The Bard goes bare: The Tempest performed naked in New York

>performing shakespeare's more rapey plays naked
can we do this with his poems too?

empowering.... an inspiration..

...a tour de force

I wonder how hard it would be to get whatever troupe this is to do Titus Andronicus naked next.

...so this is the power...of enlightened theater

In fairness to them they actually picked a play of his which is appropriate to include nudity

...

I have literally no idea why this would bother people. I am a fairly traditional Conservative, but there is no reason to be afraid of your own bodies.

Is this an American Puritan thing to have such a reaction to someone's natural form?

no, it's all about performing Shakespeare. This wouldn't have happened under Oliver Cromwell.

It's indecent for a civilized community, and children walking with their parents in the park should not be exposed to naked adults.

I have literally no idea why this would bother people either, but when you factor in the possibility that they decided to do this mostly because they expected it would bother people, and therefore attract some attention to the troupe, it bothers me very much.

Either you're talented or you go for shock value. You don't do both.

>Civilized

2spooky4me

Unless you are Mario Bava.

it's indecent for children to see human bodies as they are ... riiiiight

Nipples - when they appear on a woman - are some of the most immoral phenomena anyone can witness, let alone a child. Children should absolutely be prohibited from the sight of female breasts (above the age of breastfeeding, of course).

kiddie fiddler!

You just sound like a whiny bitch.

Yes it is indecent. According to your standards, it's perfectly fine for a naked adult to walk through a park? At what point would you say it's not OK? Or do you believe that walking around naked in public is a perfectly fine thing to do?

It is crucial to blindfold your child before they breastfeed.

Venus and Adonis is basically /ss/

yes but it is just as fun

Your beliefs are indecent, and you shouldn't be allowed to express them in public.

No it isn't. Nudity is more fun.

In our day and age the breasts can safely be ironed away altogether because we have invented baby back in the late 19th century.

baby food I mean. Baby was invented around 5000 years ago, after the banishment from paradise.

>It's indecent for a civilized community
spooky

>and children walking with their parents in the park should not be exposed to naked adults.
why?

>Oliver Cromwell.
crypto-muslim

Yo is Veeky Forums flashing for anyone else right now

HOW IZ BABBY FORMD?

>it's perfectly fine for a naked adult to walk through a park?
There's literally nothing wrong with that. It's pretty sad that the human form is something offensive to you.

>You just sound like a whiny bitch.
That's good, you're being perceptive, that's a good first step.
Now your job is to realize that you're not seeing that in me but in yourself, and that you're just projecting.

Sorry to be the bringer of bad (good? if you act upon them) news. I'll be open for any actual arguments that you might have against what I was actually saying. See? It's not enough to be >le pR0gr3sS1VE art1st3 after all. Whatever you say actually needs to have merit.

Same goes with theatre.

They need to do way instain mother.

Now you just sound autistic.

--Haha mama I did it again
a stranger on the internet was saying something that makes sense and I didn't like it
haha mama I totally showed him
I wrote back that he sounds like a whiny bitch and then he tried once again rationally arguing with me
and I wrote back again that he now sounds autistic

--heheheeeeee bravo boy now u will get titty

My "beliefs" are shared with the majority of my nation.
Lecherousness of this nature is a shallow veil to obscure an individual's desire to lower others to depths of amorality in an attempt to project upon and infect others with your Godless lunacy.

>why?
Sexuality should not be prematurely awakened in children--whose minds are not yet developed to understand the gravity and significance of both sex and romantic love.

I believe the ultimate good is Freedom to choose one's ultimate good, for a man to say for another what is good is of the highest forms of vanity; however, achieving every man's ultimate good is impossible, and this is why a state must have a set of laws that are decided by the majority of that state.

>My "beliefs" are shared with the majority of my nation.
I'm guessing America

>Lecherousness
Nudity is not lecherousness

>Sexuality
Nudity is not sexuality

>should not be prematurely awakened in children
Nor should it be repressed.

Why are americans are allowed to post here, again?

There is a difference between nudity and lecherousness!
You have gotta know it!
It could save your life!!

>Sexuality should not be prematurely awakened in children--whose minds are not yet developed to understand the gravity and significance of both sex and romantic love.

This is a contradiction.

>nipples are immoral

this is some fucked up American shit right here, definitely heterodox, possibly gnostic

>I'm guessing America
Correct
>Nudity is not lecherousness
The desire to be in public without clothes is a desire established in lecherousness, not freedom.
>Nudity is not sexuality
While I disagree with you, I don't believe many children would discern the difference.
>Nor should it be repressed
>Nor
I don't understand how you can agree with both sentiments.

>This is a contradiction.
I didn't see a contradiction, and I still don't. Could you point it out please?

>The desire to be in public without clothes is a desire established in lecherousness, not freedom.
wrong
>I don't believe many children would discern the difference.
Of course they would. The sexualisation of American children is something that concerns me.
>I don't understand how you can agree with both sentiments.
Forcing sexual behaviour, thoughts or desires on children who have not experienced them is wrong. Likewise it is wrong to forcefully repress their development.

Eh. This pretty typical artsy people doing artsy things. Pretty tame all things considered. No live sex acts. No animal cruelty. Might as well bring grammy along. I'd go see it if it was near me.

How is this Veeky Forums?

is that Ilana Glaer

You stupid or something?

kek

>The desire to be in public without clothes is a desire established in lecherousness, not freedom.
>wrong

>I don't believe many children would discern the difference.
>Of course they would

>yes
>no
>yes
>no
user, I don't see this discussion going anywhere because we're defining things differently, but:

>Forcing sexual behavior, thoughts or desires on children who have not experienced them is wrong. Likewise it is wrong to forcefully repress their development.
How can you have one without the other? Can you illustrate to me what that would look like?

>The desire to be in public without clothes is a desire established in lecherousness, not freedom.

This is just not true.

I agree that nudity in public is not desirable in a civilized Christian society, and I'd like to see much less of it. I do not, however, think that you have rightly understood why people are pushing against this.

So long as folk like you (and there are many others like you in the United States) are zealous to condemn immorality without first understanding it, the liberal-minded young nudists are going to be more eager than ever to push back against what rightly appears to them as an insane and repressive protestant morality. There is a case to be made against what they are doing; they'll never hear what that is so long as you're calling them "lecherous".

>all-women cast

this is much more annoying, DESU.

It tears me up, it fucking tears me up. These cunts have no understanding of Shakespeare.

WHY MUST EVERY FUCKING FOOL INSIST ON RESTAGING HIS MASTERPIECES TO FIT INTO THEIR OWN FUCKING FLAVOR OF THE WEEK PET CAUSE?

IF IT'S NOT "NIGGERS = WHITES," (switch the cast of othello! What if hamlet was a nigger!!) IT'S "WOMEN CAN DO IT WELL TOO! AND WE'LL PROVE IT BY CAPERING AROUND NAKED IN PUBLIC LIKE A BUNCH OF FUCKING WHORES!"

Fuck this shit. Gas them all, send in the riot squads, I don't give a fuck. New York is the most degenerate cesspool in this fucking country, and it ought to be burned to the ground. The glory days are over. All that's left is this navel-gazing solipsistic degenerate bullshit of absolutely no benefit to anyone in the real world. And now this—now the slander of Shakespeare, one of mankind's greatest treasures, for some fucking vapid, empty, stupid, misguided slut romp in broad daylight. Absolutely zero fucking shame.

Fuck this gay earth, NY in particular. May these braindead whores be raped by a pack of niggers.

>three words trigger this kind of response

poetry

Shakespeare was a pervert and I actually think he'd support it, so you can't really criticize it on any artistic grounds, just morally

Oliver Cromwell's regime outlawed plays completely.

>user, I don't see this discussion going anywhere because we're defining things differently, but:
I can expand if you like, I wan't trying to be dismissive.

>The desire to be in public without clothes is a desire established in lecherousness, not freedom.
This is an awful misconception. It is almost always based in freedom, the idea that we are the masters of our body, which is quite literally a part of our person and to force us to deck it as you desire is a violation equal in gravity to the violation of free speech, or else naturalism, the idea that the natural state of humanity is best and that the demonisation of what is good and healthy is wrong. I think you might be intentionally misunderstanding your opponents on this issue.

>I don't believe many children would discern the difference.
For this I'll bring up the many cultures around the world in which nudity is a normal occurence (as indeed is natural to us) In Europe, if you go to any beach, bath house, sauna etc. nudity will be a normal thing. It is absolutely not sexualised and nobody even considers it as such. The idea that nudity=/=sexuality is absurd. In Germany they have non-nude days only for muslims, which I think is hilarious and childish.

This all sounds like a naturalistic fallacy, but I'm not attempting to make an ought from an is, nudity quite simply is something we as humans have been used to so to suggest it is somehow damaging is, I think, unfounded.

>How can you have one without the other?
By allowing a child to develop and explore in their own time. I am opposed to the American obsession with racing to sex as a mark of maturity, social status etc. I feel that is unfairly forcing sexuality upon people who might not be ready. I am also opposed to the intense repression of sexuality in muslim countries, as I feel it leads to twisted mindsets and frustration. I suppose ideally this society would view sex as something neutral, with no bearing on social status either way. It wouldn't be glorified as in (parts of) the US, likewise it wouldn't be demonised as in most of the third world.

I understand what you mean now, and I thank you for going into detail.

My argument was this
>It's indecent for a civilized community, and children walking with their parents in the park should not be exposed to naked adults.

And I stand by my argument because nudity DOES = sexuality. I understand that this is something of which I won't be able convince you.

>if you go to any -----, bath house, sauna nudity will be a normal thing.
I agree with you, and I see nothing wrong with a designated areas which necessitate nudity; however, "beaches," go back to "nudity DOES = sexuality," and so on, but a designated "nude beach," I see no problem with.

>By allowing a child to develop and explore in their own time. I am opposed to the American obsession with racing to sex as a mark of maturity, social status etc. I feel that is unfairly forcing sexuality upon people who might not be ready.
This again goes to "nudity DOES = sexuality," because I believe public nudity does just that (ffwds an individual child's clock).

>opposed to the intense repression of sexuality in muslim countries
I don't think arguing that children should not have to see naked people, when those children are playing in a park is akin to implementing sharia law.

>I suppose ideally this society would view sex as something neutral

I just don't think that could ever happen, and I think considering utopias is a fruitless exercise. We're too far gone to be the ǃKung.

I don't think you were being dismissive, but do you see what I mean now, about our definitions?

You're right; I lost sight of what I was trying to communicate.

>It is almost always based in freedom
It's based in invidiousness and the childish impulse to needle authority and discern boundaries or breaking points. It's toxic attention whoring. These aren't philosophers making a statement about freedom - if they want that they can take a tour of Independence Hall and breathe the air of men who actually did such a thing. They're sluts with mental illness unfortunately raised in a permissive culture of pornography and hedonism. They're cowards who only do this because they can. A truly novel and useful art exhibition would have been stringing them up to make a mobile.

Aww damn, I missed it. I hope they do more of these so I can see.
That does suck, agreed.
GOOD.
>all-women cast
>this is much more annoying
They were originally played by a cast of all male actors. There's nothing wrong with artistic reinterpretations.

You're spooked user, this is why no one has any respect for your authority figure heroes.

There's no such thing as bad publicity.

>New York is the most degenerate cesspool in this fucking country, and it ought to be burned to the ground

Al-Qaida tried that. All they were able to take down were a few office buildings.

that's not butterfly's trip, stop using it.

The reactions to this rendition of Shakespeare range from "whatever" to "burn them all at the stake". Hilarious what some tits can do to a person's brain.

The first one was "unsecure" and some (maybe just one) knows it, so I changed it.
Srz2lnO/STC now.

Doesn't really matter in the long run. Just visiting again. How ya doing

>tfw fake butterfly fucks up its trip
the quality of traps on this board has really gone down

I don't have moral issues with this, it just seems pointless. What does nudity add to Shakespeare? How does this make the performance better?

Seems like just a chance to attention whore. The fact that it's abridged further confirms this, as it shows that they have no interest in the actual play itself.

>How does this make the performance better?
It masks the fact that the acting itself is shit.

Yes. Tits. And skin color.

>1984+32
>believing that any negative reaction to a particular human being's personality and behavior cannot be reduced down simply to obviously-inferrable hatred/covert love for their entire sex, sexuality, gender or skin color.
>do you even understand literature brah.jpg

It's hilarious if you've read The Tempest. An all female cast means a female Caliban tries to the chick who tries to bring her manners because she's under the spell of a sea witch. I don't think current feminism loves irony enough to understand what it's doing, but it's beautiful.

>tries to the chick
*tries to rape the chick

Daily reminder that Othello isn't black. He's a Moor, which means his skin is almost definitely light

Daily reminder that no well adjusted human being cares if Othello is played by a nigger or not

Daily reminder that you can be well-adjusted* and still have independent thought

>black ram
>not black
are you pol/sci or just pop/sci?

>Giving a shit about typos
>le independent thought mem
How many hundred pro-Bernie/pro-Trump comments do you post on Facebook in the average day?

>>le independent thought mem
wait, independent thinking is a meme?
my friend I see not what you're trying to accomplish here, provided that you are of sincerity and above-idiotic intelligence quotient

But considered black by all racists. What you mean is he isn't Yoruban, Hutuan or Somalian.

So yes, it would be cool if once the whole cast of Othello were black and Othello was white. Or Asian even

I'm gonna guess that they're gonna skip that. They've probably rewritten the entire thing so they can look better.

Fuck these attention whores, they give legitimately good reinterpretations bad reputation.

so, it's just five naked chicks on an island where the biggest drama is the weather? in 3d? fuck me, end this gay earth now

>I stand by my argument because nudity DOES = sexuality.
>I understand that this is something of which I won't be able convince you.
> I believe public nudity does just that
Fair enough. I guess this is a cultural thing. I don't understand why you think that but I'm willing to accept you have your own reasons.

>I don't think arguing that children should not have to see naked people, when those children are playing in a park is akin to implementing sharia law.
This was a comment on the general nature of sexual repression in Muslim countries which goes deeper than either "modesty" (a term I find inaccurate) or Sharia law.

>I just don't think that could ever happen, and I think considering utopias is a fruitless exercise.
I agree with you, but there is room for improvement. In fact I think utopian thinking is part of what is causing the ills I mentioned above. I think the "left" is trying to push hypersexuality on women, who are naturally more selective of partners, in the name of equality. They think that equality means being more like men and in doing so are smothering the natural inclination of women towards being "picky" and desiring sex within the bounds of a relationship.

Likewise the "right" are attempting to smother sexuality in the name of security which again perverts the course of maturity, leads to twisted morals and frustration as well as unnecessary restrictions on personal freedoms and a culture of shame.

Independent thought itself isn't a meme just like logic and reason aren't memes but "logic and reason" certainly is. It depends on context which is probably difficult for an artist like yourself to understand.

>What am I trying to accomplish?
I'm trying to shitpost. I'm not trying to convince you of anything or engage you in some sort of debate. Get those spergy ideas out of your head.

>Muh iq
I'm at least intelligent enough that I don't care how intelligent some moron on Veeky Forums thinks I am. Convince yourself my iq is

>The fact that it's abridged further confirms this, as it shows that they have no interest in the actual play itself.
They probably had time constraints.

As if you saw the thing.

>and I think considering utopias is a fruitless exercise.
>Things can never be better. I have decided. We're done.
Self fulfilling prophecy, moron.

How did they have time constraints, they're doing it in fuckin Central Park. Why are you defending such an unnecessary exercise in self-worship?

I think you misunderstood the particular context of our current conversation, though. And for someone who was just attempting to shitpost and not engage in an argument, you're putting up a really good fight.

Because I'd like to have seen it.
It may well have been a crappy or mediocre rendition, we don't know. Doesn't matter.
NYC seems likely the kind of place that would put up with only so much of a free performance of a Shakespearean play.
>The attempted rape scene
I see no problem with including this.

>Sexuality should not be prematurely awakened in children--whose minds are not yet developed to understand the gravity and significance of both sex and romantic love.
You know, there was a time when human beings didn't wear clothes. Do you think all the kids were totally fucked in the head back then?

No, just in their sweet bussy