Talk:She Stoops to Conquer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub
This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Low
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the priority scale.
This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. A possibility for American films from before 1964 would be a screenshot from the trailer, as these are now in the public domain. Please make sure fair use is properly observed, or the image will be removed. See WP:Films MOS for image guidelines and assistance in uploading.
Maintenance Please add more information about the cast and the crew, discussing the "behind the scenes" aspects of the production process, and giving insights into the casting and staffing where possible. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines for more advice.

This play had rave reviews here in Manchester, UK so I went to see it yesterday and thought it was utterly dismal. This "Tony Lumpkin" character considering he was a great comic of literature was nothing more than extremely loud and annoying and not at all funny, just over dramatic, like a giant melodramatic hobbit.

I thought this play was terrible. By the end of Act 1 I didnt remotely know what was going on, nor care about the outcome, or any of the characters, so I left. I've never done that before, but the idea of sitting through Act 2 was too much. TR_Wolf

Did it occur to you that the problem was a bad performance, not that the play itself was bad? If you are talking about a single performance, why is this comment relevant to the article? Bad performances of good plays take place all the time. CharlesTheBold 00:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Meaning of the title

One thing I did not understand from the article - where does the title come from? To what does it refer?

- Kate has to 'stoop' socially, by pretending she is a poor relation of the family, to seduce marlow ('to conquer'). In her guise as a poor relative, Marlow becomes quite comfortable around her, whereas when she presents her true social status to him, he becomes a blubbering wreck.

She says so herself in Act iv: "I'll still preserve the character in which i have stooped to conquer, but will undeceive my papa", and shows the importance of this major aspect: "Simplicity" (naturalness of the heart - not the mind) conquers men.FlammingoParliament 20:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Play / Films

I remove the film request templates and add the WP Theater. The article mentions several films and I find six with the same title (1910 (USA), 1914 (UK), 1923 (UK), 1939 (UK/TV), 1971(UK/TV, which by the way has a 9.8 rating!), 2003(V)). Hoverfish Talk 18:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Updated w/importance & class SkierRMH 10:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Appearance and Reality

I'd say this is a pretty prominant theme in the play, and a link to other famous works, especially those of Shakespeare. This may fit in in the 'three unities' section of the article. Monkeymox 08:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improvement in Marlowe's character

The article fails to note an improvement in Marlowe's character that justifies Kate's faith in him. At the start all he wants to do is seduce the "barmaid"; by the end he is willing to treat her as an equal and marry her, something almost unheard of in the 1700's. CharlesTheBold 00:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion

The character section is longer than the plot section. This does not seem right. Lots42 (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)