You are not logged in. Please login or register.
I did not understand a god damned thing that was happening in this movie.
But my not-an-idiot friend dug it.
Nine stars!
With Nathan Fillion playing Dogberry, my favorite Shakespearian character it can't be a total loss 
It was the best movie adaptation of a Shakespeare play I've seen in years, and I think I've seen most of the major ones (even the weird, wild Julius Caesar film that came out of Italy last year). I think the spontaneous, cavalier way Whedon went about it—shooting in a dozen or so days, on a shoestring budget, in his house, with his friends—is, in a sense, similar to the cavalier, slapdash way plays were sometimes staged in Shakespeare's time. I fucking loved it. For the record, I was not a Whedon superfan going into this film (haven't seen everything he's done, but I've seen the 'major works'; always thought he was pretty solid and quite smart, just never worshipped the guy), but this film has made me a superfan. It's the coolest thing he's done that I've seen, and yes I've seen Firefly. OK, ok, take it easy—the coolest thing this side of Firefly.
But I can see why you found it challenging to follow, Teague. At the end of the day, it's still a Shakespeare play, which means it was not written for us—and Whedon didn't alter the Elizabethan language whatsoever (from what I could detect). Some people recommend that people shouldn't worry about spoilers when it comes to Shakespeare plays—i.e., they suggest simply reading the play or its plot summary beforehand, and that this makes seeing a production way more enjoyable. That's been my experience as well. I think it's helpful to read a plot summary for each of the play's acts, and try to know who the major characters are ahead of time. When my girlfriend and I went to see a production of The Tempest, which see had not read or seen before, she decided to read everything except the last act; that way she could follow the play easier but still be surprised by the story's ending.
Last edited by Rob (2013-06-08 18:25:15)
Ya, this is why I much prefer to read Shakespeare than to watch it performed or adapted. When you're reading it, you can take it slow and make sure you understand the meaning, and it also lets you appreciate the poetry of the language. If I'm watching it at movie-speed, I'm usually gonna spend the whole time just struggling to understand what everyone is saying instead of enjoying the story and the writing.
I'm also not generally a fan of these modernized adaptations with original text, it always feels like a lazy thing to try to modernize for today's audiences, all it does is pull you out of the story more because the dialogue doesn't fit. A proper adaptation set in the original time-period works better because it uses the language to it's benefit, it makes it feel more authentic.
I actually feel the opposite way, bullet. I think that seeing it performed gives the opportunity to see the context and emotions behind the lines, which helps you to understand what's going on and what they're saying better.
I actually feel the opposite way, bullet. I think that seeing it performed gives the opportunity to see the context and emotions behind the lines, which helps you to understand what's going on and what they're saying better.
Yeah, I'm the same way, if I'm reading one of his plays, I can kinda sorta follow along and figure out whats going on, given enough time to work it out, but when I'm watching someone perform it (Granted someone who understands the work enough to actually perform it properly), I can follow along in real time like 95% of the time, just by the way the line is delivered and the context of the scene and how the other characters react.
I'm also not generally a fan of these modernized adaptations with original text, it always feels like a lazy thing to try to modernize for today's audiences, all it does is pull you out of the story more because the dialogue doesn't fit. A proper adaptation set in the original time-period works better because it uses the language to it's benefit, it makes it feel more authentic.
As is often the case, seeing it done badly can turn you off the whole concept I enjoy productions setting Shakespeare somewhere else, when done well. One of the early Shakespeare In The Park productions I saw in Buffalo as a kid had them set McBeth in a Latin American country, with McBeth as a General. The play opened with an army jeep pulling up on stage. Two years ago, they did an all female version of the same play. Very good, with my sister's old high school friend getting the best writeup in the paper.
bullet3 wrote:I'm also not generally a fan of these modernized adaptations with original text, it always feels like a lazy thing to try to modernize for today's audiences, all it does is pull you out of the story more because the dialogue doesn't fit. A proper adaptation set in the original time-period works better because it uses the language to it's benefit, it makes it feel more authentic.
As is often the case, seeing it done badly can turn you off the whole concept
The Shakespeareheads I know tend to straddle both attitudes. "Updating"/altering Shakespeare plays is always tricky thing. So part of me shares bullet's reservations—if it ain't broke, why mess with it? At the same time, people who stage these things sometimes point out that it's fundamentally impossible to present Shakespeare's plays exactly as he envisioned them to modern audiences. (When you get down to it, using electricity and microphones in a production drastically alters the way in which WS wanted his work to be experienced.) Many well-regarded Shakespearean actors—Orson Welles, Claire Bloom, Derek Jacobi, Branaugh—have played in "updated" productions. Thee rationale is often that these plays are "timeless," and so getting the language and the characters right is more important than Elizabethan set-dressing and costumes. That makes sense to me, however, I can't help being just a bit nervous whenever I hear about someone "modernizing" Richard III or whatever. But yeah, the good ones are good, the bad, bad.
Rather than smear on Olivier-style blackface, Patrick Stewart once played Othello as a white character, with the rest of the cast being black actors. I never saw it, but it got decent reviews.
I'll remain open-minded for now, but the scene in that clip was pretty terrible.
And this from a man who (under yet another nom de plume) has personally butchered Shakespeare.
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.
