Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2002 :: January ::
Re: Movie Question
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.0192  Sunday, 27 January 2002

[1]     From:   Schott Holger <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 25 Jan 2002 10:22:25 -0500
        Subj:   RE: SHK 13.0173 Re: Movie Question

[2]     From:   Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 25 Jan 2002 22:56:09 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0173 Re: Movie Question


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Schott Holger <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 25 Jan 2002 10:22:25 -0500
Subject: 13.0173 Re: Movie Question
Comment:        RE: SHK 13.0173 Re: Movie Question

From:           John Drakakis <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >

>It WAS Everett and Jones on the screen, and if my memory serves me
>correctly their interventions were very heavily satirised...as indeed
>they deserved to be.

How heartless! I was an undergraduate at Oxford when the film came out
and remember a minor storm in SCR teacups about the portrayal of Emrys
Jones - especially the fact that they show him pulling up his socks.
Personally, I thought it was at least as funny that Al Pacino had to
have the "sun/son" pun in the opening soliloquy explained to him...

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 25 Jan 2002 22:56:09 -0800
Subject: 13.0173 Re: Movie Question
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0173 Re: Movie Question

Martin Steward corrects himself:

>What I meant was that the academics did not appear
>to have much creative input, because the points they made were only
>tangential to the project of putting on a convincing production of the
>play/film. No doubt list-members will disagree.

While you're rewatching the final scene, you might note how the killing
of Richard seems (at least to me) to resemble a boar-hunt, after Barbara
Evett mentions that Richard is increasingly seen as a boar, and his
opponents just have to hunt him.

Speaking of whom, I believe that she mentioned that Richard is ironic,
"but irony is just hypocrisy with style".  I'll be using that line for
some time.

Cheers,
Se

 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.