Re: The Demonization of Shakespeare

On 09/07/2025 11.04, Paul S Person wrote:

On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 23:28:38 +0100, Robert Carnegie
<rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:
 

On 08/04/2025 16:49, Paul S Person wrote:

<snippo Shakespeare examples of what the alt-right calls "woke">
<I should note that is has always been my understanding (probably from
something I was told or read) that Romeo and Juliet would have been
about 13, but who can say for sure?>

>
I seem to remember that in several U.S. states,
that isn't a problem.

 I don't think its a problem here, either, except, of course, that
being 13 they are very excitable.
 Young teenagers with swords duelling in the streets -- what could
possibly go wrong?
 

However, "Juliet" originally is a boy actor
in a dress.  This could be brought up.

 I believe Hamlet remarks on the hope that a boy actor's voice hasn't
yet changed. At some point, the idea of having female actors caught
on. IIRC, there was at least one female who played Hamlet. And was
very effective in the role.
 Actors did not enjoy the best of reputations. Originally, IIRC, this
was because they were always lying about who they were.
 One of the tales in /The Desert Fathers/ (I think) features an actor
who descended to that low rung of society when the armed robber band
he had been in tossed him out and nobody else would take him in.
 

In some British actor's recent memoir that
I heard on radio, I've forgotten who, the
school drama was similarly cast, since that's
all that they had.  I also don't remember if
he was Juliet or Cleopatra or Lady Macbeth,
but apparently the male lead role was a
good-looking young man.

ObSFW: At one point, the actor protagonist of _The Golden Globe_
does _Romeo and Juliet_ as a one-man show. Futuristic bio-mods
during scene changes help things along.
<https://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?12598>
(Note the followup setting.)
--
Michael F. Stemper
87.3% of all statistics are made up by the person giving them.