Shakespeare discussion panel video

So, we final got a shot of the video. It was pretty funny how off-script we went, but I think it turned out just fine for how amateur I am. Here's the video:

Hmmm. It would appear that Google no longer hosts the videos, or something to that effect. That's what my research dictates at least. No wonder I always failed before then! Well, when we get this on YouTube, we'll be able to post it here. So look for it in a few days! Sorry!

And here's the rough script:

Moderator:

So, we are here today to discuss the validity of a supposed Shakespeare play that was recently discovered.  We are joined by _______, _________, __________, and _________ to discuss its validity. Now, let’s open it up.  Is this play a bona fide Shakespeare Creation?

1:

I’d say that it is.  Though there are subtle differences between it and many of his other plays, I’d say that can be explained by how it was an early creation.  Perhaps he was in his formative years.  There are just too many similarities in the end for us to be able to throw it out as not Shakespeare.

Moderator:

Could you give us some examples?

1:

Easily.  First, let’s start with the iambic pentameter.  Now, generally Shakespeare would stay very strictly to this scheme, but in certain situations, such as when a character is aggravated or caught off-guard, he would frequently break this rhythm.  I’ve heard some voice concern over how this happens, so I have compiled a list of other instances where he did so in other plays.  Some of the plays were Hamlet, King Lear, and Antony and Cleopatra.  For time sake, let’s just look at Hamlet’s soliloquy. He begins with 11 syllables: “To be, or not to be, that is the question.”  Obviously, he was under a lot of stress, and Shakespeare was not averse to using such a break in the rhythm in order to further stress the poignant feelings of his characters.

2:

If I may, I’d like to jump in here too.  Many of the points in the plot relate well with other Shakespeare plays as well. For example, there is a “play-within-a-play” that takes place when a play is held during one of the celebrations.  Similarly, this happens in plays like Love’s Labour’s Lost, Hamlet, and A Midsummer Night’s Dream, among many others.  The difficulties portrayed by both Puck and Ortegia are also very much in line with a typical Shakespeare romantic tragedy.

4:

It’s also interesting to see the obvious similarities to A Midsummer Night’s Dream, which is very closely linked to it.  For example, Titania is derived from the Greek gods and can be attributed to the sun, whereas Ortegia comes from the story of Artemis, who is known as the goddess of the moon and hunting. It is pretty easy to see how the moon and the woods tie into a story such as this one.

3:

Yes, yes, yes.  That’s all well and good, but the real issues here are a completely different topic.  I can understand saying that the largely two dimensional characters can be attributed to it being an early creation, but there are some really big issues we have to address.

4:

Yes, like why it appears to be a prequel. I am not aware of any other play by Shakespeare that is like that. It seems like a very modern, Hollywood thing.

2:

Well, I suppose it is possible that there were others, but they were either censored like this one or just weren’t any good.

3:

Yes, but it just doesn’t seem too plausible. It is statistically unlikely.

4:

And why isn’t Ortegia in A Midsummer Night’s Dream? That’s a really big hole to fill when she played such a pivotal role in Star-Crossed.

1:

I still feel that this play was written by Shakespeare.  The main reasons for this are the many small quirks that Shakespeare generally used.  Anyone who really knows Shakespeare will catch onto them while reading. Nobody would take the time to write it out and then hide it in a book just in case it was found. The book was genuinely at least decades of years old. It wouldn’t make sense for anyone to do something like that unless there was some profit for them.