Shakespeare Movies

[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 )

 

[epepke]

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]

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???

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

 

[a_unique_person]

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

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

 

[Mercutio]

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...

 

[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]

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]

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 ( 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]

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).