability of IQ, probably because it's one of the most reliable psychological tests available.
>>8115227
>I think it's only progressives, dilettantes speaking outside their field, and people who don't perform well on IQ tests that deny their validity
how long have you been posting here, how do you think academia works, and if you think this is in any way political.
Only uneducated people really talk about IQ this way, in discussions about it.
How long have you been posting here? Give me a serious answer, not a lie.
>>8114783
Romeo wasn't an outsider, he just wasn't a Capulet.
The Montagues (who were based on a real Italian family the Montecchi) were actually seen as more "respectable" than the Capulets so you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
>>8115240
>Only uneducated people really talk about IQ this way, in discussions about it.
Clearly you don't know how educated people discuss IQ, especially since you've failed to address a single one of my claims.
>How long have you been posting here? Give me a serious answer, not a lie.
Probably since early 2012. Occasionally in 2011 but I wasn't a regular then.
>>8114857
You sound like a cunt m8
>>8115266
>Clearly you don't know how educated people discuss IQ
Yes I do. They don't start their sentences with the word "clearly".
>Probably since early 2012. Occasionally in 2011 but I wasn't a regular then.
Then you either have been of the lower quality posting stock or you're lying.
>>8115268
You seem annoyed. Excellent stuff.
>>8115270
>pointing out obsolete "style errors" taught to amateur writers and fourth graders in order to continue dodging my claims
I don't know why you want to talk about who has prettier prose when we could actually have a discussion about IQ. Maybe you realize you were talking out of your ass? Maybe you want to shift the direction of the conversation to personal attacks? We both know you don't actually care about style since you've made constant grammatical errors in your previous posts.
>Then you either have been of the lower quality posting stock or you're lying.
I'm not lying and fairly well-read, but whatever helps you sleep at night.
>>8115329
>>pointing out obsolete "style errors" taught to amateur writers and fourth graders in order to continue dodging my claims
That wasn't what I was pointing out, I was making a joke that unsurprisingly went over your head.
>I'm not lying and fairly well-read
Well-read doesn't mean well-aware or well-educated.
>>8115333
Sorry, I didn't realize you were a troll. You got me. Have a good night man
>>8115342
Insecurity.
>>8112402
i don't care
>>8115248
Romeo is seen as an outsider. It's why his family are always having discussions about his weird fantasy life with the new girl of the week behind his back. It's very much like how Hamlet's parents and friends talk about him.
>thinking Romeo and Juliet was anything more than The Real World of its day
I will be so glad when the Shakespeare meme dies.
>>8112638
>cultural marxism
>don't say go back to police because this affects all races
Go back to pol. It doesn't matter what race you have in a play. It matters in a movie but not in a play
>>8113798
/thread
>>8115421
the one that gets to me is the superstition around Macbeth. Macbeth is bad luck for actors but it's not because of some curse or superstition originally: it's becauseevery body diesand that really brings in the crowds. If your company announced a run of Macbeth, it was because your company was going under and in dire need of a packed audience.
>>8112638
>rascism
>rascism
>rediculous
I don't care where you go back to, but go back to there.
>>8115449
Yeah diversity rocks! :) Get out of here you stupid drumpfers! We are all human race is a social construct :)
>>8115612
Nah, I was just mocking the virtual illiteracy.
>>8115621
Yeah but I was agreeing with you. Fucking trumpertots. Racism is wrong:)
Stephen Hawking said that people who treat their IQ like an achievement are losers and he's done more than anyone here... JS
>>8115631
But you weren't agreeing with me. You were responding to key words by yelling at the cartoons that live in your brain.
>>8115631
/lit/ is a shitty board, but even for them this is low-quality bait. Came over from /pol/ I take it?
>>8114783
That's like saying Othello was a black man from south africa instead of a moor from north africa.
>>8115449
Kill yourself you fucking retard.
>>8115746
>quasi-literate troglodyte can barely type a sentence
>calls people 'retard'
Yeah, seriously, go back.
>>8112402
I'm OK with blind casting in film if the film establishes that it doesn't take place in reality. Jesus Christ Superstar opens with a bunch of people driving in a van into the desert and setting up props. The fact that a movie about middle easterners has mostly white people plus one black guy and an Asian girl doesn't bother me.
The same if there were to be a film adaptation of Hamilton. Going to watch a hip-hop musical about the founding fathers and complaining about black characters is beyond ridiculous.
>>8115758
Not the same anon.
>using big words like that
Oh man, so smart. You are a true intellectual!
>>8115636
Can you identify a post where somebody treated their IQ like an achievement?
>>8113382
Good god you are fucking cancer.
>>8113535
> it's not appropriation because the directors and those adapting the play are still white, so whites are still in control.
Jews aren't white bro.
>>8115762
>three syllables
>big
>>8115788
>people use quasi-literate and troglodyte in everyday talk
>>8115788
>he thinks the phrase big words refers to the number of syllables and not the obscurity of the word
Jesus Christ kill yourself kid
Hopefully you get your house broken into by a future Shakeapearean actor
>>8115799
>>8115799
>ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME????
Kill yourself, cocksucker.
>>8114783
Forgive me, but I don't think Romeo, being an ethnic Italian, was a nigger, nor were there any nigger families as wealthy as the Montagues in Italy.
There are other ways of depicting a character as an outsider.
>>8115761
>Going to watch a hip-hop musical about the founding fathers and complaining about black characters is beyond ridiculous.
Why? Hip hop has been a multiracial artform for decades; it's incredibly bigoted to push the myth that particular "races" somehow are "better" at certain genres of music than others, or that any singe "race" can "own" types of art. It's widely accepted among hip hop scholars that the best rapper of all time is "white."
End of the day, the majority-minority cast of Hamilton is a result of systemic prejudice against "whites" and amounts to the flagrant brownwashing of "white" culture and history. One or two "black" actors analogous with the demographic trends of the setting or the area the play was cast in? Fine. "Whites" uniformly erased from their own history except for antagonist roles? Well at that point it's pretty clear you're not just a racist, you're also a hypocrite (which is worse, in my opinion).
>>8115398
And how does that make him a nigger?
AYO WE WUZ MONTAGUES N SHEIT
WE RAN FLORENCE BEFO DEM WHITE FOLKS
>>8115827
That's cultural appropriation you sithlord.
I hate niggers, so should you. WHITE POWER
>>8115770
>talking about linguistics is cancer
wat? their argument at least was about vaguely shakespeare shit most of the time. why is this cancer out of all the other shit out of left field?
>>8115835
It makes the guy I was responding to a nigger for thinking Romeo isn't meant to be an outsider. How much any director or company wants to play up his outsider angle is up to them. I don't give a shit if they make the Capulets all into Romulans and the Montagues all Klingons, I just want to be entertained.
>>8115887
>I don't give a shit if they make the Capulets all into Romulans and the Montagues all Klingons, I just want to be entertained.
Absolutely degenerate.
>>8115902
Okay, I lied. I don't just want to be entertained; I also want to not to be in the grumbles with salad throwers like you.
>>8115437
>spoiler tagging a 400 year old play
good on you anon
Wow there are so many racists on /lit/ today...
WE
>>8115936
This "meme" is offensive, please leave our board alone
>>8115936
READ
>>8115929
People here weren't alive for 500 years during which they could've read/seen the play, you know.
>>8115962
>he wasn't played Shakespeare audiobooks as a fetus
stay pleb
>>8115956
THE
>>8114783
I heard this board was filled with cucks but my word.
>>8115987
RULES
>>8115989
Get out of here you drumpfer. Go back to your containment board, bully.
>>8115958
You know, this is a really good candidate for racial casting. If you make Coriolanus white and the Volscians black, or the Volscians white and Caius black, it works just as well as a human tragedy. It would probably tone back the fascistic notes too.
>>8115996
>drumpfer
>bully
ABSOLUTELY DESTROYED.
>>8115996
>my feewings :^(
>>8116019
who are you quoting?
>>8116012
I'm the guy who posted the original comment.
Ignore the other guy he's not me, I seriously wasn't trying to bully you guys, I was trying to have a little joke.
On /pol/ we use the term cuck as a common insult for fun, but sometimes you forget that it can cause real offense to those not in the know.
Really sorry for messing up your thread guys, I'll be off to /pol/ now. Got a lot to think about.
>>8116030kek
>>8116022
>who
*Whom
>>8116012
>i'll police the shakespeare thread with posts that have nothing to do with shakespeare
let's try learning from our betters through comedy and emotionally retarded adult fandoms before this takes up the other third of the thread
www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxB1gB6K-2A
>>8116030
It's alright, thank you for apologizing :)
>>8115398
Do black families act surprised and disgusted when their child is black?
> Are you also going to make assertions about how African Monarchies and patricians were probably just like those of Medieval Europe?
You erase 2 histories when you alter them to be a tool of contemporary political culture wars.
> /lit/ is supposed to be additive not subtractive.
Best you can say is:
> "Meh, whatever, just any actor will do"
But that doesn't fit with the game that goes on in the cut throat acting industry.
> Acting Killed Literature.
WUZ
>>8115398
Romeo is considered weird because he's a dumb romantic, not because he's fucking black
If you want that shit Othello is ACTUALLY about that.
>>8116050
Dude get out of here! What the heck
>>8116044
I don't know what you're trying to say to me or what relation it has to what I said. I said Romeo was an outsider and you appear to be having a stroke.
SUCC
Shakespeare was actually a black woman so this is probably closer to her original vision for the play.
Good to see things moving forward.
>>8116061
>What the heck
WOAH. Watch your fucking language.
>>8116079
It's not funny dude seriously stop it
![Lil'_Romeo_-_My_Baby[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/4vp6yf8.jpg "Lil'_Romeo_-_My_Baby[1].jpg")
>>8114783
totaly agree my nigga
jsyk the REAL "shakes spear" wrote the character as a black king originally, but it was appropriated by whitey
>>8116057
Othello being about that is mostly 18th C productions and that's because Arab was becoming socially relevant and Arabic actors were easier to import. What the fuck about calling him an outsider made you think that I meant "he's black"? You even admit he's a weirdo for the same reason I do, but you're the only one who's coming up with "therefore everyone else thinks outsiders are black". This is such a shitty strawman because you agreed with me and then went on some weird tangent that assumes Othello being black or Arabic on stage happened in Shakespeare's life.
Othello being black is a way more recent meme than Othello being Arabic, and even if he was supposed to be a different race in Shakespeare's mind, he blindcast that role when it played originally. I'm deducting you 2 internets for posting stale memes with capslock on.
>>8116061
Dude put that thing away, they're like, children here!
>>8116088
Get out of here please, back to your containment board
>>8116098
Stop. You are not funny
All of these racists need to go back to /k/
>>8112402
Kind of racist. They role in Othello that would have been perfect for a black character, but no the rich white guys wants to try put a black man in a white man's shoes instead of giving him a character that is actually befitting.
ugh the "only othello was black" meme. high school shakespeare notes are fucking inane.
>>8116115
>the rich white guys
Why do you perpetuate this stereotype?
>>8112402
It was a conscious decision to cast a black guy, only with an eye towards his race and not the quality of actors available.
>>8116122
The facts just happen to fall in line with the stereotype.
>>8116139
No, racism means that you believe in races in any way at all.
>>8116146
that's race realism
>>8116064
Oh, so its the usual rambling on, ego protection and losing the initial focus of discussion one can expect from those in the /lit/ world, who merely engage in discussion for the social status it implies. (likewise for the Acting industry and the tensions between /lit/ as a money/status making device and also an art form)
> Read my post again, it is on topic.
>>8112402
>tfw /lit/s cultural appreciation levels are lower than ER's
yes, the soap from the 90s that made George Clooney and Gray's Anatomy happen knew how to Shakespeare across cultures better.
<<<<<<<croatian prince of denmark coming through>>>>>
www.youtube.com/watch?v=eq7pI5aE9IM
>>8112402
Juliet looks like a fucking boy
>>8112402
>Romeo and Juliet.
>Romeo is black
ahahahahaha
Also kill yourself Constantine and stay on your reddit containment board.
>>8116133
Fucking this. It's absolutely abhorrent and really it just makes one lose more and more respect for London, as if that place isn't a shithole already. Everything in the name of "diversity".
>>8116153
I don't know how you want me to make sense of your post or its relation to mine, but I can't. It's not about ego, it's that I genuinely have no idea what you're trying to say to me, who you are quoting, or what the fuck it has to do with my saying Romeo is an outsider.
I'm just correcting the guy who said that Romeo was normal, when half the point of Rosaline and all of his family discussions about him are there to show the audience that Romeo is an outsider, a loner and a weirdo romantic who falls in love at the drop of a hat. I don't think that's very egotistical.
I just really don't agree that Romeo is a firm insider, because the play makes a point of him being weird, just like Hamlet makes a point of him being crazy.
>>8116157
Why did he say all that in Croatian? Are they supposed to be able to understand him?
>>8116139
>I can change the definition of words to confirm my political ideology!
Wrong, the definitions of words are variable and dictated by popular usage. If most people use "racism" to mean any form of racial prejudice, then racism means any form of racial prejudice. You can tack your superfluous and unpopular definition onto this, you can walk around pretending "racism" exclusively means the definition you've assigned to it, but that doesn't change the way millions of other English speakers use and understand the word.
>>8116196
because goran visnjic is croatian, and was the youngest hamlet at the dubrovnik summer theatre festival, reprising the role for like a decade and winning all kinds of awards for his croation hamlet.
he'd have to translate the soliloquy from croatian into english because his character knows it better in croatian, and he probably does too.
>>8116206
You mean like how there's an astounding amount of people now who think racism cannot apply to White people, i.e. you cannot be racist against Whites? What now?
>>8116229
I see.
What did you mean with:
>tfw /lit/s cultural appreciation levels are lower than ER's
I don't know if it's because I'm tired and it's late that I don't understand this or if it genuinely does not make sense.
>>8116206
You need to derive the meaning of GTFO with that words have no meaning bullshit.
>>8116232
I don't think many believe literally that. But it is indeed harder to be racist against whites in white-dominated countries.
>>8116206
so the opinion of the majority is the only one that matters? hmmmmm...
>>8116260
Barry O' (president of the United States) believes exactly that and has expressed it very publicly. Also there is no such thing as a "white dominated country" in a Globalized free-market economy. Do we tally up the children in China holding certain positions and deduct that from the population in America?
>>8116246
because the thread is filled with people who have never seen othello produced in german with an all blond cast or the prince of denmark be played by a croatian in croatian and have no idea the amount of blind casting that goes on when you try to find a richard iii because not all hunchbacks are great actors.
the thread isn't about blindcasting at this stage or how it might or might not change a piece. it's mostly americans and teenagers who think their appreciation of race is universal and couldn't tell you where the nearest theatre is if their anus depended on it.
ER on the other hand hired a guy who is a renowned shakespearean actor to say "stat" and scored more cultural awareness points with just one translated soliloquay than most of /lit/ has.
which is a really low bar to get over if you think about it, but, here we are, failing.
this thread is so fucking stupid.
KANGZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
>>8116206
The current definition of "racism" is prejudice plus institutionalized oppression. Apparently us white guys still have a nefarious network of racist clubs that control everything. Only white people can be racist, and only men can be sexist. The more liberal minded SJWs believe that everyone can be racist, but that racism by whites "matters more."
>>8112527
Hey are you a transexual be honest.
>>8117070
What other boards has he infected?
>>8117358
/his/, though thankfully he usually sticks to the religion threads.
>>8114569
kek
I seen the play and it was way more memorable than any other theater I have experienced
>>8114783
>romeo
>outsider
>noble son of a wealthy lord
>social butterfly, popular, many friends
>hangs out with literal royals
>close ties with clergy
how can you misread this hard? are you fourteen?
>>8119330
>literally exiled for half the play
>not an outsider
k
>>8119330
I meant to imply that he was an outsider to Juliet's family
>>8112402
do you think those actors had sex to add more chemistry to their relationship?
>>8119377
why wouldn't either fuck the guy playing mercutio? mercutio always the cutie
>>8119366
But the idea of the two families being radically different is destroyed, because the couples death brings them together in mourning. Having the families be two different races would go against that notion of communal suffering in the end.
>>8119707
>Having the families be two different races would go against that notion of communal suffering in the end.
It would quite obviously just parse it in terms of different 'communities'.
>>8119711
But they aren't supposed to be different communities. Two families of Verona citizens divided by opinion, not biological difference.
>>8120190
They'll only be divided by their opinion about the importance of the biology.
I'd even say it could work better, potentially.
>>8120190
nah staging the entire thing in ebonics makes more sense of the prologue than if you make them guidos. think about it.
>>8119707
>Having the families be two different races would go against that notion of communal suffering in the end.
I'm afraid to ask but I feel compelled to: how did West Side Story fuck up the notion of communal suffering in the end?
Personally, I think if they fucked up anywhere on that I'd nominate the I Feel Pretty song first, followed closely by it being a musical, so I can't really come up with any reasons why you thought the ending was further from the original ending to make that your lead complaint.
>>8112402
how could anyone be against such a cute couple. if anything Romeo almost looks too sweet and innocent
