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 13.0246  Tuesday, 29 January 2002

[1]     From:   Anna Kamaralli <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 29 Jan 2002 13:41:40 +1100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0223 Re: Movie Question

[2]     From:   Larry Weiss <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 28 Jan 2002 23:50:04 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0223 Re: Movie Question

[3]     From:   Brandon Toropov <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 29 Jan 2002 05:10:54 -0800 (PST)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.0223 Re: Movie Question

[4]     From:   John Drakakis <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 29 Jan 2002 13:11:09 -0000
        Subj:   RE: SHK 13.0223 Re: Movie Question


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Anna Kamaralli <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 29 Jan 2002 13:41:40 +1100
Subject: 13.0223 Re: Movie Question
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0223 Re: Movie Question

>John Drakakis thought it was laughable that "Al Pacino had to have the
>'sun/son' pun in the opening soliloquy explained to him". No, he didn't.
>The anticipated audience of the film needed to have that explained to
>them - several times t is said that the film is meant to introduce
>Shakespeare to people who would not otherwise experience it. The fact
>that Pacino allows these things to be "explained" to him on screen
>reveals his self-effacing honesty in pursuit of his project, not his
>dullness.

He does, however, appear to completely miss the gag about the letter
"G".

In changing "G" to "C" on the grounds that the audience would not be
aware that George is the Christian name of the character generally
referred to as "Clarence", Pacino makes the whole episode of the
prediction pointless, as the joke was that Edward was in fact destroyed
by "G": G for Richard, Duke of Gloucester.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Larry Weiss <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 28 Jan 2002 23:50:04 -0500
Subject: 13.0223 Re: Movie Question
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0223 Re: Movie Question

> John Drakakis thought it was laughable that "Al Pacino had to have the
> 'sun/son' pun in the opening soliloquy explained to him". No, he didn't.
> The anticipated audience of the film needed to have that explained to
> them

Perhaps, but is this also the reason why Pacino seemed to miss the irony
in "G of Edward's heirs the murderer shall be"?  He said he didn't
understand why "G"; it should be "C" for Clarence.  If this was just to
set up an explanation for the audience, it fell flat as no explanation
was forthcoming.  Of the contrary, by leaving this line in the movie
without explaining how "G" is not an error, and in fact has a
sub-superficial significance, it leaves most of the audience thinking
that WS didn't know what he was doing.

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Brandon Toropov <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 29 Jan 2002 05:10:54 -0800 (PST)
Subject: 13.0223 Re: Movie Question
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.0223 Re: Movie Question

Martin Steward wrote,

> John Drakakis thought it was laughable that "Al
> Pacino had to have the
> 'sun/son' pun in the opening soliloquy explained to
> him". No, he didn't.
> The anticipated audience of the film needed to have
> that explained to
> them - several times t is said that the film is
> meant to introduce
> Shakespeare to people who would not otherwise
> experience it. The fact
> that Pacino allows these things to be "explained" to
> him on screen
> reveals his self-effacing honesty in pursuit of his
> project, not his
> dullness.

True enough. It is fair to point out, though, that Pacino's hilariously
inept off-the-cuff attempt to summarize the play's intricate plot is all
Al. (Not that I'd do any better without notes!)

Brandon

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Drakakis <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 29 Jan 2002 13:11:09 -0000
Subject: 13.0223 Re: Movie Question
Comment:        RE: SHK 13.0223 Re: Movie Question

Not guilty, I'm afraid,

It was someone who was responding to my strictures concerning Everett
and Jones, and who, as far as I can tell, was being nostalgic about
Oxford. I said nothing about Pacino, though I suspect Samuel Johnson
would have been sympathetic to his plight.

Cheers,
John Drakakis

_______________________________________________________________
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.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.