to theaterboy 33

[toby2]

Posted: 9/25/05 at 1:36pm

my, my you do have your knickers in a twist, don't you? two things to clarify -

firstly, I have nothing to do with this show. full stop.

secondly, I was just expressing my opinion, in the same way as you. I happen to like the idea of this show - as a theater goer. you clearly don't.

I assume you're out of work? and how long did you study at Rada for? four weeks, over the summer?

[toby2]

Posted: 9/25/05 at 1:40pm

ps. and I do believe naked macbeth isn't all naked, anyway. so you got your facts wrong - or jumped too quickly to conclusions.

[Patronus]

Posted: 9/25/05 at 1:45pm

pri·vate adj. 1 Designed or intended for one's exclusive use: a private room.
2. Of or confined to the individual; personal: a private joke; private opinions.

+






Updated On: 9/25/05 at 01:45 PM

[BSoBW2]

Posted: 9/25/05 at 1:47pm

mes·sage
n.

1. A usually short communication transmitted by words, signals, or other means from one person, station, or group to another.
2. The substance of such a communication; the point or points conveyed: gestured to a waiter, who got the message and brought the bill.

[Patronus]

Posted: 9/25/05 at 1:48pm

=

Private Message

[toby2]

Posted: 9/25/05 at 1:50pm

ps. this is a copy of original message ...


very well. spelling correctly--your show that you are so clearly shilling for looks like a piece of pornographic ****. as if shakespeare's intentions EVER intended for Macbeth to be portrayed as a homoerotic, fully naked piece of theatre. why don't you take a challenge and actually perform the piece without your director's asinine "concept." While studying at RADA a great teacher of mine, Greg De Polnay, once warned me, whenever you have a director who has a "concept" for a shakespeare play, stay the hell away from it. and so i will heed his advice. and yes, i will judge a book by its cover in this case--choosing not to see your show out of pure disdain for your childish/amateur/moronic vision of a play that stands alone, unaltered, as a terrific piece of theatre. So you can take your "concept" and shove it.

that is all. ive had enough of you.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 9/25/05 at 1:59pm

I would assume he blocked toby's private messages, and rightfully so...

[Patronus]

Posted: 9/25/05 at 2:01pm

That's a good point. Of course, now we are all subject to the ramblings.

[hellacoolmichael]

Posted: 9/25/05 at 2:07pm

and so i shall ramble.

toby, nobody knew what shakespeare's intentions for his plays were. that's why they are so great to do, and you obviously know nothing of theater if you think that shakespeare can only be done certain ways.

p.s. theater = porn.

[Theatreboy33]

Posted: 9/25/05 at 2:09pm

first off, there was no need to create an entire thread dedicated to responding to my specific opposition of this naked macbeth. I wrote you a message in private after being harassed in private by you. there are several other threads (all created by you im sure) you could have bothered to put this comment in. now im really dead tired of arguing on this point. Naked Macbeth in my honest artistic opinion is essentially a moronic idea that serves neither to aid in the storytelling of shakespeare's play, nor provides any new insights into a play that has been far better analysed, interpreted, and investigated than this show is clearly attempting to do. the idiotic comments posted clearly on this board by the show's director seem only to cement the notion that the reach of this show goes no further than the shock appeal of seeing naked men on stage reciting shakespeare.

"i know how to sell a show. naked? macbeth? brilliant! but i also know how to direct one, so, you can all rest your little heads and know that this will be the best production of macbeth by a physically varied collection of non-union actors in an uncomfortably small theatre with occasional nudity and a bit of man on man lip action"

Any man that declares himself and his concept as "Brilliant!" or thinks that Shakespeare's true intention was just to get a little "man on man lip action" i would say, has to be a pretty misguided director. The play is in the text, not the concept. And I cant think the the stripping away of costumes goes to serve this. If it did, I doubt the play would carry such a shallow, uninspired title as "naked macbeth." If the intention was to really surprise an audience with the nudity and open up some interesting new thoughts on the homoeroticism of the piece, why not just call it by its centuries-old title, "Macbeth" and let it stand alone on its own merrits? Perhaps because the pornographic aim of this show reaches no further than "hey come see a bunch of naked hot guys onstage." You said it yourself in a previous post. Youre No. 1 comment was that "these guys are HOT." Does hotness somehow matter to the story? Why was it required in the audition notice? Are the weird sisters actually supposed to be well-hung physically fit specimins? I doubt it.

Look, I realise this show has yet to open and all this will probably just serve as an impetus for attendance, but all im going on here are the audition notice, some comments by what seem to be a clear shill (as you have posted on absolutely NO other topic on this board), a director's seemingly shallow comments, and the advertising campaign put out by the show.

So yes, I now feel slightly embarassed as you have taken a message I had sent privately to you in frustration and made it public to all. But such is unfortunately the case when you have to deal with a**holes like yourself. So i submit. Theres my argument. End of story.

[toby2]

Posted: 9/25/05 at 2:14pm

"you have a point. an idiotic point, but a point nonetheless." (addison de witt, all about eve) oh, theaterboy, just take pity on me. I'm just a sad Chelsea Queen, who's rather looking forward to this show. that's all.

[nycmonk]

Posted: 9/27/05 at 2:50pm

I don't know who you are or where you're from, but I think I like you. Passion, where ever it is found, is still passion, and I like passion. I apologize for the misbehavior of my shill, and would like to make amends by offering you and a guest complimentary tickets to the show. Just let me know when. Sincerely, Russell Taylor, the once promising theatre director who's career came to a shattering halt with his misunderstood production of Naked Macbeth: The Stripped-Down Retelling of a Classic. And did I mention people can get tickets here: http://www.theatermania.com/content/show.cfm/show/115600

[toby2]

Posted: 9/27/05 at 3:21pm

it's no use, nycmonk. he's all worked up about something. maybe he's offended by homoerotica? (and to think he lives in nyc!) either that, or you auditioned him, and failed to offer him a part.

good luck with the show.