From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Coriolanus (play))
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Weird name?[edit]

Is it me or does "coriolanus" sound like it means "runka"? --MichTheWeird 28 June 2005 20:46 (UTC)

@MichTheWeird: That depends. What does "runka" mean? --Thnidu (talk) 05:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC) (smh)
We may never know since Mich hasn't edited since December 2006. MarnetteD|Talk 06:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


Does anyone know if the title is pronounced Coriolahnus or Coriolaynus? Bravado

Depends on where you come from. The Romans themselves most probably pronounced it Coriolahnus, with a long and open 'a', imagine the first vowel of 'up' lengthened. [Mehothra]

The actors in the Stratford production I just attended all pronounced it Coriolaynus. CaptainCanada 02:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I was hoping that wasn't the case. Oh well, I'll keep on trucking with Coriolahnus. I'm going to see that Stratford show soon anyways.Bravado 00:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Critical Appraisal?[edit]

Does the critical appraisal section really belong there? I saw that it's been flagged. It doesn't appear to be citing any published critical works, and it comes off as just one person's interpretation. It seems to me that it's a dodgy interpretation at that. Consider the following lines:

"Like Hamlet, the central relationship of the play is between a mother and her son, but in Coriolanus, this relationship is both less fractured and devoid of the sexual tension that exists between Gertrude and the danish prince."

Not only is it not uniform critical opinion that there is sexual tension between Hamlet and Gertrude, but the sexual tension between Coriolanus and his mother seems, to my mind, much more blatant. Consider the scene where she is introduced, and is constantly upbraiding his wife about her worrying, overtly stating that if she were her own son's wife, she would be proud of him. I'm sure any critic who does see sexual tension between Hamlet and Gertrude sees it between Coriolanus and Volumnia as well. I'm not really trying to get in a critical debate here, so much as point out that discussions of themes that are open to interpretation don't belong on an encyclopedia page. 05:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)MOB

Uncited reference to being banned[edit]

Coriolanus has the singular distinction of being the only Shakespeare play banned in a democracy in modern times.[citation needed] It was briefly suppressed in France in the late 1930s due to its possible attraction to the far right.[citation needed]

--- is this even true? Don Shewey's review in American Theatre, 1989 (see states that a run in the inter war years was cancelled following some riots, but there is no indication this meant a ban for all performances of the play in France, just a cancel of the run. Meanwhile, this article does state that the play was banned in Berlin by occupying forces just after WW2 - however, Germany at this time was presumably not a democracy so doesn't fit here either? --richiau

Removing unnecessary spoiler tags[edit]

Most of the articles about Shakespeare plays have a clearly marked section labelled "Synopsis" in which the plot is discussed. It's really unnecessary, and quite insulting, to put a further warning directly beneath that. These are well established plays and people come to read about them. When they see that the article contains a synopsis, they're not going to be surprised because this is an encyclopedia. If they read on and find out the plot of the play, then we have done our job correctly. Pandering for some imaginary people who may not realise that encyclopedias tell you about stuff, or that a plot summary inevitably contains a summary of the plot, is not productive, and certainly no justification for unnecessary duplication of information. --Tony Sidaway 03:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved. —harej (talk) (cool!) 19:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Coriolanus (Shakespeare)Coriolanus — “Primary topic by far. Moved without consensus from Shakespeare project earlier.” per the request (which I support) by DionysosProteus at WP:RM. Xover (talk) 04:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Coriolanus (Shakespeare)Coriolanus — Primary topic by far. Moved without consensus from Shakespeare project earlier. — DionysosProteus (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • A request based on one assertion of what the primary topic is is never uncontroversial. This needs to be discussed first. Parsecboy (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • You're suggesting that the play by Shakespeare isn't the primary meaning? DionysosProteus (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • No, I'm saying uncontroversial moves are those to fix capitalization, spelling, or other minor issues. Any move request that purports to assert the primacy of one topic over another is automatically potentially controversial and needs to be discussed. The very fact that the page was moved (even without discussion) means that the move back is controversial. Parsecboy (talk) 00:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I've put the {{move}} template on Talk:Coriolanus (Shakespeare) per the above. --Xover (talk) 04:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Returning to our muttons: Support move. Coriolanus himself is, by our habit in dealing with Romans, at Gaius Marcius Coriolanus; the Brecht play is much less frequently frequently mentioned; Shakespeare's play is primary usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. The Shakespeare play is really the only reason any of the others are known much at all. olderwiser 15:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

One Other Notable Performance[edit]

As part of a research project completed at university, I discovered that Morgan Freeman has also played this role. Looking around online, it is easy to find sources which confirm this: he played the role in 1979 as part of an all-black and -Hispanic cast at the New York Shakespeare Festival. Given Mr. Freeman's stature as an actor, I would think he merits inclusion in the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you; and I see you've already added him to the article. But if you've done the research for this, perhaps you would be so kind as to also provide the source for it? Preferably something that reasonably fulfills the requirements of the Reliable Sources policy (peer reviewed work in a book on a university press, scholarly journal, or mainstream publication with a published editorial and peer review policy). No big deal, but it would save other editors having to dig up this information later. --Xover (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Film Adaptation?[edit]

Is it worth adding that there is a forthcoming film adaptation with Ralph Finnes? Mragsdale (talk) 14:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coriolanus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)