The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.2105 Wednesday, 5 September 2001
[1] From: Louis Swilley <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 4 Sep 2001 14:29:45 -0500
Subj: Re: SHK 12.2095 Reviews, etc. of O
[2] From: Mike Jensen <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 04 Sep 2001 14:38:21 -0700
Subj: Re: SHK 12.2095 Reviews, etc. of O
[3] From: Richard Burt <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 4 Sep 2001 21:14:44 -0400
Subj: Stiles' color in O
[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From: Louis Swilley <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 4 Sep 2001 14:29:45 -0500
Subject: 12.2095 Reviews, etc. of O
Comment: Re: SHK 12.2095 Reviews, etc. of O
Hugh Davis asks,
" Does stripping the
language destroy the intent?"
Well, let's see:
To exist or the contrary -
That's what I query.
Or, maybe,
Why doesn't my really substantial carcass
Just turn into goo...?
Or, how about,
I'll croak and be quiet now.
L. Swilley
[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike Jensen <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 04 Sep 2001 14:38:21 -0700
Subject: 12.2095 Reviews, etc. of O
Comment: Re: SHK 12.2095 Reviews, etc. of O
I think that Hugh Davis raises THE interesting question when he asks,
>How close does a text have to be
>to the original to qualify as a "true" version? Does stripping the
>language destroy the intent?
No one seems to be considering the real crux of this issue, to judge
from most comments on-list for the past couple of years, at least since
the NBC *Tempest* was first shown. To condemn a film for not using
Shakespeare's dialogue and setting is to condemn it for the very thing
Shakespeare nearly always did: Adapt his source and inform it with his
own sensibility. (I grant you, Shakespeare didn't mess with setting to
a great extent.) Such criticisms strike me as, by definition,
wrongheaded. Rightheaded is to judge how well a film works in its own
terms, not as an adaptation of Shakespeare. *Throne of Blood* is, I
think, bloody brilliant. *Ran* amazes me in the best way. *10 Things I
Hate About You* and *The Tempest* are not different in kind, only in
quality. I have not seen *O* yet, so I do not comment on it.
My theses: If Shakespeare can use a source and transform it, then it is
fair to use Shakespeare's work as a source and transform it. You begin
to evaluate from there, not earlier.
Problem for a film-maker: you'd better be very good, or very clever, to
withstand the inevitable comparisons.
Mike Jensen
[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From: Richard Burt <
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
>
Date: Tuesday, 4 Sep 2001 21:14:44 -0400
Subject: Stiles' color in O
Has anyone noticed that hte poste for O makes Julia Stiles look dark
skinned?
http://us.imdb.com/ImageView?u=http%3A//posters.imdb.com/Covers/18/47/91.jpg
http://www.othemovie.com/core/index1.html
_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook,
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>
DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
|
