I just watched Henry VI p 2 on PBS

[Dim Bulb]

I'm a free market guy and I believe that the free market should determine most things. But watching this excellent production (mostly about Civil War, but I digress), I was left to wonder: How on earth could an excellent production of Shakespeare like this be produced without subsidy? I agree in the free market, but if it means all we get is The Bachelor and The Apprentice, will we no longer see William Shakespeare? Should we care? Is there a free market solution to bringing classic plays to the masses?

 

[FA_Q2]

Classic plays are produced all the all the time without subsidy. If you truly want to see it then you will pay what it costs to produce it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Subsidized literature is certainly a good thing.

Cumberbach as the Richard III to be is amazing in this production.

 

[Dim Bulb]

Classic plays are produced all the all the time without subsidy. If you truly want to see it then you will pay what it costs to produce it.

That's your free market solution? That if people want it badly enough they'll pay for it? I don't think that works with Shakespeare plays. That's giving me too much credit for having access to that kind of coin. Just because I want to see these amazing actors replay the War of the Roses, it doesn't mean I'll pay for it. Leave it to the market and all we will see is reality shows.

 

[Dim Bulb]

Subsidized literature is certainly a good thing.

Cumberbach as the Richard III to be is amazing in this production.

I like how they backstoried his rage in watching his younger brother die. Makes you think about his opening soliloquy in RIII.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yup, then he slays in real history his older brother's boys.

Yorks, Tudors, Plantangenets: they all deserved what they got. The women were every bit as hateful as the men.

 

[Dim Bulb]

Yup, then he slays in real history his older brother's boys.

Yorks, Tudors, Plantangenets: they all deserved what they got. The women were every bit as hateful as the men.

Margaret. One tough cookie,

 

[bripat9643]

Subsidized literature is certainly a good thing.

Cumberbach as the Richard III to be is amazing in this production.

Subsidized liturature is what knowledgable people call "pro

 

[bripat9643]

Classic plays are produced all the all the time without subsidy. If you truly want to see it then you will pay what it costs to produce it.

That's your free market solution? That if people want it badly enough they'll pay for it? I don't think that works with Shakespeare plays. That's giving me too much credit for having access to that kind of coin. Just because I want to see these amazing actors replay the War of the Roses, it doesn't mean I'll pay for it. Leave it to the market and all we will see is reality shows.

Rich snobs will pay for it, dumbass.

 

[whitehall]

Hank VI's reign lasted until 1461. The U.S. Civil War was two hundred years later.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hank VI's reign lasted until 1461. The U.S. Civil War was two hundred years later.

He is talking about the War of Roses, which lasted right up to 1488 when Richard III lost to the would be soon Henry VII.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yup, then he slays in real history his older brother's boys.

Yorks, Tudors, Plantangenets: they all deserved what they got. The women were every bit as hateful as the men.

Margaret. One tough cookie,

The actress who played her was one scary bitch of a bitch. She often plays a female copper in British TV police procedurals.

 

[Dim Bulb]

Classic plays are produced all the all the time without subsidy. If you truly want to see it then you will pay what it costs to produce it.

That's your free market solution? That if people want it badly enough they'll pay for it? I don't think that works with Shakespeare plays. That's giving me too much credit for having access to that kind of coin. Just because I want to see these amazing actors replay the War of the Roses, it doesn't mean I'll pay for it. Leave it to the market and all we will see is reality shows.

Rich snobs will pay for it, dumbass.

Thanks for your reply, very kind. Rich snobs are the only people who will pay for Shakespeare. And that's the free market solution? I think we disagree on that one. Rich snobs might pay for plays like Romeo and Juliet (who except rich snobs would want to watch that trash, anyway?) but I doubt they'd pay for some of the more obscure histories like Richard II or the one I just watched.

It isn't about market equilibrium, its about boosting the bottom of the x axis, in my view. How do we do that within the free market? Calling people who raise the question a "dumbass" is another solution, but I'm not sure I understand quite how that would work.

 

[Dim Bulb]

Yup, then he slays in real history his older brother's boys.

Yorks, Tudors, Plantangenets: they all deserved what they got. The women were every bit as hateful as the men.

Margaret. One tough cookie,

The actress who played her was one scary bitch of a bitch. She often plays a female copper in British TV police procedurals.

Yeah I have definitely seen her in some stuff. I believe I saw her in a production of Medea. Talk about your happy endings...

 

[bripat9643]

Classic plays are produced all the all the time without subsidy. If you truly want to see it then you will pay what it costs to produce it.

That's your free market solution? That if people want it badly enough they'll pay for it? I don't think that works with Shakespeare plays. That's giving me too much credit for having access to that kind of coin. Just because I want to see these amazing actors replay the War of the Roses, it doesn't mean I'll pay for it. Leave it to the market and all we will see is reality shows.

Rich snobs will pay for it, dumbass.

Thanks for your reply, very kind. Rich snobs are the only people who will pay for Shakespeare. And that's the free market solution? I think we disagree on that one. Rich snobs might pay for plays like Romeo and Juliet (who except rich snobs would want to watch that trash, anyway?) but I doubt they'd pay for some of the more obscure histories like Richard II or the one I just watched.

It isn't about market equilibrium, its about boosting the bottom of the x axis, in my view. How do we do that within the free market? Calling people who raise the question a "dumbass" is another solution, but I'm not sure I understand quite how that would work.

If I don't want to pay for Richard II, then why should I have to pay for it? However, there's no need to worry because all of Shakespear's plays are presented on a regular basis. There are plenty of wealthy people who are willing to shell out $1000/ticket for this stuff. Quality work always has a market. Government subsidies are required only for trash and propaganda.

 

[Dim Bulb]

Classic plays are produced all the all the time without subsidy. If you truly want to see it then you will pay what it costs to produce it.

That's your free market solution? That if people want it badly enough they'll pay for it? I don't think that works with Shakespeare plays. That's giving me too much credit for having access to that kind of coin. Just because I want to see these amazing actors replay the War of the Roses, it doesn't mean I'll pay for it. Leave it to the market and all we will see is reality shows.

Rich snobs will pay for it, dumbass.

Thanks for your reply, very kind. Rich snobs are the only people who will pay for Shakespeare. And that's the free market solution? I think we disagree on that one Rich snobs might pay for plays like Romeo and Juliet (who except rich snobs would want to watch that trash, anyway?) but I doubt they'd pay for some of the more obscure histories like Richard II or the one I just watched.

It isn't about market equilibrium, its about boosting the bottom of the x axis, in my view. How do we do that within the free market? Calling people who raise the question a "dumbass" is another solution, but I'm not sure I understand quite how that would work.

If I don't want to pay for Richard II, then why should I have to pay for it? However, there's no need to worry because all of Shakespear's plays are presented on a regular basis. There are plenty of wealthy people who are willing to shell out $1000/ticket for this stuff. Quality work always has a market. Government subsidies are required only for trash and propaganda.

As I say, I am a free market dumbass, and I agree that the market should determine most things. But I think that there might be a public good at play in paying for plays like Richard II (if you haven't seen the Ben Whitely production of this, you should watch it, he's the guy you might know as "Q" from the latest James Bond movies). Plays like that just won't get made. And that's my question. Are we better off as a society to allow plays like that never to be seen by subsequent generations just because you and I don't want our money going to PBS? Or will we just be dumbasses?

 

[bripat9643]

Classic plays are produced all the all the time without subsidy. If you truly want to see it then you will pay what it costs to produce it.

That's your free market solution? That if people want it badly enough they'll pay for it? I don't think that works with Shakespeare plays. That's giving me too much credit for having access to that kind of coin. Just because I want to see these amazing actors replay the War of the Roses, it doesn't mean I'll pay for it. Leave it to the market and all we will see is reality shows.

Rich snobs will pay for it, dumbass.

Thanks for your reply, very kind. Rich snobs are the only people who will pay for Shakespeare. And that's the free market solution? I think we disagree on that one Rich snobs might pay for plays like Romeo and Juliet (who except rich snobs would want to watch that trash, anyway?) but I doubt they'd pay for some of the more obscure histories like Richard II or the one I just watched.

It isn't about market equilibrium, its about boosting the bottom of the x axis, in my view. How do we do that within the free market? Calling people who raise the question a "dumbass" is another solution, but I'm not sure I understand quite how that would work.

If I don't want to pay for Richard II, then why should I have to pay for it? However, there's no need to worry because all of Shakespear's plays are presented on a regular basis. There are plenty of wealthy people who are willing to shell out $1000/ticket for this stuff. Quality work always has a market. Government subsidies are required only for trash and propaganda.

As I say, I am a free market dumbass, and I agree that the market should determine most things. But I think that there might be a public good at play in paying for plays like Richard II (if you haven't seen the Ben Whitely production of this, you should watch it, he's the guy you might know as "Q" from the latest James Bond movies). Plays like that just won't get made. And that's my question. Are we better off as a society to allow plays like that never to be seen by subsequent generations just because you and I don't want our money going to PBS? Or will we just be dumbasses?

So plays like that were never made before the NEA existed? I hardly think so. There were even concerts where the orchestra performed Beethoven's Ninth Symphony.

 

[Dim Bulb]

That's your free market solution? That if people want it badly enough they'll pay for it? I don't think that works with Shakespeare plays. That's giving me too much credit for having access to that kind of coin. Just because I want to see these amazing actors replay the War of the Roses, it doesn't mean I'll pay for it. Leave it to the market and all we will see is reality shows.

Rich snobs will pay for it, dumbass.

Thanks for your reply, very kind. Rich snobs are the only people who will pay for Shakespeare. And that's the free market solution? I think we disagree on that one Rich snobs might pay for plays like Romeo and Juliet (who except rich snobs would want to watch that trash, anyway?) but I doubt they'd pay for some of the more obscure histories like Richard II or the one I just watched.

It isn't about market equilibrium, its about boosting the bottom of the x axis, in my view. How do we do that within the free market? Calling people who raise the question a "dumbass" is another solution, but I'm not sure I understand quite how that would work.

If I don't want to pay for Richard II, then why should I have to pay for it? However, there's no need to worry because all of Shakespear's plays are presented on a regular basis. There are plenty of wealthy people who are willing to shell out $1000/ticket for this stuff. Quality work always has a market. Government subsidies are required only for trash and propaganda.

As I say, I am a free market dumbass, and I agree that the market should determine most things. But I think that there might be a public good at play in paying for plays like Richard II (if you haven't seen the Ben Whitely production of this, you should watch it, he's the guy you might know as "Q" from the latest James Bond movies). Plays like that just won't get made. And that's my question. Are we better off as a society to allow plays like that never to be seen by subsequent generations just because you and I don't want our money going to PBS? Or will we just be dumbasses?

So plays like that were never made before the NEA existed? I hardly think so. There were even concerts where the orchestra performed Beethoven's Ninth Symphony.

Sounds like your solution is pure free market. I agree that crowd pleasing plays like Hamlet, R&J, the Scottish play and others will get made. But broadcast productions of the histories other than Richard III and maybe Henry IV p 1 just don't get made. I think in order for them to not sink into the dustbin of history we're going to have to come up with a solution other than relying on rich snobs.

 

[FA_Q2]

Classic plays are produced all the all the time without subsidy. If you truly want to see it then you will pay what it costs to produce it.

That's your free market solution? That if people want it badly enough they'll pay for it? I don't think that works with Shakespeare plays. That's giving me too much credit for having access to that kind of coin. Just because I want to see these amazing actors replay the War of the Roses, it doesn't mean I'll pay for it. Leave it to the market and all we will see is reality shows.

It is not my solution - it is the solution. They will pay for it. I am not stating that you have to pay for the entire production but that you will purchase the end product for what it costs. People already do so and no subsidy is required at all.

Amazon.com: shakespear

Look at all that Shakespeare product from books to movies right there for you to purchase and enjoy for prices ranging from 1 buck to 20. If you want to enjoy Shakespeare, you will purchase the produce and that will bring more of it to market. Happens every day.

Of course, if you really wanted to enjoy Shakespeare tuning into a TV program is just silly. Look at all th4e actual productions ready and waiting for you to enjoy in person as his plays were meant to be:

Hamlet

All brought to you by capitalism funded entirely by people willing to pay the cost of production to enjoy a product.

 

[Dim Bulb]

Classic plays are produced all the all the time without subsidy. If you truly want to see it then you will pay what it costs to produce it.

That's your free market solution? That if people want it badly enough they'll pay for it? I don't think that works with Shakespeare plays. That's giving me too much credit for having access to that kind of coin. Just because I want to see these amazing actors replay the War of the Roses, it doesn't mean I'll pay for it. Leave it to the market and all we will see is reality shows.

It is not my solution - it is the solution. They will pay for it. I am not stating that you have to pay for the entire production but that you will purchase the end product for what it costs. People already do so and no subsidy is required at all.

Amazon.com: shakespear

Look at all that Shakespeare product from books to movies right there for you to purchase and enjoy for prices ranging from 1 buck to 20. If you want to enjoy Shakespeare, you will purchase the produce and that will bring more of it to market. Happens every day.

Of course, if you really wanted to enjoy Shakespeare tuning into a TV program is just silly. Look at all th4e actual productions ready and waiting for you to enjoy in person as his plays were meant to be:

Hamlet

All brought to you by capitalism funded entirely by people willing to pay the cost of production to enjoy a product.

Did you notice how many of the video productions were BBC or PBS funded? Again, I don't support anything but the free market. And the free market will produce lots and lots of the Big Plays. I guess we should go back in time and tell Will that he should stick to what the people want. What a dummy that guy was!