Charlie Rose

sugar  08/15/2011 08:50 PM Report

When Charlie asked which Hamlet was best I held my breath, then whooped with joy when Mark Rylance and his incredible talent was identified by Michael Boyd. I saw Rylance's Hamlet at RSC Stratford when I lived in London years ago, when he was young, and knew as I watched I was seeing a performance that can never again be matched (Rylance is getting the same praise for "Jerusalem" in London & NYC). How sad your comment/viewers weren't 100% attuned to Boyd's description of why watching live theatre is valuable because it is interactive; his was one of the best explanations I've heard. I am a fan of C Rose, but this is by far one of my favorite interviews. (As for Sharks comments....relax and smell the roses fella, it's later than you think.)

SharkswithfrikingLazers  08/14/2011 12:49 AM Report

Yes, Shakespeare may have been gay and straight and a farm boy and a city boy but he was also a great borrower.

Yes Shakespeare may have been the world's greatest writer, but originality in storyline wasn't his forte. Instead of inventing stories, he embellished ones he borrowed -- principally from other renowned storytellers, like Vergil and Ovid, who retold familiar myths in their major works, Aeneid and Metamorphoses.

If you have the ability to borrow something great, improve it--and few people know it--then you become mythical.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/metamorphoses/a/021111-The-Play-Within-The-Play.htm

Mountainserenity  08/13/2011 04:43 PM Report

Excellent interview! Michael Boyd sold me on the Royal Shakespeare Company and I look forward to attending one of its offerings.

Ellen_Dibble  08/12/2011 08:38 PM Report

I am still trying to figure out if the capture of playfulness in the scene shown from Romeo and Juliet was achieved by Shakespeare or by the actors.

Perhaps Shakespeare wrote in a way that was the words are a sponge for creative revival by actors.

Certainly actors can go through the words and the motions without having the audience in what Boyd called the "conspiracy of the audience," if that's what he means.

Or maybe the "conspiracy" is when we track with our mirror neurons, as Sharks writes, and are owned by it, released back into our own skins by our applause, reclaiming our own self-agency.

LongTimeFan  08/12/2011 05:23 PM Report

Just a comment on Michael Boyd's favorite Hamlet, Mark Rylance: I saw Mark Rylance in Hamlet in London about 20 years ago, and I've never forgotten it. The theater was half full and we were in the fifth row center. He was not well known as he is now. Shortly into the play we knew we were witnessing something extraordinary. By the end, as Hamlet is dying, the theater was on its feet, sobbing at the death of this wonderful happy, funny young man, so beautifully written and so perfectly played. What's more, I finally understood the words; they all made sense. Thank you, Mark Rylance, for a remarkable experience! And thank you, Mr. Boyd, for acknowledging this wonderful actor.

robdverity  08/12/2011 04:33 PM Report

Interesting insight Shark.

SharkswithfrikingLazers  08/12/2011 02:10 PM Report

"You get it when you do it." Not necessarily Mr. Bard.

Two words: Mirror Neurons.

Why do sports fans feel so emotionally invested in the game, reacting almost as if they were part of the game themselves? According to provocative discoveries in brain imaging, inside our heads we constantly "act out" and imitate whatever activity we're observing. As this video reveals, our so-called "mirror neurons" help us understand the actions of others and prime us to imitate what we see.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/mirror-neurons.html