I think this guy is great. If you really listen to the plays you see how he throws a fascinating insight that both enrich and deepen our understanding of what's going on and in this particular lecture the historical background. Fascinating comparisons between Coriolanus and Julius Caesar which enhance appreciation of both plays. He's much better than some of the high profile contemporary critics on Shakespeare who get far more limelight - and don't make Shakespeare Bloom!
@@patrickkane3971 Bloom's a bit overbearing at times. His fanboying of Falstaff at every available opportunity, to the point where I think he thought he was Falstaff, is a bit cringe.
What a fascinating person. I believe it was Isaac Asimov who said once mankind ceases to pay attention to Shakespeare the race has no future and might as well go extinct
If Shakespeare wasn't such a condescending try-hard that went out of his way to be inaccessible to people that speak English then maybe he would deserve a title of greatness 😜 But it does make me wonder how society today feels about men playing the role of women, especially in Romeo and Juliet... Literally half the country would cancel Shakespeare for trying to trans the kids before even engaging in the content.
@@drkissinger1 hmm maybe that’s as far as he got in one sitting so timestamps where to start next time, but I could be wrong.. keen to hear your thoughts!!
Except the central protagonist of Coriolanus exists from Act ! through to Act 5, while Julius Caesar makes a quick exit. In the latter play, the eponymous character strikes us an historical actor playing in the drama of the politics of the Roman empire, while the former gives us a story about a hero whose tragic flaw, which is sufficient to hold the audience's interest.
I doubt that the eros/thumos opposites are apposite as a way to characterize Shakespeare's intent--or as underpinning the murderous schemes of Roman warlords, for that matter. Will clearly plundered Plutarch/Boccacio, Hollinshed, the Greek and Roman myths, etc., for 'ripping yarns,' not philosophic subtleties. He was just channeling the paranoid thought-pattern of the guys who rose to precarious power, who knew that 'uneasy lies the head that wears a crown,' and who strove to identify and expunge potential threats from whatever quarter. This is just SOP for those in power, and Greek sophistry isn't necessary to explain it.
Does this guy ever actually talk about Shakespeare's aesthetical work?? every time I am left to watch him he goes on and on and on about these boring ancient insignificant vicious political systems!!!
