Shakespeare Movies

[Nyarlathotep]

A recent discussion in one of my classes got me thinking about this. We just got finished reading Hamlet in my English class and we watched the version of it that Kenneth Branagh did a few years back. One of my classmates and I were discussing which was better, the Branagh version we had just watched, or the one Mel Gibson did a few years back. Though I liked the Branagh version, I still prefer Mel Gibsons version better. The setting was more authentic and I liked Gibsons portrayal of the Prince better.

However, my absolute favorite movie version of Shakespeare is Branagh's version of Henry V. I could watch that movie 100 times.

What Movie versions of Shakespeare do the rest of you really like (or hate)? I would make a poll but I don't think that 10 options would be enough.

[whitefork]

I like the modernized Richard III with Ian McKellan and Hamlet with Ethan Hawke (Bill Murray as Polonius is very good)

The Dresser with Albert Finney and Tom Courtenay is worth a look.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Kullervo
I like the modernized Richard III with Ian McKellan and Hamlet with Ethan Hawke (Bill Murray as Polonius is very good)

The Dresser with Albert Finney and Tom Courtenay is worth a look.

I haven't seen that one. Richard III is one of my favorite plays, but the only movie version I have seen was an old one with Vincent Price. I might have to go looking for it.

[Mercutio]

Absolute worst Hamlet, bar none, was Kevin Kline's. There is a Hamlet shown on MST3K that is better than Kline's...*shudder*

I like Mad Max's Hamlet a lot, although it is much too Freudian. (as was Olivier's, but still wonderful). Only seen the Branagh one once, as it is a bit of a long production...I have heard that the Gielgud Hamlet is one of the best--now that this thread reminds me, I must pop over to the library to see for myself... There is a wonderful non-freudian Hamlet with Nicol Williamson in the title role. Worth finding. I also liked the Ethan Hawke Hamlet (much better than the dicaprio R&J, the other modern one of recent memory).

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Absolute worst Hamlet, bar none, was Kevin Kline's. There is a Hamlet shown on MST3K that is better than Kline's...*shudder*

I like Mad Max's Hamlet a lot, although it is much too Freudian. (as was Olivier's, but still wonderful). Only seen the Branagh one once, as it is a bit of a long production...I have heard that the Gielgud Hamlet is one of the best--now that this thread reminds me, I must pop over to the library to see for myself... There is a wonderful non-freudian Hamlet with Nicol Williamson in the title role. Worth finding. I also liked the Ethan Hawke Hamlet (much better than the dicaprio R&J, the other modern one of recent memory).

Having seen the one shown on MST3K I have to worry very much that there is a WORSE version out there.

Yeah, The Mel Gibson version of Hamlet was Freudian, but that didn't bother me too much. I like the way Gibson portrayed Hamlet's "insanity" though. Branagh, I think, was kind of going for "manic depressive" so sometimes he kind of reminded me more of Daffy Duck than Hamlet, i.e. the scene where he tells Claudius where to find Polonius' body. It kind of irritated me sometimes, other than that it was pretty good. I think you have a good idea though. I might look for some of the other movie versions sometime. It would make for a good comparison.

By the way, I avoided the modern day remake of Romeo & Juliet on the priniciple that it had DiCaprio in it. I can't stand anything that guy is in.

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Kullervo
I like the modernized Richard III with Ian McKellan and Hamlet with Ethan Hawke (Bill Murray as Polonius is very good)

The Dresser with Albert Finney and Tom Courtenay is worth a look.

Ditto on the Ian McKellan Richard III. How often do you get Shakespeare with tanks? The "My kingdom for a horse!" gag is great. Oh, I'll just spoil it. Richard is trying to escape in a jeep and the driver gets killed and it gets stuck. Richard is trying to back it out but can't. So he says "A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!" HA!

Tromeo and Juliet is a classic also. With a nice Juliet/Nurse girl on girl scene.

[Brown]

Branaugh's "Henry V" and "Much Ado About Nothing" are at the top of my list.

Michael Keaton as Dogberry: What a riot!! I laughed so hard at the interrogation scene that I had to watch it about five times just to see if from start to finish.

As for Olivier, I find him hard to watch. His "Othello" was unbearable, and his "Henry V" was wooden.

I enjoyed the "Shakespeare in Central Park" production of "A Midsummer Night's Dream," but I understand a recording of this production is rather hard to find. Most "Midsummer" movies aren't all that great.

One of the films on my viewing list is "MacBeth," the Orson Welles version. I have heard that it is good. The most recent version of MacBeth I've seen is Kurosawa's "Throne of Blood," which was okay.

My favorite Shakespeare play is "King Lear." The best version I've seen of this play is Kurosawa's "Ran." I cannot recommend any other movie version of this play, but I hear that the version with John Hurt as Fool is quite good.

[Brown]

I do recommend the MST3K version of "Hamlet," starring Maximilian Schell and the voice of Ricardo Montalban as King Claudius. I am serious about this. There is some excellent humor in the commentary.

My favorite joke comes at the end of the movie, when the dying Hamlet plops himself down on the throne to give his dying speech. One of the hecklers says, "Hey, who died and made YOU king?" This smart-aleck remark basically sums up the entire plot of the play!

[whitefork]

Originally posted by Brown
Branaugh's ... "Much Ado About Nothing" .... Olivier .... wooden.What adjective do you use to describe Keanu Reeves' thespian skills in Much Ado? That was a casting choice from some other dimension.

Orson Welles Othello is a triumph of low budget filmaking. The steam room scene....

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


Having seen the one shown on MST3K I have to worry very much that there is a WORSE version out there.

Yeah, The Mel Gibson version of Hamlet was Freudian, but that didn't bother me too much. I like the way Gibson portrayed Hamlet's "insanity" though. Branagh, I think, was kind of going for "manic depressive" so sometimes he kind of reminded me more of Daffy Duck than Hamlet, i.e. the scene where he tells Claudius where to find Polonius' body. It kind of irritated me sometimes, other than that it was pretty good. I think you have a good idea though. I might look for some of the other movie versions sometime. It would make for a good comparison.

By the way, I avoided the modern day remake of Romeo & Juliet on the priniciple that it had DiCaprio in it. I can't stand anything that guy is in.

Oh baloney, you loved Gangs of New York!!

[Chanileslie]

I absolutely loved the modernized version of Taming of the Shrew, which is called 10 Things I Hate About You. Aimed at teenagers and although the names have not changed from the original and some of the lines are even the same, most teenagers won't even realize they have been tricked into watchin Shakespeare. :-)

I hated Westside Story. But the 1968 version of Romeo and Juliette is wonderful although I am about as sick of Romeo and Juliette as I can get. It has been way over done, despite the fact that the Queen Mab speech is always a pleasure to hear.

Other than that, I quite enjoyed Mel Gibsons angst ridden version of Hamlet. Yes, it is dripping with the Oedipal Complex, but then Oedipus Rex is among some of my favorite plays. :-)

I quite enjoyed Orson Wells version of Othello, but then I admit that I haven't seen any other versions.

[lofgoernost]

For a medium that's meant to be seen and heard I've never been able to get into seeing a Shakespeare play, on stage or film. I can only enjoy them by reading them. I did see Kurosawa's "Ran" a long time ago and remember thinking it was a visual beauty, but I didn't really follow the subtitles - I just watched and let the little I knew of Ling Lear at that time carry me along.

[Michael Redman]

I was lucky enough to see Ian McKellan with the Royal Shakespeare Company (or whatever they are called) perform their adaptation of Richard III before the movie was made. It was fantastic.

Sir Ian came out on stage in his long officer's coat, bundled up as though against severe cold, and belted out the opening monologue with his hands in his pockets, and a cigarette dangling out of the corner of his mouth. It was quite impressive.

Branagh's speech in Henry V makes me want to run out and go shoot arrows at frenchmen.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Chanileslie


Oh baloney, you loved Gangs of New York!!

Okay, my desire to see that film made me compromise my principle regarding DiCraprio. I'm so ashamed.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Michael Redman

Branagh's speech in Henry V makes me want to run out and go shoot arrows at frenchmen.

Same here, it's my favorite part of the play.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Kullervo
What adjective do you use to describe Keanu Reeves' thespian skills in Much Ado? That was a casting choice from some other dimension. Actually, Reeves was okay in that role because it was a shallow character with no motivation. Don John is one of Shakespeare's weakest one-dimensional bad guys, and since Reeves has trouble acting beyond one dimension, the role was pretty well suited for him.

I suspect that Reeves was hired in part because of one line, in which he speaks of "the most exquisite Claudio." Reeves utters "exquisite" much like he utters "excellent" in the "Bill and Ted" movies.

[Hexxenhammer]

How could I forget the great adaptation of "The Tempest" that is "Forbidden Planet". I wrote a paper on it for a Shakespeare class I had in college.




Am I the only one that's seen "Tromeo and Juliet"?

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer

Am I the only one that's seen "Tromeo and Juliet"?
I saw that. The nipple piercing scene is a classic.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep


Okay, my desire to see that film made me compromise my principle regarding DiCraprio. I'm so ashamed.

And so you should be!! :p

[Rosencrantz]

Does Tom Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead count? If you're somewhat familiar with Hamlet, it is highly recommended. After you finish laughing at all the amusing stuff that's going on, the layers and layers of it start to get to you. I would say it's one of the best sequels ever made.

Originally posted by Kullervo
What adjective do you use to describe Keanu Reeves' thespian skills in Much Ado? That was a casting choice from some other dimension.When I saw Much Ado About Nothing in the theaters, I went opening night with a bunch of actor friends in Berkeley. The theater was packed with Shakespeare afficianados. It was a rollicking good time, and I especially remember the credits, because a name would come up and everyone would cheer madly and happily, stamping their feet and grinning ear to ear. —Kenneth Branaugh— Yay! Woo-hoo! —Emma Thompson— Woo-hoo! Yay! And then when it said —Keanu Reeves— the audience got conspicously quiet for a moment, and then people began to giggle at themselves and a low hissing started. I have never been able to see one of his movies again without remembering that wonderful second when an entire audience was united in catty, thespian jealousy against him.

However, upon reflection, I do like Keanu in the role. It is a one-dimensional character, and a character that is not very fun to play. And yet it is essential that he be someone with whom the audience does not sympathize. An excellent actor would be wasted on the part, I think. Keanu makes me cringe every time he comes into view, and I've come to realize that it makes the movie that much better. For that reason alone, I'd rank him as an excellent villain.

[Skeptic]

Branaugh's "Henry V" and "Much Ado About Nothing" are at the top of my list.

Agreed wholeheartedly, although his Hamlet all-star cast never quite gelled together. That said, it was nice to see Hamlet played as a "who gives a f--k" tough guy with problems and not the usual vacillating, spineless neurotic.

I enjoyed the "Shakespeare in Central Park" production of "A Midsummer Night's Dream," but I understand a recording of this production is rather hard to find.

I've seen that one, purely by chance, a million years ago, and still remember it very well. Excellent production.

My favorite Shakespeare play is "King Lear." The best version I've seen of this play is Kurosawa's "Ran."

Agreed wholeheartedly. IMHO, this is Kurasawa's best movie--which is saying something. Absolutely stunning.

[Bikewer]

We'll throw in another vote for Branagh's Henry V....great stuff.

I quoted the bit "The French are in their battles set, and with all expediency do charge upon us" on my WWII online boad (our unit is fighting in France) and only one guy recognized it.

How about a little gem, "A Winter's Tale"? It's about an amateur company putting on Hamlet, with all the backstage intrigues and such...lots of fun.

[epepke]

OK, for weird ones, somebody has already mentioned Forbidden Planet. Which, apart from being a great adaptation of The Tempest also had some nice animation and really paved the way for Star Trek.

But anyway....

King LearRan, by Akira Kurosawa
Hamlet: Strange Brew

Can't think of any more right now.

[Mercutio]

How could I have forgotten...."Titus", the recent Titus Andronicus, is an amazing piece of work. Watch it on DVD, then with the director's commentary. There is not one visual image, not one pause, not one noise that the director had not had completely planned. None of this "let's try another take, but this time let's..." crapola.

Loved "Rosencrantz and Guildernstern are dead", there was another short film that was paired with that on PBS, a 10-minute Hamlet (I think) that was marvelous.

Loved Branagh's "Much Ado". So many great lines, so well delivered.

There was a recent "Twelfth Night" that was really good, with Helena Bonham Carter and Ben Kingsley (and others I did not recognise)...

Lastly....I have had one person seriously recommend "Tromeo and Juliet" to me...knowing what (little) you know about me, should I see it?

[Voob]

Keanu Reeves had a month-long stint as Hamlet in Winnipeg a while back:

"He's no Daniel Day Lewis," judged one amateur critic, while the professionals conjured other comparisons. The name which came to mind most, however, was Marilyn Monroe. (http://uk.geocities.com/ikea64/image/hamlet.html)

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Voob
Keanu Reeves had a month-long stint as Hamlet in Winnipeg a while back:

"He's no Daniel Day Lewis," judged one amateur critic, while the professionals conjured other comparisons. The name which came to mind most, however, was Marilyn Monroe. (http://uk.geocities.com/ikea64/image/hamlet.html)

I am trying to picture Keanu Reeves holding a skull and saying "Alas, Poor Yorick, I knew him Horatio"

I bust up laughing every time, mostly because I picture him looking like Neo while doing it.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Brown
My favorite Shakespeare play is "King Lear." The best version I've seen of this play is Kurosawa's "Ran." I cannot recommend any other movie version of this play, but I hear that the version with John Hurt as Fool is quite good. That is the 1984 version made for British television. It starred Laurence Olivier (who must have been in his late 70s) as Lear. It also had Diana Rigg as Regan. If your video store has it, try to rent it - I think you'll enjoy this one.

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Lastly....I have had one person seriously recommend "Tromeo and Juliet" to me...knowing what (little) you know about me, should I see it?
Any serious fan of Shakespeare and the Toxic Avenger should see it. It has: girl on girl action, mutants, pornagraphers, juliet chained naked in a plexiglass box and A HAPPY ENDING! How many versions of Romeo and Juliet can say that?

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer

Any serious fan of Shakespeare and the Toxic Avenger should see it. It has: girl on girl action, mutants, pornagraphers, juliet chained naked in a plexiglass box and A HAPPY ENDING! How many versions of Romeo and Juliet can say that? yeah, but should I watch it with my kids, that's what I want to know...I mean, culture is good, right?

...actually, it was a friend of my 14-yr-old son who recommended it to me. She's...unique...

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Mercutio
yeah, but should I watch it with my kids, that's what I want to know...I mean, culture is good, right?

...actually, it was a friend of my 14-yr-old son who recommended it to me. She's...unique...
Uh...no. Don't watch it with your kids. Watch it at your bachelor friends house.

She sounds unique. Kinda girl I would've liked in high school.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Typical US smarta** answer - Porky's III.

Sincere answer - Branagh's Henry V doth rocketh.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Mercutio
yeah, but should I watch it with my kids, that's what I want to know...I mean, culture is good, right?

...actually, it was a friend of my 14-yr-old son who recommended it to me. She's...unique...
It's pure schlock. Do you like schlock? Do you like to share schlock with your kids?

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

It's pure schlock. Do you like schlock? Do you like to share schlock with your kids? My son loved the Carnosaur series--I think that was Troma, or folks formerly associated with them. I have not, as yet, let him see the Toxic Avenger. Frankly, though, I watched it a couple of times (it was on cable at a friend's house a long, long time back).

I just hear they've done ...interesting things with my character...

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Mercutio
My son loved the Carnosaur series--I think that was Troma, or folks formerly associated with them. I have not, as yet, let him see the Toxic Avenger. Frankly, though, I watched it a couple of times (it was on cable at a friend's house a long, long time back).

I just hear they've done ...interesting things with my character...

Nope, Carnosaur was pure Roger Corman, if I am not mistaken. Let me put it this way, if Roger Corman had never been born, MST3k would have had their pool of bad movies to choose from cut in half. ROger Corman made bad movies, but he made them in quantity.

[Hexxenhammer]

Carnosaur is a great movie.

No one has mentioned "Scotland PA" yet. I have only seen a bit of it, but it's Macbeth at a 70's fast food joint with Christopher Walken as Inspector McDuff.

I love movies based on Shakespeare. For a paper in college about adapting Shakespeare I wrote a few scenes for a sci-fi Macbeth. I'll see if I can dig it up.

[Glory]

Okay, I'll admit it. I liked Romeo and Juliet with Decaprio and Danes. It captures what I feel is the central theme of the play, the madness of young love and the impetuousness of adolescents. Teens are still committing suicide over their boy/ girlfriends. They still think that everything that happens to them is something worth dying over. Also, John Leguizamo is utterly underrated as a performer.

The Lion in Winter with Katharine Hepburn is still one of my favourites.

The Midsummer Night's Dream by Shakespear in Central Park; is that the one with William Hurt? I saw a video of that in high school. I liked it.

As for Shakespearean themes and references; L A Story is wonderful combination of Midsummer Night's Dream and The Tempest.

Kiss me Kate is always fun.

Several years ago, there was TV version of the Tempest with Molly Ringwald which was neat. I have not seen it since it's original airing so I have no idea how I would see it today.

For the funniest version of Richard III ever, Neil Simon's The Goodbye Girl with Richard Dreyfus is brilliant. His struggling actor forced to play Richard as a flamer is what got him his Oscar.

What about Twelfth Night? There was nice version of that a few years ago. Of course, that is one of my favourite plays so I'll take any version I can get.

Regarding Hamlet, the play is oedipal, and freudian and that is that. I have never seen a version which worked that wasn't slanted that way. Remember, Hamlet is 15. He is whiny child who is afraid to do what he thinks he must do and is trying to act grown up when he is not. He isn't ready for the burden he has been handed. If he were, he would have inherited the throne.

Glory

[Hexxenhammer]

Jeez! How could I forget Prospero's Books? A wacky art-film adaptation of the Tempest. Lots of naked people dancing and posing all over the place.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Glory
Remember, Hamlet is 15. He is whiny child who is afraid to do what he thinks he must do and is trying to act grown up when he is not.But the grave-digger in Act V specifically says that Prince Hamlet is 30 years old. Also, Yorick, whom the Prince remembers well from his childhood, has been dead for 23 years.

I think Shakespeare did not pay too much attention to the age consistency issue. In my opinion, Hamlet can be plausibly played as being anywhere from 20 to 30. But no one would believe the soliloquy came out of the mouth of a 15-year-old.

[Glory]

Hamlet suffers from a couple of internal inconsistencies. One of these is the young prince's age. It makes no sense for Hamlet to be the thrity that that scene claims he is. At that time, 30 was old. He would have been king had he been fully grown when his father died. The constant references to his being young make it impossible for him to have been thirty. !5 is, in fact pushing the age ceiling.

Shakespeare often had young characters speaking with wisdom beyond their years. The audience was not supposed to take things as litterally as we do today.

Lastly, Hamlet was pretending he was crazy. His references to being older than he was and to having known someone who died before he was born can be interpreted as part of that charade.

Glory

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Glory
Hamlet suffers from a couple of internal inconsistencies. One of these is the young prince's age. It makes no sense for Hamlet to be the thrity that that scene claims he is. At that time, 30 was old. He would have been king had he been fully grown when his father died.But if the literary Danish monarchy of the play had been following Norman traditions of primogeniture, Claudius could not have become king, either. He would have assumed the office of regent (or its equivalent). Also, it's not clear why Fortinbras would have become king.

However, some scholarly sources (the Arden edition among them) indicate that the Danish throne in the play was not hereditary, such that the assumption of the throne by the brother instead of the son would have been permissible with the consent of the nobility. This election would have been feasible for Claudius to arrange, particularly given the fact that Prince Hamlet was conveniently out of the country at the time of King Hamlet's murder.

Also, in one of the French antecedent versions of the Hamlet story (which probably influenced the version of the story that was, in turn, read by Shakespeare), neither the elder Hamlet nor Claudius ruled by birthright, but rather by marriage to Queen Gertrude. Shakespeare may simply have inherited the succession situation from his sources, and he did not make the effort to elaborate or explain the questions it raises.

[Regnad Kcin]

I recall a delightful made-for-television (on videotape) production of Taming of the Shrew from the early '80s. Starred John Cleese!

BTW, I very much enjoyed the brief snippets of R&J as staged within Shakespeare In Love.

[Ed]

Roman Polanski's version of MacBeth was the best I have seen.

I have seen the DVD of Burton in Hamlet and, crummy production values notwithstanding, he is the best.

Fishbourne as Othello is execrable. It is only second to Matrix reloaded for pure bad acting. Whenever Branugh was in a scene with him his lack of skill was palpable. Horrid, just plain horrid.

There was a tv cycle of the Shakespeare plays done by BBC, I think. It was 20 years ago or more but I recall them as being excellent.

[demon]

Welles "Macbeth"...oops, "The Scottish Play".

I think he just about got it right. Very angst ridden and atmospheric.

I like his Othello too, as has been mentioned already, the Turkish Bath scene is great, also I like the way Welles uses some dramatic license in starting the film at the end of the play with Iago already captured and caged and fullfilling Lodovico`s promise:

"If there be any cunning cruelty,
That can torment him much, and hold him long,
It shall be his..."

[Badger]

I must be the only one to remember the Moonlighting episode that was done as a musical "Taming of the Shrew".

[Glory]

Originally posted by Badger
I must be the only one to remember the Moonlighting episode that was done as a musical "Taming of the Shrew".

I remember it well but I don't recall it being a musical. I remember all the iambic pentameter and the use of "Close To You" on lute for Bianca's wedding was inspired, but I don't think it was a musical.

Taming of the Shrew was, by the way, the inspiration for Moonlighting, according to Glen Gordon Caron.

Glory

[Badger]

Bruce Willis' singing in it is what inspired me to pick up his album "Return of Bruno".

I didn't know that Shrew inspired Moonlighting, though. But now that you mention it, the wordplay between Maddie and David fits.

[whitefork]

Originally posted by Brown
Actually, Reeves was okay in that role because it was a shallow character with no motivation. Don John is one of Shakespeare's weakest one-dimensional bad guys, and since Reeves has trouble acting beyond one dimension, the role was pretty well suited for him.

I suspect that Reeves was hired in part because of one line, in which he speaks of "the most exquisite Claudio." Reeves utters "exquisite" much like he utters "excellent" in the "Bill and Ted" movies. Aha! I think I get it now. Thank you.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Glory
Okay, I'll admit it. I liked Romeo and Juliet with Decaprio and Danes. It captures what I feel is the central theme of the play, the madness of young love and the impetuousness of adolescents. Teens are still committing suicide over their boy/ girlfriends. They still think that everything that happens to them is something worth dying over. Also, John Leguizamo is utterly underrated as a performer.

I agree.

People always get Romeo and Juliet wrong. It isn't about love, unless you have Borderline Personality Disorder. It's about adolescent infatuation, sex, and violence.

The best production of A Midsummer Night's Dream was, I'm ashamed to admit, directed by my mother with a community college cast. Although the movie version with Mickey Rooney as a youngster is pretty good, too.

The best production of Much Ado about Nothing was an RSC production around 1985. I still have the soundtrack on a 12 " 45. I also saw a later production and an earlier production that had Marshall Efram (sp?) of The Great American Dream Machine and, of late, the computer game The Space Bar rolling around like a glob of mercury singing "Hey nonny nonny."

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Badger
I must be the only one to remember the Moonlighting episode that was done as a musical "Taming of the Shrew".

No, I remember it, and it was excellent.

[hgc]

I'll add to the chorus of agreement for Branaugh's Hank5. I also love the Richard III with McKellen. Also Scotland, PA is one of the best 'alternate setting' Macbeth's ever made.

Now a disappointment: I saw on TV recently, for the first time, the 1936 version of "As You Like It," one of my favorite Shakespeare plays. It has Olivier as Orlando, and he's fine, but Elizabeth Bergner is wretched as Rosalind -- ruins the entire thing.

[Cleopatra]

I saw Hamlet 2000 with Ethan Hawk on DVD since some of you recommended it and I am sorry but I didn't like it at all.

I remember how many lessons we devoted to the concept of theatrical time while we were studying ancient Greek dramatology. Since Shakespeare is considered the fourth of the tragics regardless if he was aware of the work of the Greeks or not I guess that some things apply.

Theatrical time is the time that the actors need in order to move around the stage.The theatrical time that an actor needs in order to cross 1m on the stage in enormous!

The ancient poets and Shakespeare who was an actor too, knew very well how to play with the meter in order to cover the theatrical time.

A film in NY that uses the Shakespearean poetry crashes in the most vulgar way every notion of theatrical time that the poet took into consideration when he composed his play. The result? It's very difficult to follow the text and although Hamlet is not my favorite play I felt that It was a pity to destroy it.

Some tricks were good. I particularly liked the video trick that "narrated" Hamlet's monologues/thoughts. Some scenes were powerful. The first meeting of Hamlet with the ghost was good but was the ghost that mad? I don't remember that.
Oh I also liked the first meeting of Hamlet with Rosengratz and Gilderstern in that club. That was good.

The finale lacked the climax therefore it was a catastrophy. Ethan Hawk was "Hamletian" in the looks but you can't really tell when he gets crazy, his performance was rather flat.

I have a question.

Does anybody know anything about Shakespearean dramatology? Was it acceptable in Shakespeare's time to show the bloodsheds on the scene? I am asking because in the Greek tragedies it's totally unacceptable unless... they are put on scene by a British director who doesn't hesitate to present the whole bloodshed something that I attribute to the Shakespearean tradition. I wonder if I am right.

The next play I will see is the modern version of Romeo and Juliet.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

The next play I will see is the modern version of Romeo and Juliet. NOooooo! Don't do it!



I so hate DiCaprio...

[Cleopatra]

Yes, Di Caprio is the reason I haven't seen it yet but many people have said good things about the movie.

[Cleopatra]

This afternoon I saw on DVD Richard III with Ian MacKellan and I adored it.

It seems that swing and the '30ies suit well...on Shakespeare whilst techno doesn't :)


Of course for one more time I remembered why Shakespeare is not a favorite, all those logical fallacies in the plot are too much for my classical taste.

The cast was great. The script was great, it was fast and it had its own rythme, some scenes were very good. I particularly liked the scene of Clarence's monologue in the Tower just before he gets murdered, maybe the reason why I liked it so much is because Nigel Hawthorn is one of my favorite British actors. Actors that play on stage are so different than the cinema actors ...they know how to breathe.

Anyway. Very good film and within the Shakespearean spirit which ever this might be.Another proof that Hamlet is the worse play that was ever been composed and Shakespeare should always be taken lightly; like swing music :)

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

Anyway. Very good film and within the Shakespearean spirit which ever this might be.Another proof that Hamlet is the worse play that was ever been composed and Shakespeare should always be taken lightly; like swing music :) :rolleyes: ...my kingdom for an asp...:D

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Mercutio
:rolleyes: ...my kingdom for an asp...:D

LOL

Come-on Mercutio somebody must hate the Bard in this forum, somebody should play that role so as his lovers compose great posts and win the language award... :p

I haven't spent time studying the Shakespearean literature so, is Shakespeare considered a misogynist the way Euripides is?

Poor Eurypides! If he dared to depict a wife accepting an engagement ring from the murderer of her husband over his dead body he would be expelled from Athens ....

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

I haven't spent time studying the Shakespearean literature so, is Shakespeare considered a misogynist the way Euripides is?
Actually, there is a very good argument that Shakespeare's favorite characters, and the most complex, were his women (with 2-1/2 exceptions). Aside from Hamlet, Falstaff, and perhaps Mercutio *blush*, Shakespeare's women tend to be more complex than his men. Cleopatra, of course, and Portia, Kate the shrew, Beatrice, Rosalind, Viola, Lady MacBeth...

...the argument is not mine, though...I have been looking for my source on this, and can't find it. I'll follow this up when I do.

[Cleopatra]

I understand that. Medea is a woman's character that has no match in perfection but because of her and other heroines but mostly because of her Eurypides was accused of misogynism.

[Ms.Tirius]

Al Pacino's "Looking for Richard" A deconstruction, how to movie about Richard III.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116913/


Mazursky/Cassevetties version of "Tempest"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084776/



Saw this on TV a few years ago, forgot where.
The Complete Works of William Shakespeare (Abridged)

http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0301126/

[epepke]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Actually, there is a very good argument that Shakespeare's favorite characters, and the most complex, were his women (with 2-1/2 exceptions). Aside from Hamlet, Falstaff, and perhaps Mercutio *blush*, Shakespeare's women tend to be more complex than his men. Cleopatra, of course, and Portia, Kate the shrew, Beatrice, Rosalind, Viola, Lady MacBeth...

Accusing Shakespeare of misogyny (or racism or some other -ism) is a bit of a parlor game.

The thing is, he was pretty damned good at exploring human emotion in a way that still holds up. A lot of people wrote more stuff than he did, but nobody had the consistent quality. Being that good, he's bound to be a prime target for projectile snot. If one is talentless, what better a goal than to put down Shakespeare to a sympathetic audience?

[Cleopatra]

Tonight I saw on DVD The Taming of the Shrew directed by Franco Jeffirelli with Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton.

Great movie, very Shakespearean , Jeffirelli is a chameleon, he knows how to get under the skin of each historical era and he certainly knows how to direct masses of actors and complicated,rich scenes.

Taylor was ok Burton was just great ( Merc you were right!). Burton played a perfect Petruccio at least the way I have interpreted the character, he was really good especially in the details. I liked it that he played his as a vulgar peasant and not as a dandee who pretends to be a peasant just to tame Kate.

I think that tomorrow I will see Polanski's Macbeth.

[Dogwood]

Speaking of Keanu and Shakespeare, "My Own Private Idaho" is a surprisingly decent film which leans heavily on Henry IV as a backdrop. River Phoenix was pretty good in this.

[roger]

Okay, since some of you are straying from the theme a bit, I will too. I adore Barber's opera Antony and Cleopatra. (don't get a big head cleo, I'm not talking about you :cool: )

[epepke]

Originally posted by Dogwood
Speaking of Keanu and Shakespeare, "My Own Private Idaho" is a surprisingly decent film which leans heavily on Henry IV as a backdrop. River Phoenix was pretty good in this.

Yeah, that was good.

If we're going to include almost-but-not-really-Shakespeare movies, I suggest Ran (King Lear), Forbidden Planet (The Tempest), and West Side Story (Romeo and Juliet), and Strange Brew (Hamlet).

[Oregon_Skeptic]

Originally posted by Cleopatra: I think that tomorrow I will see Polanski's Macbeth.

For my money, this is the best version of the Scottish play. Superb adaptation and considered by many critics to be the bloodiest production of the work.

Also originally posted by Cleopatra: Was it acceptable in Shakespeare's time to show the bloodsheds on the scene?
Yes, bloodshed was very much a part of the English stage in the Bard's day. Plays had to compete against public entertainment like bear-baiting, hence one of the reasons that so many Eliabethan dramas are bloody. In some productions of Titus Adronicus the actor playing Lavina would spit out a piece of raw liver during the rape and mutilation scene to show that her tongue had been cut out.

[a_unique_person]

How did I miss this thread? Romeo and Juliet by that universally acclaimed AUSTRALIAN director, Baz Lurhmann, (we Australian always have to do that, we are so insecure about success, except when it comes to sport), was great, IMHO. Young love takes on the real world, and loses, as it always must.

I loved Westside story. I just love seeing dancing, singing and music. The acting was a bit remiss, but the rest was first rate. It was great to see the US producing something quintessentially American that I could love. That first scene, from the helicopter shot, to the gang, to the dancing. Nothing was amiss. You could feel the menace in the gang. They were dancing, but the dancing was so athletic and used so much strength, you knew that if they were out to beat you up, they could. My wife and I were on the couch at the end, bawling our eyes out.

Richard III, with Ian MacKellan was great.

Polanskis witches were terrific.

I have to add a disclaimer here, I struggled with Shakespeare at school, but I have come to love the piercing insights that he had into human nature. In a few words, he could say more than many people would say in a whole book.

One thing I have always wondered, the biggest barrier between Shakespeare and today is the language. I really can't believe it is that big a deal to have a talented writer take ye olde Englishe and paraphrase it to modern English. As someone who is slow to pick up languages, I spend more time trying to translate than actually enjoying the product.

Is it that big a deal to re-write the plays? A line for line translation that is immediately comphrehensible, that still flows, and respects the original. I think a lot of people would appreciate that. It is not to hard to see that the basic product would have much more popularity if this was done. There are no end of products that fiddle with the setting, take the basic premise and work on it, etc. But no -one has the guts to take the original language, and make it modern. It's not sacrilige, you won't be dammned to hell forever.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Oregon_Skeptic
In some productions of Titus Adronicus the actor playing Lavina would spit out a piece of raw liver during the rape and mutilation scene to show that her tongue had been cut out. What??? :eek:

This was unthinkable in the ancient greek theater.

Unique!!! What you propose is a sacrilege! Also, have in mind that since Shakespeare was an actor himself he was composing his plays bearing in his mind the severe theatrical time. As I mentioned in a previous post in this thread, in modern productions that have simplified the language the actors cannot even move appropriately.

It's like ripping a song off its tune.

[kookbreaker]

Has anyone seen A midwinter's Tale about an actor having a nervous breakdown and deciding to do a Shakespeare play in a small village during X-mas time.

He chooses Hamlet as the play. Happy holiday fun.

Loads of fun, and about the only thing with Joan Collins in it (in a bit part, mind you) that I can stand.

Almost ruining it at the end is one of the actresses from Absolutely Fabulous (the daughter in that series plays one of the main characters) trying to fake a Texas accent. Quite possibly the worst accent I have ever heard in a movie, hands down.

But a good movie, nontheless.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
This afternoon I saw on DVD Richard III with Ian MacKellan and I adored it.

It seems that swing and the '30ies suit well...on Shakespeare whilst techno doesn't :)

The Ian MacKellan Richard III was brilliant. I liked how wossername was a morphine addict, because it made the character make a lot more sense.

I think the 1930s worked for that because it was the most recent time in which that kind of intrigue would have made sense. I also so a RSC production of Julius Caesar with an almost Soviet feel to it, and that worked quite well. Much Ado about Nothing works pretty well set in Victorian times.

I think a Romeo and Juliet would work well in modern times, but it hasn't been done yet.

[epepke]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Is it that big a deal to re-write the plays? A line for line translation that is immediately comphrehensible, that still flows, and respects the original.

Aside, I agree with everything else you said. Except that the acting in West Side Story makes a lot more sense when compared to the acting style of the times.

But with respect to this, I've seen a lot of attempts to do this (I'm from a theatre family and have seen lots of plays, especially Shakespeare. I had seen fifty Broadway productions by the time I was ten.), and I haven't seen one that really works.

It's much better when an actor reads the words as if they were modern words. Actors should say "fie" as if they were saying "f*ck" but still say "fie," to give one small example.

[Piscivore]

Okay, am I going to get crucified for saying I liked Calista Flockheart's "Midsummernight's Dream"?

[epepke]

Originally posted by Piscivore
Okay, am I going to get crucified for saying I liked Calista Flockheart's "Midsummernight's Dream"?

I didn't see that one, but the trailers looked really good.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by a_unique_person

One thing I have always wondered, the biggest barrier between Shakespeare and today is the language. I really can't believe it is that big a deal to have a talented writer take ye olde Englishe and paraphrase it to modern English. As someone who is slow to pick up languages, I spend more time trying to translate than actually enjoying the product.
I cannot think of a modern writer whom I would trust this to. The movies based on Shakespear's plays but using modern language (things like "ten things I hate about you") are pretty much forgettable. An important exception would be "West Side Story", I would suggest because the language is stylised, as it is in the original. The original language is not only a play, it is poetry.

Is it that big a deal to re-write the plays? A line for line translation that is immediately comphrehensible, that still flows, and respects the original.
I think this is an impossible task. Even translating modern poetry or plays from one language to another loses something. To translate from another era could flow and be comprehensible only at the cost of respecting the original. (I would love to be proven wrong, but every attempt I have ever seen of "improving" the language by making it accessible has instead ripped the viscera right out of the language.)
I think a lot of people would appreciate that. It is not to hard to see that the basic product would have much more popularity if this was done. There are no end of products that fiddle with the setting, take the basic premise and work on it, etc. But no -one has the guts to take the original language, and make it modern. It's not sacrilige, you won't be dammned to hell forever. The guts to do it? No, the brains to do it. It is not that it is sacrilige, but rather that it is a bad idea.

Think about it--the reason for the recent rash of shakespeare films is, in part, the fact that you don't have to pay the author any royalties. That one expense is cut drastically. Any writer looking to make a name could easily take a play and re-write it; I think the likely reason we have not seen the result on the screen yet is....*drumroll*....they stink! What you are modestly proposing is, I think, a dreadful thing.

For once, I find myself in complete agreement with Cleopatra about Shakespeare! :p

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Mercutio


For once, I find myself in complete agreement with Cleopatra about Shakespeare! :p [/B]

*AUP starts to suspect he might be right about something for once*

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Piscivore
Okay, am I going to get crucified for saying I liked Calista Flockheart's "Midsummernight's Dream"? As bad as Kevin Kline's Hamlet was (oh, trust me, it was worse than that), I thought Kline rocked as Nick Bottom in this production of Midsummer Night's Dream. A pompous, self-important actor type? It was perfect casting.

*AUP starts to suspect he might be right about something for once* Hmm...you certainly are due... But rewriting the Bard? Nah...

:D

[roger]

Ran was in Japanese (King Lear set in Feudal Japan). It is stunning. I'm sure there are tons of translated Shakespeare.

I love the poetry of Shakespeare, but I think he survives translation. Since I speak English, I prefer the original, thanks.

Anyway, here's a site that offers modern translations: http://www.allshakespeare.com/


Here's Shakespeare in many different languages: http://www.unibas.ch/shine/translatorshung.htm

In the original Klingon: http://www.kli.org/stuff/Hamlet.html

Maybe Tibetan is more your speed? http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040905-035902-8120r.htm

(I'm imagining causing simultaneous aneurisms in Cleo and Merc. Perhaps I'll win the million?)

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by roger

Anyway, here's a site that offers modern translations: http://www.allshakespeare.com/
...
(I'm imagining causing simultaneous aneurisms in Cleo and Merc. Perhaps I'll win the million?) They want 50 bucks for me to read a translation. I'm more likely to spend the money to avoid a translation. No samples, or am I just looking at the wrong place?

I shudder to think what the queen mab speech must look like in translation. Or "to be or not to be"....

[epepke]

I had a talk with my mother, who gives Shakespeare workshops, about the modernization of language, and I've thought a bit more about that. I still think it's more productive to use the original language but speak it as if it were modern.

I'd like to challenge AUP and others to come up with particularly difficult language bits of Shakespeare and see if we can come up with a way of getting the point across.

I'm not an actor or a director or any of that crap, but I'm trained as an ESL teacher, and I think some of the techniques used in immersive language courses might be useful, so I'll bring that to the table.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by epepke
I had a talk with my mother, who gives Shakespeare workshops, about the modernization of language, and I've thought a bit more about that. I still think it's more productive to use the original language but speak it as if it were modern.

I'd like to challenge AUP and others to come up with particularly difficult language bits of Shakespeare and see if we can come up with a way of getting the point across.

I'm not an actor or a director or any of that crap, but I'm trained as an ESL teacher, and I think some of the techniques used in immersive language courses might be useful, so I'll bring that to the table.

AUP put a very interesting issue that doesn't have to do with Shakespeare only. You know in Greece since our language is very old and it evolves for thousands of years we have this kind of discussions all the time.

For example the language of the Gospels is the Greek Koine (http://indoeuro.bizland.com/tree/gree/koine.html) ( The common language) that an educated Greek can understand without any difficulty. But since our kids graduate schools less and less educated some people have proposed to " translate" the Gospel to Modern Greek!!!!

Some weeks ago I passed by the church and it was the time the priest was reading the Gospel, first he read it normally and then he started reading it in Modern Greek. I didn't know that they have introduced Modern Greek in Church and for 5 minutes I was starring trying to understand what the priest was doing! Was he preaching already?It was dreadful.

I refuse to give in easy solutions that's why I object to the modernization of the texts. Each style carry each flavor.

By reciting the verses in the Shakesperean way is like we breathe the way those people did.We sort of synchronize breaths.

Do you find a more solid way to touch the past than that?

I don't wish to derail the thread, maybe the subject of the modernization of texts and plays needs a separate thread although the best discussions start this way though.:)

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Cleopatra

By reciting the verses in the Shakesperean way is like we breathe the way those people did.We sort of synchronize breaths.

Do you find a more solid way to touch the past than that?
Wonderfully put.

I have rarely had the chance to read and understand something in two languages (hey, I'm an American), but one instance really stood out. I read Freud's "humor and its relation to the unconscious" in translation and in the original; the translation gets every bit of the meaning across, but none of the "breathing", to use Cleopatra's term. Freud won the Goethe prize for literature, but I never figured out why by reading the translations of his works. Only by reading it as he wrote it does the beauty of his language come through--and I would say it comes through almost independently of what he is saying. As I said in a previous post in this thread, Shakespeare's plays are not merely dialogue, they are also poetry (even when they are prose). Some of the language is, to me, breathtakingly beautiful, even when only a minor part of the play (Caliban's "be not afeard..." speech springs to mind as an example)

The banter between Mercutio and Romeo, or between Petruchio and Kate, or between Benedick and Beatrice (or I could go on and on--no surprise there) are dependent on, again, Shakespeare's "breath", and if you rewrote the scene through modern lungs, something would be lost. Something terribly important, I might add (especially if you buy Bloom's argument that our own modern ideas about personality and consciousness are shaped by Shakespeare's dialogues and soliloquys).

[epepke]

Originally posted by Mercutio
The banter between Mercutio and Romeo, or between Petruchio and Kate, or between Benedick and Beatrice (or I could go on and on--no surprise there) are dependent on, again, Shakespeare's "breath", and if you rewrote the scene through modern lungs, something would be lost. Something terribly important, I might add (especially if you buy Bloom's argument that our own modern ideas about personality and consciousness are shaped by Shakespeare's dialogues and soliloquys).

I see what you're saying, but the kind of recitation of Shakespeare that we usually take for granted was a product of the 19th century, the same school of acting that resulted in the early silent melodramas. So I don't see why it should dominate. From the best guesses of linguists, American Standard English pronunciation, or even a drawl like in the Ozarks, Texas and the North Country in England is more like Shakespearian pronunciation than the clipped Home Counties English.

The banter of which you speak I can see as being delivered in a New York Puerto Rican style or even a Japanese style and be closer to the spirit of the original than the 19th century style.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by epepke
I see what you're saying, but the kind of recitation of Shakespeare that we usually take for granted was a product of the 19th century, the same school of acting that resulted in the early silent melodramas. So I don't see why it should dominate. From the best guesses of linguists, American Standard English pronunciation, or even a drawl like in the Ozarks, Texas and the North Country in England is more like Shakespearian pronunciation than the clipped Home Counties English.

The banter of which you speak I can see as being delivered in a New York Puerto Rican style or even a Japanese style and be closer to the spirit of the original than the 19th century style. If you watch the movie "songcatcher", they make the point that the English language of Shaksper was carried to Appalachia and stayed hermetically sealed in the hollers there...I have heard Hamlet done in an Appalachian accent, and it flows beautifully. The "t' be, 'r not t' be" speech was most impressive.

I guess it is appropriate for this thread...just, moments ago, finished watching West Side Story on TCM...You'd think after how often I have seen it, or R&J, I might be immune to the ending by now. No such luck...must be something in my eye, the screen is all blurry now...

[epepke]

Originally posted by Mercutio
If you watch the movie "songcatcher", they make the point that the English language of Shaksper was carried to Appalachia and stayed hermetically sealed in the hollers there...I have heard Hamlet done in an Appalachian accent, and it flows beautifully. The "t' be, 'r not t' be" speech was most impressive.

I haven't seen that movie. But I am a linguist, and a cunning one at that. Appalachia isn't exactly sealed, as it was a mixture of West Country and North Country and has evolved since then. But it's still pretty close.

The reason that I suggest that the bantering could be Japanese is that I stayed in a Japanese hotel and hung out at the bar the last time I was in LA. Before that, I had seen a lot of martial arts movies. I never understood how someone could say something and then say, "Hahaha!" But the people in the bar did that when talking to each other. The "Hahaha!" I interpreted as a linguistic convention of saying, "This is just a game. It does not mean personal disrespect."

An English speaker wouldn't have the "Hahaha!" but I think it would work really well.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Mercutio
.You'd think after how often I have seen it, or R&J, I might be immune to the ending by now. No such luck...must be something in my eye, the screen is all blurry now...

This is the magic of the art of theatrical speech, Mercutio. I experience the same phaenomenon with the greek tragedies especially with Oedipus Rex( I mention this particular play because I have studied it at the University ad nauseam). I get chills every time I see the scene in which the identity of Oedipus is revealed...

Some people say that classical plays have this effect , I believe that it's the structure of the theatrical speech that does the trick.

I saw Macbeth of Polanski and I didn't like it at all. I only liked the Witches but even those characters suffered by Polaski's sex mania.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
This is the magic of the art of theatrical speech, Mercutio. I experience the same phaenomenon with the greek tragedies especially with Oedipus Rex( I mention this particular play because I have studied it at the University ad nauseam). I get chills every time I see the scene in which the identity of Oedipus is revealed...

Some people say that classical plays have this effect , I believe that it's the structure of the theatrical speech that does the trick.

Forgive me if this is a bit heretical here, but I think that the language in plays is intended for actors, that is, people with special skills to turn language into drama.

Although many of them may be fun to read, I don't think they're designed to be read. I think that they're designed to be acted and directed.

So people who have only experienced the classics or Shakespeare or Lope de Vega or Tirso de Molinas or Moliere or whomever through just reading them are missing something.

[Cleopatra]

Oh definetely yes! I think that I have mentioned previously that the word theatre comes from the ancient greek verb theomai ( pronounced: the'ome) that means "I watch action". So yes you are right.

The same observation might stand for the theatrical plays that are produced for the radio. I love listening a play on the radio, I believe that it's better to listen a play on the radio than watching it on TV ( although there is one exception : BBC's productions of the Ancient Greek Dramas, exclusively for TV- it's something amazing) but there is something that is missing even on the radio.

Theater must be watched on the stage.

[epepke]

The same observation might stand for the theatrical plays that are produced for the radio. I love listening a play on the radio, I believe that it's better to listen a play on the radio than watching it on TV ( although there is one exception : BBC's productions of the Ancient Greek Dramas, exclusively for TV- it's something amazing) but there is something that is missing even on the radio.

Radio is quite special. The radio era in the US produced some amazing voice talents, people like Doodles Weaver and Mel Blank who could do anything with their voices.

In some ways, I think the limitations on an art form are as important as the art itself. Sometimes, I think, movies and computer games suffer simply because it's so easy to do impressive things. Having some sort of frame or stage in which to do the actions is, I think, important.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by epepke
Radio is quite special. The radio era in the US produced some amazing voice talents, people like Doodles Weaver and Mel Blank who could do anything with their voices.

I am the grand-daughter of a radio maniac( BTW I have a radio set that dates back to WWII , still sealed by the Germans!!). I have always had access to the British Radio but I didn't have a clue about the American one. Now with the broad band connection I have started to explore this field, the time difference is a limit though. The problem is that USA is a huge country and there are thousands of radio stations. I haven't finished yet exploring the jewish stations of NYC!!!

If you can point out to me american r/s that broadcast plays on line I would appreciate it because as we all know two things worth in life : European cinema and American theater. :)

In some ways, I think the limitations on an art form are as important as the art itself. Sometimes, I think, movies and computer games suffer simply because it's so easy to do impressive things. Having some sort of frame or stage in which to do the actions is, I think, important. That's a very astute observation. One could even say that it's the limitations that can turn a technique into Art. A friend who is a photographer told me once though that the absence of limitations in cinema is part of the nature of this Art. I haven't decided yet if this is nothing more than a ratioinalization or if this makes a fair point...

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
This is the magic of the art of theatrical speech, Mercutio. I experience the same phaenomenon with the greek tragedies especially with Oedipus Rex( I mention this particular play because I have studied it at the University ad nauseam). I get chills every time I see the scene in which the identity of Oedipus is revealed...
I think it is partly the speech...how could it not be...but in part, some of the things that really got to me were things that were different from the R&J original--things which lead me to believe that a very good interpretation into modern language would not work. The plays, both R&J and WSS, work as organic wholes. Having Juliet live at the end of R&J would simply not work, but having Maria close WSS in that manner was extraordinarily powerful. And of course, little things. Capulets and Montagues spoke the same language, had the same knowledge, and so Romeo & Juliet's interactions were of a completely different sort, linguistically, than Tony & Maria's. Learning to say "I love you" in a different language was very sweet in WSS, but of course would have no place in R&J.

There were other things as well, but I have no time at the moment...

[epepke]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Now with the broad band connection I have started to explore this field, the time difference is a limit though. The problem is that USA is a huge country and there are thousands of radio stations. I haven't finished yet exploring the jewish stations of NYC!!!

I'm not in a much better position to understand the radio in the US than you are. It seems to me that there isn't much radio theater that's national, although there is probably regional stuff that I'm not aware of. Most of the national radio theater happens occasionally happens on NPR. Prairie Home Companion does some radio theater, but it's mostly goofy.

I listen to a show called Theater of the Mind on WUFT FM (http://www.wuftfm.org/index.htm), which is a reasonably local Florida station. I think it's broadcast on the Internet, but I haven't tried it. It's mostly old radio shows, up until about 1965. It's on Sundays, 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM Eastern time, which is usually but not always GMT - 5.

WOR in New York used to have the Jean Shepherd show. But he's dead. I don't know if they have any reruns. He had a 45-minute show five times a week. It isn't exactly radio theater, more like storytelling. You may know Jean Shepherd from the movie A Christmas Story. I have about ten shows that I recorded when I was a kid. Almost all are excellent.

That's a very astute observation. One could even say that it's the limitations that can turn a technique into Art. A friend who is a photographer told me once though that the absence of limitations in cinema is part of the nature of this Art. I haven't decided yet if this is nothing more than a ratioinalization or if this makes a fair point...

Even in modern cinema, even when you can do almost anything within reason in CGI, there are a fair number of limitations. How do you show, for example, the inside of a cathedral with light streaming when the different brightnesses that the eye can see are 100 times greater than what you can show on film? How do you show a sunset, really? There's a whole lexicon of techniques.

[Sandy M]

I very much enjoyed Branagh's Henry V, Hamlet, Much Ado, McKellan's Richard III AND Olivier's Richard III, Olivier's Othello, Welles MacBeth; Kiss Me Kate is always fun, and even the Burton/Taylor version of Taming of the Shrew. I have to join the "nothing with DiCaprio" camp, though I DID see Gangs of New York and, shudder, Titanic. (liked the Little Old Lady and the special effects). Shakespear In Love was also enjoyable, and I recall a pretty conventional presentation of The Tempest, but I cannot remember who was in it. I couldn't watch Olivier's filmed version of Hamlet, but it was just that damned blond wig (or dye job?). I just couldn't get past it. Very shallow of me, I know.

Strange that no one has mentioned the VERY odd (bad? well....yeah) Branagh version of Love's Labour's Lost. As a '30s musical??? with predominantly non-singers/non dancers (Nathan Lane the only true Broadway musical performer in it)?? I have watched it several times however, with sort of the "car wreck" fasincation, I suppose.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Sandy M

Strange that no one has mentioned the VERY odd (bad? well....yeah) Branagh version of Love's Labour's Lost. As a '30s musical??? with predominantly non-singers/non dancers (Nathan Lane the only true Broadway musical performer in it)?? I have watched it several times however, with sort of the "car wreck" fasincation, I suppose. I have seen this...hmm....and yet, did not mention it as a favorite...hmm...well, at least it is not as bad as Kline's Hamlet.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by epepke

Although many of them may be fun to read, I don't think they're designed to be read. I think that they're designed to be acted and directed.

So people who have only experienced the classics or Shakespeare or Lope de Vega or Tirso de Molinas or Moliere or whomever through just reading them are missing something. I missed this earlier. I agree with you wholeheartedly--was it Bloom, though, who argues that they are best when read? If it was him, and you are familiar with that, could you comment? If it wasn't him, I'll find out who it was I am thinking of when I get back to the office...

[Sandy M]

Well, I though we were doing like/disliked, not just favorite, and that Branagh Love's Labour's Lost was so...odd, so I thought I'd mention it.

Now, I apparently have (fortunately it would seem) missed Kevin Kline's Hamlet. This is a movie? Hmmm.... I generally like Kline, but Hamlet is not a role I envision him in. Must have been pretty bad from the frequency with which it has been disdainfully mentioned in this thread. Must have ranked right up there with Richard Dreyfuss bizarre Richard III in "The Goodbye Girl," eh?

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Sandy M
Well, I though we were doing like/disliked, not just favorite, and that Branagh Love's Labour's Lost was so...odd, so I thought I'd mention it.
No, you are right and I am wrong on this. And in truth, I did not hate LLL, I just found it...well, as you say...odd.


Now, I apparently have (fortunately it would seem) missed Kevin Kline's Hamlet. This is a movie? Hmmm.... I generally like Kline, but Hamlet is not a role I envision him in. Must have been pretty bad from the frequency with which it has been disdainfully mentioned in this thread. Must have ranked right up there with Richard Dreyfuss bizarre Richard III in "The Goodbye Girl," eh? At least that Richard III was supposed to be strange. Kline's Hamlet was just excruciatingly bad. Think of Hamlet's advice to the players, and think of an actor who really, really needs to heed that advice. Then multiply it by a factor of Kline.

[Sandy M]

It is interesting how many (American?) actors who are otherwise competent in many other roles falter when they tackle (the language of) Shakespeare. Perhaps The Method is not of much use in intrepreting Shakespeare?

I do think of Kline as more of a comic actor, and while I do not presume to say he is not/cannot be a dramatic actor, Hamlet would not be something I would expect him to do well, but I also, obviously incorrectly, would assume that at least some actors would know their own limitations. Apparently not. ;)

Not really related to the thread in general (Shakespeare), but I do find it fascinating that while many British actors can flawlessly essay American accents in many varieties, American actors rarely can return the favor in essaying British accents. I think particularly of Kevin Costner (don't get me started!) and his on-again-off-again accent in his dreadful Robin Hood. I keep getting bombarded with the commercials for some new tv series, "House, MD" and it apparently starts a Brit, Hugh Laurie - but all the clips have him speaking without a trace of a British accent.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Mercutio
I missed this earlier. I agree with you wholeheartedly--was it Bloom, though, who argues that they are best when read? If it was him, and you are familiar with that, could you comment? If it wasn't him, I'll find out who it was I am thinking of when I get back to the office...

I'm not familiar with that, and I don't think it was he, so I guess not.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Sandy M
Not really related to the thread in general (Shakespeare), but I do find it fascinating that while many British actors can flawlessly essay American accents in many varieties, American actors rarely can return the favor in essaying British accents.

I quite disagree, here. There are some nominal Brits who spent their early years in the US who can do it, but the only Brit-to-adulthood I know of who could do an American accent was Peter Sellers. Most Brits, when they try to do an American accent, sound like they're from Cornwall.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Sandy M
I very much enjoyed Branagh's Henry V, Hamlet,

I liked Branagh's Hamlet, because practically all other versions of Hamlet that I've seen have Hamlet as your basic adolescent. But Branagh's version was actually Nietzschean, in a way.

As for the adolescent versions, I do think that Gibson did a good job. "Words, words, words" is, I think, one of the hardest lines in Shakespeare, and even though it was prop-based, I think he did it well. However, I didn't like how the ending was cut in that one.

Speaking of which, nobody has responded to my challenge for difficult passages.

[Sandy M]

Epepke - Well, maybe my ear's a little off. My mother and grandmother (born in Nottingham and London, respectively) and my greatgrandmother (Birkinhead) retained their accents through their lives, so it isn't as if I'm unfamiliar with British accents (not to mention watching all that Shakespeare, eh?) but I would not presume to say I am familiar with all regional dialects. I was thinking in particular of actors like Barry Morse (the original Lt. Gerard in The Fugitive). Until I saw him on a late night talk show, years ago, I hadn't the least idea he was British. Hugh Laurie, in the commercials for "House, "sounds "accentless" (to me), and in the original Danger Man series with Patrick McGoohan, my recollection is that he did not sound British. I know McGoohan was born in the US, but I believe he left at quite a young age. I hear the traces of Mel Gibson's Aussie accent in his speech much more, despite the fact that he was - what? 12? when he left the U.S.

[epepke]

Originally posted by Sandy M
Epepke - Well, maybe my ear's a little off. My mother and grandmother (born in Nottingham and London, respectively) and my greatgrandmother (Birkinhead) retained their accents through their lives, so it isn't as if I'm unfamiliar with British accents (not to mention watching all that Shakespeare, eh?) but I would not presume to say I am familiar with all regional dialects. I was thinking in particular of actors like Barry Morse (the original Lt. Gerard in The Fugitive). Until I saw him on a late night talk show, years ago, I hadn't the least idea he was British. Hugh Laurie, in the commercials for "House, "sounds "accentless" (to me), and in the original Danger Man series with Patrick McGoohan, my recollection is that he did not sound British. I know McGoohan was born in the US, but I believe he left at quite a young age. I hear the traces of Mel Gibson's Aussie accent in his speech much more, despite the fact that he was - what? 12? when he left the U.S.

Being a cunning linguist, I don't have a concept of "accentless" and am pretty attuned to variations even in the US.

I don't remember Barry Morse, so I can't comment. You're referring, I presume, to the original Fugitive television series? I used to watch this as a kid, and while I don't remember the name Gerard, I remember a sort of Cornish drawl to the character who was trying to catch him.

I haven't seen the commercials for "House," either.

McGoohan has dual US/Irish citizenship and so is not really British, but I do hear a fairly strong British tone in his speech.

Peter Seller's midwestern accent when playing the President in Dr. Strangelove was excellent. There were only a couple of lines where he broke it.

[Sandy M]

Sorry, "accentless" was careless writing - I mean, not a noticeable British accent (I realize that covers a LOT of ground). McGoohan's has in all his recent roles spoken with what I presume is his natural slight Anglo/Irish (?) accent, but it seemed to me in the Danger Man series that he was supposed to be "American" and I vaguely remember an article where he stated that he was, indeed, supposed to sound American in that role, and that while he was also "John Drake" in Secret Agent, that series was originally made more for the British Market and so he spoke in his natural accent. Whatever. I still think most Brits' efforts at sounding "'Murrican" are more effective than most Americans' attempts at affecting British accents.:D

[epepke]

Originally posted by Sandy M
I still think most Brits' efforts at sounding "'Murrican" are more effective than most Americans' attempts at affecting British accents.:D

Maybe, but neither is very good. I'm probably bringing rarefied and esoteric sensibilities here, as I've studied lingiustics (historical, cultural/anthropological, and structural) quite a lot.

There's sort of a gross notion of "accentless." Many people tell me that I speak Spanish without an accent, by which I think they mean that it's not particularly Anglo. But I've spoken Spanish with Cubans and Mexicans, and the accents seem to me worlds apart. I probably have something between them, but I can adapt more-or-less to either accent. Maybe it's sort of like how Mel Blanc created the accent for Bugs Bunny by blending Brooklyn and Bronx accents.

Actually, the thing that is usually called the American "accentless" English is a regional dialect of southern California. I was quite surprised the first time I went to LA, because everywhere else I had ever been, most people had different accents. I grew up in New York with Midwestern parents and at around 11 moved to Florida with Bavarian grandparents. I had developed this accent which seemed to me slightly unusual, and people told me they couldn't tell where I was from by listening to it. When I went to LA, I realized that I had an LA accent.

I think it's because southern California is where most of the movies are made, and so a lot of people were exposed to that accent via Hollywood films. Maybe a lot of Brits see a lot of Hollywood movies. But still, they tend to go way overboard on the "r," the vowels are usually too clipped, and the delivery is too syllabic rather than phrasal.

[Sandy M]

Interesting that you would speak of SoCal being a source of "accentless" speech. I was born and have lived all my life in the San Francisco Bay Area, but I once took a little "test" that was supposed to determine your origin by how you prounounced various words. According to the little "test, " I was born east of the Allegheny Mts. I do tend to broaden SOME "A"s and, apparently, enunciate more clearly than some of my contemporaries. One of the tests was whether or not you pronounced each of these three words differently (which I do): merry, marry, Mary.

Obviously, you have a much more developed "ear" than I!:D

[epepke]

Originally posted by Sandy M
[B]Interesting that you would speak of SoCal being a source of "accentless" speech. I was born and have lived all my life in the San Francisco Bay Area, but I once took a little "test" that was supposed to determine your origin by how you prounounced various words. According to the little "test, " I was born east of the Allegheny Mts. I do tend to broaden SOME "A"s and, apparently, enunciate more clearly than some of my contemporaries. One of the tests was whether or not you pronounced each of these three words differently (which I do): merry, marry, Mary.

I wonder. Are any of your relatives from north of San Francisco? Because this is a characteristic of Marin county up to Washington.

I also pronounce all three differently, but the distinction between "Mary" and "merry" is fairly subtle.

[Sandy M]

No, all my maternal relatives (very few in the U.S.) are British, and my father's family are Spanish Californians from the San Jose and Central Valley (great-great-great grandparents from Almaden, Spain.)

[Mercutio]

Interesting...I can hear a difference in the way I pronounce merry, marry, and Mary, but I am guessing that most people would not notice that difference in my pronunciation. I guess both the pronunciation and the ear are factors in whether or not the words are homophones.

I had talks in college about this topic (while reading Pygmalion, naturally). A friend from Greece was convinced that all Americans sounded alike (she could hear no difference between Downeast Maine and Deep South, which shocked me--but this was her first semester in the states; I am guessing that by her senior year she thought differently), and was shocked that I could reliably tell the difference between speakers from Toledo and Cleveland (I lived halfway between the two), when most folk think a "Northern Ohio" accent is what both share. I am fascinated by accents; I have been told that I pick them up quickly and accurately, but my suspicion is that this is mostly in the ear of those particular beholders.

[Cleopatra]

Since I am foreigner who has lived both in UK and USA this is my 2c on accents.

Accents in Great Britain vary a lot as they vary in USA what distinguishes them though is that a foreigner can always understand an American ( even if he comes from Texas where they speak as if they are chewing gum all day long) but in many cases it's impossible to understand a British and i am not exaggerating right now. When I first went to England I almost felt that I didn't know the language, I couldn't understand what the blacks in the buses were saying and if you left the buildings of Cambridge you felt as if you have moved to a part of the country where they didn't speak the same language they spoke in those building or at least this is how it sounded.

In USA although I could tell the differences( for example I love the accent of the South--I am having in mind Virginia and Alabama that can be distinguished from the accent of Texas) but the most important thing is that I could always understand what people were talking about.

Even now you can notice the difference between the speakers of BBC and CNN. BBC people are speaking perfect and clear English and yet not as clear as the speakers of CNN do .In my opinion the later speak the most clear English one can listen to.

How was the joke that Professor Higgins was saying in My Fair Lady? If somebody speaks clear English he must not be British. :)

[epepke]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Since I am foreigner who has lived both in UK and USA this is my 2c on accents.

Accents in Great Britain vary a lot as they vary in USA what distinguishes them though is that a foreigner can always understand an American ( even if he comes from Texas where they speak as if they are chewing gum all day long) but in many cases it's impossible to understand a British and i am not exaggerating right now.

The Britsh don't necessarily even understand each other. I remember being in a shop, and a woman was asking for some cigarettes. The shopkeeper though she wanted "Players," but she was really asking for "Bel-Air."

[alfaniner]

Just saw Branagh's Henry V last weekend, as an accompaniment to doing a half-Marathon on the treadmill. (I don't know -- is it disrespectful to be working out when watching Shakespeare?) Not having seen or read much by the Bard, I was quite impressed by it. I highly doubt I would have understood all the subtleties had I experienced it in high school.

Loved the 1930's version of A Midsummer Night's Dream, and also recently saw the DiCaprio/Danes Romeo and Juliet. An intriguing look at the story to be sure, but most of my familiarity with it had been from seeing West Side Story many times, and I was drawing parallels to that, instead of the original story.

My "suspension of disbelief" was severely strained with Shakespeare in Love, mostly due to the fact that the guy playing Shakespeare looked exactly like Prince.

[Mr Clingford]

Branagh's Hamlet was veerrryy looong - 4 hours, with an intermission after 2 and a half hours which made me think 'if this is half way, then oh my god!'.

My problem with Hamlet is that nothing really happens for hours, then you get a decent body count in the final half hour - surely the death rate could have been better timed!

I enjoyed greatly the Baz Luhrman Romeo and Juliet, although the amount of cutting in the opening scene made my eyes hurt. (Just saw Terminater 3 again last night - I think Clare Danes looked her best in R & J!).

[Cleopatra]

Is there a speck of historical thruth in the info about Shakespeare that I learned lately: I have read that the Bard was a regular in a " Mermaid's Pub".

I checked a couple of sources but I didn't come up with something. Has any of you heard it before?

[bigred]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
Oh, I'll just spoil it.

Gee thanks.

:schmuck:

[bigred]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
Branagh's speech in Henry V makes me want to run out and go shoot arrows at frenchmen.
You need a speech to evoke that feeling?

[crimresearch]

So how come the theater geeks can differentiate between so many variations of language, accent, intent, and emotion, but they can't learn to pronounce 'dramaturge' correctly?
:p

[bigred]

Originally posted by epepke

In some ways, I think the limitations on an art form are as important as the art itself. Sometimes, I think, movies and computer games suffer simply because it's so easy to do impressive things.

Talk about the understatement of the year.

Not sure if this was posted but has anyone seen Pacino's Merchant of Venice (or is it not out yet, or....)? I've only heard about it recently in passing. Just wondering.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Is there a speck of historical thruth in the info about Shakespeare that I learned lately: I have read that the Bard was a regular in a " Mermaid's Pub".

I checked a couple of sources but I didn't come up with something. Has any of you heard it before? From my Oxford Companion to Shakespeare:Mermaid Tavern, a tavern in Bread Street, London, in which, according to Thomas Coryat, writing in 1615, aristocrats and intellectuals assembled on the first Friday of each month during the early years of the 17th century for convivial conversation. A verse letter of uncertain date and authorship, often ascribed to Beaumont, addressed from the country to Jonson, speaks nostalgically of the 'full mermaid wine' and the 'things' done and spoken there:

Words that have been
So nimble, and so full of subtle flame,
As if that everyone from whom they came
Had meant to put his whole wit in a jest
And had resolved to live a fool for the rest
Of his dull life.

There is no evidence that Shakespeare was a member of the circle. The legend that the Mermaid was the scene of the 'wit combats' which according to Thomas Fuller took place between Shakespeare and Jonson derives from William Gifford in his 1816 edition of Jonson. Too bad, actually; I think the character of Mercutio could only be improved with a little 'full mermaid wine'.

[Cleopatra]

Thank you Mercutio!

The absence of evidence doesn't constitute evidence of absence. :p

I choose to believe this legend. :)

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Thank you Mercutio!

The absence of evidence doesn't constitute evidence of absence. :p

I choose to believe this legend. :) I have only begun my search for evidence! The legend is so attractive, it is worth a few more peeks here and there...hmmm...an old prof of mine, if he is still alive, was president of the American Shakespeare Society. If anyone on this side of the pond knows, it would be him...

But for now...you believe in the absence of any evidence? or could you share where it is you heard the story (and perhaps narrow my search considerably)?

[Mercutio]

From a book review:This article presents information related to literature. "Hearken to a Persian Tale," as it was the fashion to say in the social essays of a hundred years ago, Noureddin All, an engaging youth just arrived at man's estate, was the favorite son of Schemseddin Mohammed, an officer of high rank in the household of the Shah of Persia. It is possible, to conceive of William Shakespeare sitting at the board of the Mermaid, with his left leg crossed over the knee of the right, and his head bowed on his hands, while Ben Jonson should stand up over against him and read into his face the praises of his giftedness and compliments to him on his lovableness.(emphasis mine) The review is of the book "Hearken to a Persian Tale", from 1868. Oddly enough, the database gives no authors, either of the book or of the review.

Edited to add...I did find one scholarly article on the question: Shakespeare at the Mermaid Tavern: Fact or Fiction? By: Winter, Guillaume; Folio: Shakespeare-Genootschap van Nederland en Vlaanderen, 2003; 10 (2): 5-18. (journal article) our library does not carry the journal, so interlibrary loan it is...unless someone else here has quicker access through their own library.

[Cleopatra]

Every evening I tune my Real Player with BBC Radio 2.
Radio2 is like comfort food or coca-cola, you know what taste to expect, it has some old-fashioned producers in the sense I like. I am positive that I heard about Mermaid's Pub( it's seem that it's a tavern) in one of the evening shows of Radio2 but I cannot remember to which one.

[TillEulenspiegel]

Shakespeare Movies

My fave was "Strange Brew " with Doug and Bob Mckenzie.

Ahh Hockey and Intrigue.......Who couldn't enjoy it. Max von Sydow as the antagonist!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086373/quotes

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
Shakespeare Movies

My fave was "Strange Brew " with Doug and Bob Mckenzie.

Ahh Hockey and Intrigue.......Who couldn't enjoy it. Max von Sydow as the antagonist!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086373/quotes I read a review of Strange Brew that called it a "Canadian version of a Cheech and Chong movie". IMO, nothing could be further from the truth. Strange Brew had allusions to a number of Shakespeare's plays, most memorably Hamlet. Loved it.

[Kiless]

Originally posted by alfaniner
Loved the 1930's version of A Midsummer Night's Dream, and also recently saw the DiCaprio/Danes Romeo and Juliet. An intriguing look at the story to be sure, but most of my familiarity with it had been from seeing West Side Story many times, and I was drawing parallels to that, instead of the original story.


What intrigues me about this thread is the general consensus that the R&J by Baz Luhrmann (the 'DiCaprio' one) is generally seen to be bad. I admit, when I heard that it was being made, the buzz in my Shakespeare II class was bad; lots of sneering and 'how dare they'.

When it was released, I didn't see it in the theatres. I didn't know anyone who saw it in the theatres who wasn't a teenager. I could blame it on the fact that I was a struggling student at the time and the cost was just another factor; I guess the class I attended influenced me more than I thought.

Eventually, I became a teacher and about three years after it left the cinemas I taught R&J and I took the opportunity to view the film to see if it could be used in my class. I did see some potential in the film (but since it is rated for over 15, I've used it in classes where I've got older students or have written permission from parents).

The students, en mass, adore it. They really adore it. I usually do a comparison assignment between the Zeffirelli version and Luhrmann's, often just the 'ballroom' scene (act one, scene five). Despite the jokes (often kids will impersonate Perrineau's Mercutio doing the maresca.... :rolleyes: ) they seem to universally find it a very useful exercise and even the less enthusiastic students of Shakespeare ("can't we just cut and paste all the answers off the internet? Do we have to read the play??") enjoy it and find it inspiring. And yes, some of the more musical students seek out West Side Story and have fun making comparisons to that version.

I agree with the general opinion here that supports a variety of filmic versions and different interpretations, in terms of accent, style and time periods for Shakespeare's plays (anyone else seen Branagh's made for TV versions from his Renaissance Films series? There was a stack of them for sale that I snapped up when at the reconstruction of the Globe). Although I did get all enthusiastic about hearing of the release of Branagh's Love's Labour's Lost a few years back and then it didn't get released in the cinemas here.... (always a bad sign...) and then I found it hidden with a very non-descript cover in the new releases in the video store. Awful. Bloody awful. I turned it off when they did some sort of bondage dance-routine about two-thirds through. Truly menopausal. :(

As for the accents - I'm all for a variety of accents, et al. I don't think it should ever be restricted to Standard Received Pronunciation.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Thank you Mercutio!

The absence of evidence doesn't constitute evidence of absence. :p

I choose to believe this legend. :) Interesting... there are places where the legend is very much believed. (http://www.kayko.net/) Even the Encyclopaedia Britannica lists Shakespeare as a member of the circle at the Mermaid Tavern.
One more source believing Will to be a Mermaid regular. (http://www.renaissance-faire.com/Renfaires/Entertainment/William-Shakespeare-prospers.htm)

Blech. My kingdom for a qualified historian!

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Kiless
What intrigues me about this thread is the general consensus that the R&J by Baz Luhrmann (the 'DiCaprio' one) is generally seen to be bad.[snip] Ok, different people may find this one approachable...but...please...

DiCaprio is just so awful! He makes Kline's Hamlet....no, in truth he does not, but he does tempt me to make the comparison, and for that he has reserved a place in the innermost circle of Hell.

[Kiless]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Ok, different people may find this one approachable...but...please...

DiCaprio is just so awful! He makes Kline's Hamlet....no, in truth he does not, but he does tempt me to make the comparison, and for that he has reserved a place in the innermost circle of Hell.

Oh, absolutely. I hestitate in no way in saying that the boy deserves to be whipped to death by lemon-scented bootlaces whilst doused in caustic soda. But the overall package has enormous benefits in bringing Shakespeare to my young 'uns. For that, I'll be forever in debt to Luhrmann.... but certainly, eternal damnation is imminent for that DiCaprio whelp.

Thanks for the tip on Kline's Hamlet. I shall check out the version by Ethan Hawke; I admit that I've been avoiding it but should really give it a go.

[Skeptic]

Remakes of Shakespeare with big stars and directors are almost (though not always) awful.

Reason? The composition fallacy: "We have the world's greatrest play, the world's best scriptwriters, the world's best director, and the world's best actors. Therefore, putting them all together will make the world's best movie, right?"

Which is the same as saying "We have the world's best chocolate, the world's best chilli sauce, the world's best wine, and the world's best grapefruits. They will taste wonderful put together, right?"

[Kiless]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Remakes of Shakespeare with big stars and directors are almost (though not always) awful.

Reason? The composition fallacy: "We have the world's greatrest play, the world's best scriptwriters, the world's best director, and the world's best actors. Therefore, putting them all together will make the world's best movie, right?"

Agreed - blooming awful, some films. What would be the worst filmic version of a Shakespeare play? I vote for sheer disappointment level, Love's Labour's Lost... although 'O' (basketball and Othello??) was bloody pathetic and I did like some aspects of Titus Andronicus in terms of what Taymor did in styling it but it started to drag in spite of it. I found this:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000636/ a good list of those films that credit the Bard as the source.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Remakes of Shakespeare with big stars and directors are almost (though not always) awful.

Reason? The composition fallacy: "We have the world's greatrest play, the world's best scriptwriters, the world's best director, and the world's best actors. Therefore, putting them all together will make the world's best movie, right?"
Yes plus another fact. The cinema lense flirts mostly with the famous actors and this is something totally wrong with the main concept of theatre which HAS to be a group effort. It seems that the lense brings out of the famous actors what is known in theatre as the " diva syndrom" and it's when an actor is famous and he plays his role without looking at his fellow actors but at the audience. :)

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Interesting... there are places where the legend is very much believed. (http://www.kayko.net/) Even the Encyclopaedia Britannica lists Shakespeare as a member of the circle at the Mermaid Tavern.
One more source believing Will to be a Mermaid regular. (http://www.renaissance-faire.com/Renfaires/Entertainment/William-Shakespeare-prospers.htm)

Blech. My kingdom for a qualified historian! Hmm...my article has not yet arrived, but I was trapped for an hour or so in the Epping (NH) public library (lots of books on how to cast spells and read tarot, but none of Randi's, Shermer's, Plait's...:( ) and found a remarkably thorough, if dated, book: Marchette Chute's (1949) "Shakespeare of London". In it, Chute reports one of Shakespeare's real estate investments, a house and yard in Blackfriars, purchased in 1613. The purchase was complicated (mostly for Shakespeare's own estate reasons, and wanting the bulk of his wealth not to revert to his wife if he predeceased her), and Shak was required to take out a mortgage of 60 pounds, along with three trustees. They were, by public record (those anal-retentive Brits love records!) John Heminges, John Jackson, and William Johnson. Johnson was described as "vintner, of the Mermaid Tavern" (by Chute--I don't know if he is described that way on the original record). Chute concludes this bit with "[t]his is Shakespeare's only documentary connection with the famous tavern, which incidently seems to have been a quiet and well-run house."

Frankly, it is no wonder people choose to believe myth over reality some times.

[Kiless]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Hmm...my article has not yet arrived, but I was trapped for an hour or so in the Epping (NH) public library ....

Seriously. Get thee to Wanamaker's Globe reconstruction. :( They had free displays in their little museum about the historical aspects of Shakespeare's works. If I'd known about this topic then, I could have brought back material. Perhaps email them? http://www.shakespeares-globe.org/

[joesixpack]

Richard III with Ian McCllen was great, Branagh hit big with Henry V and Much ado about Nothing (but that's partly because Emma Thompson is so intoxicating), but his Hamlet was pure Hollywood Crap. I'm surprised so many here disliked Kline's Hamlet. I thought it wasn't so bad. Better than Branagh's, at least.

[Kiless]

Bumping this again, because I had the misfortune of seeing Stage Beauty.

Oh hades. I recall Richard E. Grant in a conversation with Hugh Grant about 'Euro-puds' which are defined as films with American and British actors, all thrown together with a pathetic script, lots of silly costumes and eventually they end up taking the paycheck and quietly eliminating any reference to it from their CV (ahem,Champagne Charlie, Dangerous Beauty, Impromptu....). This, it appears, is such a movie. :(

On a brighter note, The Merchant of Venice (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379889/)! Al Pancino!

And oh dread and horror - 'coming soon, 'Miss June', a version of Macbeth with Courtney Love.... (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0338258/)

[bruto]

Late to this discussion, but a couple of things:

I saw Polanski's Macbeth back in the 70's at a theater, and at least at the time, I thought it was pretty well done, with violence sufficiently real to make me flinch.

Like most here, it seems, I also like the Branagh Henry V, which is more robust, and less chopped up than the Olivier, but if you are interested in visual art, I recommend that you go back and look at Olivier's too, if only for its wonderful integration into the sets and settings of art works that are more or less contemporary with Henry's time. I didn't notice it the first time I saw it, but a couple of years ago, I watched it again after having browsed in a book of famous art that included a scene from a famous illuminated manuscript called "Les Tres Riche Heures du Duc de Berry" (I think that's spelled right, but don't bet my life on it). I suddenly realized that one of the scenes aftrer Agincourt (farm courtyard, beehives, peasants toasting their buns at a fire) is a very pointed re-enactment of one of its illustrations. Another look at the movie found other references like this, explaining why some of the sets have that odd medieval perspective, as well as the colors. I'm sure I missed a lot, since my knowledge of art and my access to resources are not that great, but it's interesting. Check it out. And of course you get William Walton doing the score, and that's not so bad either.

(Edit: got walton's first name wrong)

[Beady]

Originally posted by Kullervo
What adjective do you use to describe Keanu Reeves' thespian skills in Much Ado? That was a casting choice from some other dimension.

How about, "A wooden actor playing a cardboard villain"?

[JAR]

My favorite Shakespeare movie is "Julius Caesar", starring James Mason as Brutus and Marlon Brando as Antony.

I like things about ancient Rome and Greece and other ancient cultures around the Mediterranean Sea.

[Freakshow]

I hate to admit it, but I loved that DiCaprio "Romeo and Juliet" flick. There was just something really interesting about moving the story into a modern environment.

I can't believe I admitted that... :D

[Piscivore]

I just saw the latest "Merchant of Venice" and was pleased. Pacino did a great Shylock.