Romeo and Juliet

[NoshpalStefan]

[quote name='ykfdf' timestamp='1356339070' post='6100842']
It paved the way for most love stories today. I loved the ending, hated the rest (I loved Tybalt though. Too bad he *SPOILER*)
--------------------------------------------------------
[url=http://www.mmoggg.de/]WoW gold[/url]|[url=http://www.mmoggg.de/Diablo-3-gold/]Diablo 3 Gold[/url]|[url=http://www.mmoggg.de/Guild-Wars-2/index.html]Guild Wars 2 gold[/url]
[/quote]

Dude, why the hell are you just copying other posts!?

On note of the play, though I love all (or most) of Shakespeare's works, I dread to say that in comparison to Macbeth, this one fell rather short. This, of course, being said after I heard so many people's eccentric moans about how this was his 'true' masterpiece.

[lechugas]

[quote name='Nightmare Zarkus' timestamp='1308987630' post='5309198']
I see stupid teen love every day. I don't need to f***ing read about it too and be told it's a masterpiece.
[/quote]

This is literature deal with it.

[Cin]

Lechugas that wasn't a very constructive post.

I remember seeing this at the Globe, I was never really inspired by Shakespear's work including Romeo and Juliet maybe because I didn't appreciate the style of writing. Romeo and Juliet was one of those plays you studied to death so quickly became bored of. Studying them closely for school detracts from them I suppose.

[lechugas]

[size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][quote name='Yin' timestamp='1356950465' post='6107035']
Lechugas that wasn't a very constructive post.

I remember seeing this at the Globe, I was never really inspired by Shakespear's work including Romeo and Juliet maybe because I didn't appreciate the style of writing. Romeo and Juliet was one of those plays you studied to death so quickly became bored of. Studying them closely for school detracts from them I suppose.
[/quote][/font][/size]

[size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][color=#333333]There was a time when theatrical movements were dictated by the playwright, specifically, by the relationship of his imagination and the socio-historical forces that surrounded him. The actors honed their craft through the words and the scenarios given him by the playwright. The director was not an entity yet, so it was the text, and the playwright, that mattered[/color][color=#333333] most. (A theater historian will name Aeschylus, Sophocles, Shakespeare, Marlowe, Moliere, Ibsen, Chekhov, et al. as prophets of theater, whereas now we speak of theater based on names not of writers but directors and their disciples, and the churches they have founded called "theater companies" and “theater schools”). Today, in the Philippines, the playwright is a mere thing controlled by a public that was taught to forget its own theatrical tradition; by whimsical actors and directors who perpetuate their own inherited idiosyncrasies, personality cults, and unique, patented brand of meanness (on- and off-stage); by unschooled pseudo-critics who name problems but not solutions; and by a single, archaic, award-giving body that matters only because there is no other award-giving body beside it. Today, the theater world mistakes its lack of competence with the overly-ideological problem of irrelevance - so they overcompensate by forcing theater as a medium to take on the role of philosopher, economist, sociologist, philanthropist, priest, psychologist - roles beyond its own competence. These directors and actors think that just because they're attempting to be more than "theater people", their work will also do more to its audiences (help the plight of the minority, destroy the status quo, fight for equal rights, etc. etc.). Which is not the case. And I daresay, it never will be. The few decent directors resort to reviving and reconstructing the classics, because they themselves are aware that playwrights of today are uninspired, discouraged, defeated. The director has usurped the playwright, the actor has no more patience to learn from the playwright, the public is never aware of the playwright. Theater is no longer literature and visual arts and music and dance, etc. - an amalgamation of all these mediums - but a socio-political event that fools itself into believing that being in the theater can be as effective and "relevant" as being a social worker, an activist, a teacher, a politician, a fisherman, a farmer, a prostitute. There used to be a time where when one asked, ‘What is the relevance of theater?’ it was enough to show the playwright's work. Now, ask the same question, and the Director will rise and spark up a speech peppered with pseudo-revolutionary jargon and obscure theatrical theories. All because of a simple fact - the Director, this tyrant, this overreacher, this wanna-be hero, has usurped the role of the ascetic, inspired, passionate, articulate, imaginative, dreaming craftsman - the Playwright. I believe, the hope of a better theatrical tradition lies in better, more inspired, more courageous playwrights who can finally put an end to the tyranny of directors. Playwrights of the world, unite…[/color][/font][/size]

[NoshpalStefan]

[quote name='lechugas' timestamp='1356965799' post='6107123']
[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][color=#333333]There was a time when theatrical movements were dictated by the playwright, specifically, by the relationship of his imagination and the socio-historical forces that surrounded him. The actors honed their craft through the words and the scenarios given him by the playwright. The director was not an entity yet, so it was the text, and the playwright, that mattered[/color][color=#333333] most. (A theater historian will name Aeschylus, Sophocles, Shakespeare, Marlowe, Moliere, Ibsen, Chekhov, et al. as prophets of theater, whereas now we speak of theater based on names not of writers but directors and their disciples, and the churches they have founded called "theater companies" and “theater schools”). Today, in the Philippines, the playwright is a mere thing controlled by a public that was taught to forget its own theatrical tradition; by whimsical actors and directors who perpetuate their own inherited idiosyncrasies, personality cults, and unique, patented brand of meanness (on- and off-stage); by unschooled pseudo-critics who name problems but not solutions; and by a single, archaic, award-giving body that matters only because there is no other award-giving body beside it. Today, the theater world mistakes its lack of competence with the overly-ideological problem of irrelevance - so they overcompensate by forcing theater as a medium to take on the role of philosopher, economist, sociologist, philanthropist, priest, psychologist - roles beyond its own competence. These directors and actors think that just because they're attempting to be more than "theater people", their work will also do more to its audiences (help the plight of the minority, destroy the status quo, fight for equal rights, etc. etc.). Which is not the case. And I daresay, it never will be. The few decent directors resort to reviving and reconstructing the classics, because they themselves are aware that playwrights of today are uninspired, discouraged, defeated. The director has usurped the playwright, the actor has no more patience to learn from the playwright, the public is never aware of the playwright. Theater is no longer literature and visual arts and music and dance, etc. - an amalgamation of all these mediums - but a socio-political event that fools itself into believing that being in the theater can be as effective and "relevant" as being a social worker, an activist, a teacher, a politician, a fisherman, a farmer, a prostitute. There used to be a time where when one asked, ‘What is the relevance of theater?’ it was enough to show the playwright's work. Now, ask the same question, and the Director will rise and spark up a speech peppered with pseudo-revolutionary jargon and obscure theatrical theories. All because of a simple fact - the Director, this tyrant, this overreacher, this wanna-be hero, has usurped the role of the ascetic, inspired, passionate, articulate, imaginative, dreaming craftsman - the Playwright. I believe, the hope of a better theatrical tradition lies in better, more inspired, more courageous playwrights who can finally put an end to the tyranny of directors. Playwrights of the world, unite…[/color][/font]
[/quote]

First of all, you're going to make your point much more effectively if you divided this post/speech into 3-5 Paragraphs.

Secondly, I know this might be difficult to achieve at times, but even if your post has meaning and purpose, you might achieve it more fully if you use a bit shorter sentences, along with the shortened paragraphs. because, I might be alone on this, but I failed to understand most of what you said in the text. And note, I don't have a small range of vocabulary; rather, I think you need to shorten most of what you wrote to make sense to an audience.

Trust me, I'm a soon to be [s]engineer[/s] English major.

[Alice Moonflowyr]

For Shakespeare, I loved Twelfth Night, Much Ado About Nothing, and Hamlet. His comedies are pretty damn funny, and Hamlet is pretty good :3

R&J failed to have an impact on me though. Everyone just came across as a total douche/moron.