3 ms·

https://nosweatshakespeare.com/characters/lady-macbeth/ https://nosweatshakespeare.com/characters/lady-macbeth/ I don't see how.

mpalmer 2y ago
The first time a woman performed in one of Shakespeare's plays in England, he'd been dead for half a century. He wrote all his plays knowing the women would be played by men. How else do you explain the comic irony and theatrical resonance of Lady M saying "Come, you spirits that tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here, [...] come to my woman's breasts and take my milk for gall." What I'm saying is you are not purely interested in artistic faithfulness to the original. You are interested in particular aesthetics that fit your own perspective, and you're using box office receipts to defend your own aesthetics, which is weird.
- slothtrop 2y ago
  Yes that was the convention, for all plays, and in film today it's decidedly not (not to mention, films.. aren't plays, and that in itself is a deviation). I didn't express any preference for any particular aesthetic. Everyone has them, but it's neither here nor there.
  - mpalmer 2y ago
    "some approaches to modern adaptation are better than others", and I believe you went on to say that a race-blind period Macbeth is not an approach you like. Maybe I'm crazy, sounded like a preference to me.
    - slothtrop 2y ago
      > you went on to say that a race-blind period Macbeth is not an approach you like I didn't explicitly say so. But given race-blind adaptations, do it or don't. If you're going to turn a historical period on its head, then going all the way would be better. Going back to something you said: > What I'm saying is you are not purely interested in artistic faithfulness to the original. You are interested in particular aesthetics that fit your own perspective, and you're using box office receipts to defend your own aesthetics, which is weird. Consistency and approximating faithfulness to an original is itself an aesthetic. It does not itself make an adaptation superior, it's a stylistic choice, and no one said it's the only good one. Another user mentioned people are looking for "depth and coherent world building". All I said is in keeping with that.
  - mpalmer 2y ago
    I'll let your acknowledgment that conventions change over time speak for itself.

mpalmer 2y ago

The first time a woman performed in one of Shakespeare's plays in England, he'd been dead for half a century. He wrote all his plays knowing the women would be played by men. How else do you explain the comic irony and theatrical resonance of Lady M saying "Come, you spirits that tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here, [...] come to my woman's breasts and take my milk for gall." What I'm saying is you are not purely interested in artistic faithfulness to the original. You are interested in particular aesthetics that fit your own perspective, and you're using box office receipts to defend your own aesthetics, which is weird.

slothtrop 2y ago
Yes that was the convention, for all plays, and in film today it's decidedly not (not to mention, films.. aren't plays, and that in itself is a deviation). I didn't express any preference for any particular aesthetic. Everyone has them, but it's neither here nor there.
- mpalmer 2y ago
  "some approaches to modern adaptation are better than others", and I believe you went on to say that a race-blind period Macbeth is not an approach you like. Maybe I'm crazy, sounded like a preference to me.
  - slothtrop 2y ago
    > you went on to say that a race-blind period Macbeth is not an approach you like I didn't explicitly say so. But given race-blind adaptations, do it or don't. If you're going to turn a historical period on its head, then going all the way would be better. Going back to something you said: > What I'm saying is you are not purely interested in artistic faithfulness to the original. You are interested in particular aesthetics that fit your own perspective, and you're using box office receipts to defend your own aesthetics, which is weird. Consistency and approximating faithfulness to an original is itself an aesthetic. It does not itself make an adaptation superior, it's a stylistic choice, and no one said it's the only good one. Another user mentioned people are looking for "depth and coherent world building". All I said is in keeping with that.
- mpalmer 2y ago
  I'll let your acknowledgment that conventions change over time speak for itself.