Romeo & Juliet
DrX
In my film classes my teachers keep bringing up the movie Romeo &
Juliet. They say it was written and directed and aimed at ages 12-16.
I'm 18, but found the movie put together very well. According to my
professors, the movie used lots of MTV like camera shots. The
difference between mtv and this movie however, is that the movie
supposedly did a wonderful job. I think the movie would have been hard
to understand by _most_ of the 12-14 year old though; as the movie used a
lot of "adult" themes and used some of the old english. My professor
thinks "kids" enjoy it more b/c of the visual effects though. I don't
exactly know what he means, as i don't watch mtv. Anyone think this is true?
Is there anyone over the age of say....21...who enjoyed the movie? (This
way I can "shoot" my professor down :)).
-drx
---
D...@netlabs.net (a.k.a. Valhalla)
http://www.netlabs.net/hp/drx/
"To be great is to be misunderstood" -Emerson
---
Marjean Stewart Fieldhouse
DrX <d...@www.netlabs.net> wrote:
>In my film classes my teachers keep bringing up the movie Romeo &
>Juliet. They say it was written and directed and aimed at ages 12-16.
>I'm 18, but found the movie put together very well. According to my
>professors, the movie used lots of MTV like camera shots. The
>difference between mtv and this movie however, is that the movie
>supposedly did a wonderful job. I think the movie would have been hard
>to understand by _most_ of the 12-14 year old though; as the movie used a
>lot of "adult" themes and used some of the old english. My professor
>thinks "kids" enjoy it more b/c of the visual effects though. I don't
yed the movie? >(This way I can "shoot" my professor down :)).
>
>-drx
Tell your professor that the mark of a 'classic' work of fiction is that
CAN stand the test of time and cultural changes. I admire the way that
the new R + J stuck to the original script and yet adapted the setting to
effectively catch the eye of the 'MTV generation'. It worked, and in the
adaptation, is able to more effectively able to speak to the new
generation than a bunch of folk playing lutes.
Theatre is supposed to LIVE, not gather dust in respectful classic
interpretations only. This was a much more 'authentic' interpretation
than say, "West Side Story" and now even it is a classic.
The only thing outdated is your professor - it obviously makes him/her
feel old.
regards
Marjean
Vampyre
On Mon, 18 Nov 1996 09:16:01 -0500, DrX <d...@www.netlabs.net> wrote:
>In my film classes my teachers keep bringing up the movie Romeo &
>Juliet. They say it was written and directed and aimed at ages 12-16.
>I'm 18, but found the movie put together very well. According to my
>professors, the movie used lots of MTV like camera shots. The
>difference between mtv and this movie however, is that the movie
>supposedly did a wonderful job. I think the movie would have been hard
>to understand by _most_ of the 12-14 year old though; as the movie used a
>lot of "adult" themes and used some of the old english. My professor
>thinks "kids" enjoy it more b/c of the visual effects though. I don't
>exactly know what he means, as i don't watch mtv. Anyone think this is true?
>Is there anyone over the age of say....21...who enjoyed the movie? (This
>way I can "shoot" my professor down :)).
Well, I'm not above the age of 21, but I will say that I enjoyed the
movie very much. It was well directed and an excellent adaptation of
William Shakespear's original work. I do not think that many 12-16
year olds would enjoy the movie as much, because of the use of old
style english. I should know because a couple of my friends that saw
it were around those ages. It was hard for them to understand it.
Granted, I too had difficulties getting used to it at first, but it
was not necessarily the language itself, but the fact that they spoke
old english in modern times. Also, the visual effects were good. I
do not watch MTV myself, but I think I can see where your professor is
"trying" to come from, although I do agree with him.
Vampyre @--}--- *Gothic/Anime Home Page & Chat*
goth.code v2.0A http://www.infocomm.net/~vampyre
GoCS!3 TJtDAd(AnGTg) B7/20Bk cBKs++ PPrPeE(ScLDe)
V--s M+p1 ZGo(GnInPuCl) C+2P4umec a19(16) n+O
b:- H168 g++! mEa1+3# w++! r-P D+~* h++TFe(DAd)
s6 k+BSMDsF Ro SsYy N0195WPcn LusMD! HzM*2p1
Dona
In <Pine.BSD/.3.91.9611180909...@www.netlabs.net> DrX
<d...@www.netlabs.net> writes:
>
>In my film classes my teachers keep bringing up the movie Romeo &
>Juliet. They say it was written and directed and aimed at ages 12-16.
>I'm 18, but found the movie put together very well. According to my
>professors, the movie used lots of MTV like camera shots. The
>difference between mtv and this movie however, is that the movie
>supposedly did a wonderful job. I think the movie would have been
hard
>to understand by _most_ of the 12-14 year old though; as the movie
used a
>lot of "adult" themes and used some of the old english. My professor
however.
I don't think it would be @ all hard to understand for an
pre-/adolescent. *Everybody* knows the play-- out here, it's part of
the freshman (14-y-old) high school English curriculum. Anyway, the
language was butchered in this version; who but someone who's seriously
studied the play would have any conception of what the characters are
actually saying? It's all rushed through & delivered in flat California
monotones-- the *story* is what shines through here, not the language.
>thinks "kids" enjoy it more b/c of the visual effects though. I don't
>exactly know what he means, as i don't watch mtv. Anyone think this
is true?
Definitely. Judging by the reaction to it @ my high school from ppl who
wouldn't otherwise go *near* Shakespeare, yes. It's accessible in that:
1) it's playing @ major theaters, whereas, say, the new "Twelfth Night"
is confined to art-houses
2) the two leads are both young, attractive, & fairly well known
3) the soundtrack, catering to alternabrats
4) it's in a format/package they understand, what w/ all the quick-cut,
MTV-style cinematography, gun-toting, pop surrealism-- the visual
effects.
>Is there anyone over the age of say....21...who enjoyed the movie?
(This
>way I can "shoot" my professor down :)).
I don't count here, I'm seventeen-- part of the target audience. :)
~D~
�---In the heart of the night, she smiles like mardi gras---
Now Playing: Beastie Boys- Check Yr Head
------------...@ix.netcom.com---------------------
just julia
DrX (d...@www.netlabs.net) wrote:
: In my film classes my teachers keep bringing up the movie Romeo &
: Juliet. They say it was written and directed and aimed at ages 12-16.
: I'm 18, but found the movie put together very well.
Oh yeah, I watched it with a mess of college students (19-21) and we
loved it to little bitty bitty bits.
: According to my
: professors, the movie used lots of MTV like camera shots.
Well yeah if you definine cutting edge as MTV.
: difference between mtv and this movie however, is that the movie
: supposedly did a wonderful job.
I think it was wonderful. I made my sleeves wet from crying at the end
and I rarely have that sort of reaction to movies.
: I think the movie would have been hard
: to understand by _most_ of the 12-14 year old though; as the movie used a
: lot of "adult" themes and used some of the old english.
The movie used all Shakespearean language (which was what made it so great
for me. Making Shakespeare 'better' is a foolish task to take on), in
point of fact. The two gaggles of teens (16ish or younger) seemed to
not really get it. One clump didn't even seem moved by the movie.
As far as 21+ ppl liking it, my boyfriend (35) has a bunch of friends his
age who loved it.
julia
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Frequenters of lunatic asylums are familiar with the person who, being
convinced he is a poached egg, continually demands to be put on hot
toast, and is continually unhappy because no one will put him on hot toast."
--Arnold Benner -==- http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~jstarkey/julia.html
mle...@engg.uregina.ca
I just have to add my $.02 (Canadian funds!). I am 19, my local
cable company doesn't get MTV, and I'm not a big fan of alternative
music. My high-school Englis class didn't include "Romeo and Juliet"
in its Shakespeare repertoire, yet I loved the movie and recommend
it to everyone I can. I have read the play on my own time, and have
seen a professional stage production of the play, so I'm not
completely ignorant here. I think the movie was very true to the
moods Shakespeare was trying to portray in the original. Shakespeare
wrote his plays to grab the attention of those who would not otherwise
care, and this movie tries to do the same. However, 400 years after
Shakespeare, the attention-grabbing methods must surely change!
Those who didn't like this version, that's fine, but any portrayal
that brings a new audience to appreciate Shakespeare's work is,
IMHO, a worthwhile one. Of course there were things I didn't like,
and certain dramatic licenses taken that could have been left out.
But all in all, I thought it was a great work.
Okay, finished raving :).
--
Marie Lewis
http://ursu.uregina.ca/~bahai/
http://www.engg.uregina.ca/~mlewis/
"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illumine the whole
earth."
-Baha'u'llah
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This article was posted to Usenet via the Posting Service at Deja News:
http://www.dejanews.com/ [Search, Post, and Read Usenet News]
DrX
On Mon, 18 Nov 1996, Vampyre wrote:
> Well, I'm not above the age of 21, but I will say that I enjoyed the
> movie very much. It was well directed and an excellent adaptation of
> William Shakespear's original work. I do not think that many 12-16
> year olds would enjoy the movie as much, because of the use of old
> style english. I should know because a couple of my friends that saw
> it were around those ages. It was hard for them to understand it.
> Granted, I too had difficulties getting used to it at first, but it
> was not necessarily the language itself, but the fact that they spoke
> old english in modern times. Also, the visual effects were good. I
> do not watch MTV myself, but I think I can see where your professor is
> "trying" to come from, although I do agree with him.
The movie was shot at interesting and unique angles (at least for a major
motion picture anyway). It kind of reminded me of The Mask though. One
thing that bothered me most however, is the use of a really young romeo.
It kind of hurt some of the feeling behind the story...'specially b/c it
was adapted to screen. I'd much prefer reading the story again though.
One of the best shakepeare adaptations was Mel Gibson's Hamlet.
Cruel Parthenesa
Marjean Stewart Fieldhouse wrote:
> Tell your professor that the mark of a 'classic' work of fiction is that CAN stand the test of time and cultural changes. I admire the way that the new R + J stuck to the original script and yet adapted the setting to effectively catch the eye of the 'MTV generation'. It worked, and in the adaptation, is able to more effectively able to speak to the new generation than a bunch of folk playing lutes.
*Parthenesa indignantly puts down her lute with a solid 'thunk'*
Mar-JEAN! *sniff* Shakespeare is immortal for two reasons:
#1 - his works speak to the emotions, not only the intellect
#2 - there were some Fab lute solos in Cymbeline and Taming of the Shrew
that just get me right here. *gestures appropriately*
>
> Theatre is supposed to LIVE, not gather dust in respectful classic
> interpretations only. This was a much more 'authentic' interpretation
> than say, "West Side Story" and now even it is a classic.
I thought the most recent version of R&J was lovely. The visuals were
very beautiful and will doubtless find a place in many people's dreams.
The younger people in the audience when I went were for the most part
enthralled. My only real regret is that the language of the play was
rather lost in the monotones of the actors. A pity really. In
Shakespeare's time, language was such a powerful force for expression
(as opposed to the visual, which dominates in this time of television
and movies) and to hear his words spoken in the mellifluous cadences of
Elizabethan English is truly beautiful. For those of you who enjoyed the
film and would like to see more of Shakespeares works spoken as they
were written - if ever you see an ad for Sir Ian McClellan performing
shakespeare - GO SEE IT! *siiiigh*
>
> The only thing outdated is your professor - it obviously makes him/her
> feel old.
regards,
Marjean
>
*Parthenesa picks up her lute and relocates the quill which got stuck in
her bum roll when she bounced up from the joint stool*
"Ouch!" True, true...there is a difference between appreciating
tradition and being hide-bound by it. And this version of Romeo and
Juliet is MUCH better than West Side Story ever was... So, Marjean -
wanna hear MY version of 'Greensleeves'? I did it as part of a medley
of 'Strawberry Switchblade' tunes...mi mi mi miiiiii!***
- CP
***This is where the 'Cruel' part kicks in! ;)
Bathsheba
Vampyre (Vam...@US.Net) wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Nov 1996 09:16:01 -0500, DrX <d...@www.netlabs.net> wrote:
> Granted, I too had difficulties getting used to it at first, but it
> was not necessarily the language itself, but the fact that they spoke
> old english in modern times. Also, the visual effects were good. I
Actually, it's not old English, not even Middle English, both of which you
would not be able to understand at all. Really, with Shakespeare it's not
that they are speaking a language that differs terribly from the current
English, but that things are said in a poetic style - inversions, loads of
metaphor, and sometimes bizarre phrasing to fit into iambic pentanmeter.
Listening to Shakespeare actually makes you think about the words that are
spilling from the actors' mouths; this I think is a good thing.
I am over 21 and enjoyed the movie. I didn't think it was a great
masterpiece, nor even a good Shakespeare film. But is was entertaining
enough.
--
Bathsheba + Goth Code 2.0 + GoBi++$$ TSe(AnJt) B/24Bk\]3
gar...@email.unc.edu + cBRs++ PSa(PrE) V++s M++ ZGo(InGn--) C++p a23=
pop...@ucbeh.san.uc.edu + n+O b:- H168 g+4! mEa4Na1+3 w++ r- D++! h++Fe
http://www.uc.edu/~poppac + S9 k++BMsFNW RN SrNn NO993Wn LusOH++ HfsSp1
Audrey Delong
On 19 Nov 1996, Bathsheba wrote:
> Actually, it's not old English, not even Middle English, both of which you
> would not be able to understand at all.
ummm, please qualify *who* would not be able to understand old or
middle english? I think i do a fair job at both.
> Really, with Shakespeare it's not
> that they are speaking a language that differs terribly from the current
> English, but that things are said in a poetic style - inversions, loads of
> metaphor, and sometimes bizarre phrasing to fit into iambic pentanmeter.
i know no one listens to me, but *i* for one have to think that
shakespeare as high art thing is just *crap.* Everyone thinks that
shakespeare was some sort of prodigy, and all the other jacobeans were
illiterate knuckle draggers. Read Titus Andronicus and tell me what a
fucking genius old billy boy was. then read some Dekker or Tourneur or
Beaumont and Fletcher. iambic pentameter was the chosen verse form since
Defence of Poesy. It's not that hard to write: try it. Nothing
shakespeare did was that unusual for his time, and he did *nothing*
original for people who aren't too goddamned lazy to learn a little about
the history of their own language. Read Chaucer. read Gower.....Read
'The Seafarer'. AUUUGGGHHH. Shakespeare is over rated!!!!
> Listening to Shakespeare actually makes you think about the words that are
> spilling from the actors' mouths; this I think is a good thing.
i have 4 words for you: Much Ado About Nothing. think Keanu.
<shudder>
> masterpiece, nor even a good Shakespeare film.
did you think Zefferelli's redaction about the necrophilia play,
erm, Romeo and Juliet, was any better?
akane, with shakespeare *standing* on her last nerve.
Loki a.k.a. Brynjolfr
In article <56sneg$p...@newz.oit.unc.edu> gar...@email.unc.edu (Bathsheba) writes:
>From: gar...@email.unc.edu (Bathsheba)
>Subject: Re: Romeo & Juliet
>Date: 19 Nov 1996 16:32:16 GMT
>Vampyre (Vam...@US.Net) wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Nov 1996 09:16:01 -0500, DrX <d...@www.netlabs.net> wrote:
>> Granted, I too had difficulties getting used to it at first, but it
>> was not necessarily the language itself, but the fact that they spoke
>> old english in modern times. Also, the visual effects were good. I
>Actually, it's not old English, not even Middle English, both of which you
>would not be able to understand at all. Really, with Shakespeare it's not
>that they are speaking a language that differs terribly from the current
>English, but that things are said in a poetic style - inversions, loads of
>metaphor, and sometimes bizarre phrasing to fit into iambic pentanmeter.
>Listening to Shakespeare actually makes you think about the words that are
>spilling from the actors' mouths; this I think is a good thing.
Well, it's early modern English, pre-Webster. IMO there should really be four
bands of English: the twentieth century has wreaked a number of changes to our
language. (Things like the disappearance of "whom" for all intents and
purposes... several cases have pretty much gone.)
Iambic pentameter does have its own oddity, though. :)
>I am over 21 and enjoyed the movie. I didn't think it was a great
>masterpiece, nor even a good Shakespeare film. But is was entertaining
>enough.
I'm over 21 too. :)
I thought it was really good... surprised me a little. They took quite a few
risks; trying to get DiCaprio to spout in iambic pentameter was a big one. It
took a little while to get over the culture shock at the beginning, but they
managed to integrate Shakespeare with a modern backdrop well enough so that
about 15 minutes in, I was absorbed.
Other good thing - Many teeny-boppers were there to see the film when I saw
it. Maybe seeing one good movie will lead them to discover other good movies;
these were definitely a group of droolers. (My GF heard a couple of them
complaining about not knowing that R+J die at the end...!)
Loki | once sysop of TWWOL | f3...@unb.ca (preferred)
Brynjolfr Myrkjartanarson | now law student | d_fl...@husky1.stmarys.ca
~!
http://husky1.stmarys.ca/~d_flemmi/
DrX
On 19 Nov 1996, Bathsheba wrote:
> Vampyre (Vam...@US.Net) wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Nov 1996 09:16:01 -0500, DrX <d...@www.netlabs.net> wrote:
> > <snipped>
>
> Granted, I too had difficulties getting used to it at first, but it
> was not necessarily the language itself, but the fact that they spoke
> old english in modern times. Also, the visual effects were good. I
>
> Actually, it's not old English, not even Middle English, both of which you
> would not be able to understand at all. Really, with Shakespeare it's not
> that they are speaking a language that differs terribly from the current
> English, but that things are said in a poetic style - inversions, loads of
> metaphor, and sometimes bizarre phrasing to fit into iambic pentanmeter.
> Listening to Shakespeare actually makes you think about the words that are
> spilling from the actors' mouths; this I think is a good thing.
>
> I am over 21 and enjoyed the movie. I didn't think it was a great
> masterpiece, nor even a good Shakespeare film. But is was entertaining
> enough.
Something like a Jim Kerry movie, great visuals and very amusing, but not
good all around!?!?
The actors did indeed speak clearly, but at times they often were to
slow, as if they had problems getting it out of their mouths'.
Dona
In <Pine.BSD/.3.91.9611190858...@www.netlabs.net> DrX
<d...@www.netlabs.net> writes:
>The movie was shot at interesting and unique angles (at least for a major
>motion picture anyway). It kind of reminded me of The Mask though. One
>thing that bothered me most however, is the use of a really young romeo.
Hmm. Well, they were supposed to be really young-- Juliet's thirteen or
fourteen, a not-too-uncommon age for a girl to be married back then. I don't
think Romeo is much older. According to the Bard, they're supposed to be
_kids_.
>It kind of hurt some of the feeling behind the story...'specially b/c
it
>was adapted to screen. I'd much prefer reading the story again
though.
How so? It's supposed to be "young love"-- or do you think that that
should also have been updated, & the ages of Romeo & Juliet changed to
something more realistic to our times?
>One of the best shakepeare adaptations was Mel Gibson's Hamlet.
I hate to agree w/ you here, but you're so right. I loved Helena Bonham
Carter's Ophelia, & I don't care a toss what anyone says, it's better
than the L. Oliver version (all those voice-overs, close-ups &
melodramaticisms... blech. Save it for the stage, eh?)
The only movie I expect to shell out $7 for this winter is Kenneth
Branagh's _Hamlet_ (W/ Kate Winslet as Ophelia-- woo hoo!), which is
running in some cities @ it's less-cut, 3-hour & 28-min version around
Christmas.
~D~
�---In the heart of the night, she smiles like mardi gras---
Now Playing: BiGod 20- Supercute
------------...@ix.netcom.com---------------------
>-drx
Count Von Sexbat
In article <56sneg$p...@newz.oit.unc.edu>
gar...@email.unc.edu "Bathsheba" writes:
>Actually, it's not old English, not even Middle English, both of which you
>would not be able to understand at all.
(Usenet Rule #1 anyone?)
I for one, can read Middle English pretty much fluently (there are occasional
words that are so far out of useage, or have changed meaning completely
that I need to check), and my West Mercian Anglo Saxon / OE is good enough
for me to show off at museums as long as I remember to apply usenet rule #1
to real life.
I am sure that I'm not the only person on alt.gothic who cannot speak any
language other than English, but can talk and write it proper. (sic)
/\../\
Rule 1: There is *always* someone who knows more about any given subject
that you do.
--
/.\../.\ | Hearse-reversing, hooch-drinking slam-dancing
sex...@batt.demon.co.uk | caffeine-guzzling hair-spiking, hardcore
| net.goth from hell(TM)
Aircrash Monthly ----> http://www.demon.co.uk/bat/aircrash
Karen Abrams
Clearing up this language thing
Shakespeare is _Archaic Modern English_ (ie, we *should* be able to
understand it 'though we don't necessarily speak that way)
Chaucer is _Middle English_ ("Whan that Aprille with his shoures soote the
droughte of March hath perced to the roote...." - ie, it's understandable
with a little work)
"The Dream of the Rood" and "The Wanderer" (and other usually
author-less poems) are _Old English_ (ie, think GERMAN: ich neom yrre,
which, if you care, means "I'm not angry")
Just butting in with my .02....
karen
-------------
ADVERBS: An adverb modifies a verb. It may also modify an adjective or
another adverb, thus consorting with its own kind.
He groped HESITANTLY. He was VERY hesitant.
He groped VERY hesitantly.
The Transitive Vampire:
A Handbook of GRAMMAR for the Innocent, the Eager
and the DOOMED.
just julia
DrX (d...@www.netlabs.net) wrote:
: motion picture anyway). It kind of reminded me of The Mask though. One
: thing that bothered me most however, is the use of a really young romeo.
: It kind of hurt some of the feeling behind the story.
Um, but Romeo and Juliet are supposed to be what, 14, 15? I really liked
them actually being the teenagers they are.
Adam Hotchin
Are we talking the Baz Luhrmann version (most recently released?) If so,
tell your film teachers that maybe they should actually SEE the film before
they decide who it's aimed at. This is not aimed at the 12-16 age group any
more than the original was (seeing as they kept the original dialog and
all...) I'm 27, and I thought that it was one of the best films I've seen
in years - masterfully updated to the modern setting without making the
dialog anachronistic. Most of the people that I know who have seen it are
in the 22-30 group. There were some teens - say 15-17 - in the theatre when
I saw it, and the main effect the movie had on them was to keep them
spellbound enough to stop them throwing popcorn and insulting each other,
which is no small feat in itself. This film may be enjoyed more by younger
adults because the updated sets are more within their experience, but that
doesn't mean it's aimed at them at all.
BTW, if you don't like crying in public, DON'T see this movie. The death
scene is absolutely heartbreaking.
Adam H.
ad...@astound.com
DrX <d...@www.netlabs.net> wrote in article
<Pine.BSD/.3.91.9611180909...@www.netlabs.net>...
> In my film classes my teachers keep bringing up the movie Romeo &
> Juliet. They say it was written and directed and aimed at ages 12-16.
> I'm 18, but found the movie put together very well. According to my
> professors, the movie used lots of MTV like camera shots. The
> difference between mtv and this movie however, is that the movie
> supposedly did a wonderful job. I think the movie would have been hard
> to understand by _most_ of the 12-14 year old though; as the movie used a
> lot of "adult" themes and used some of the old english. My professor
> thinks "kids" enjoy it more b/c of the visual effects though. I don't
> exactly know what he means, as i don't watch mtv. Anyone think this is
true?
> Is there anyone over the age of say....21...who enjoyed the movie? (This
> way I can "shoot" my professor down :)).
>
DnA Dvorkin
In article <3290ec35...@News.US.Net>, Vam...@US.Net (Vampyre) wrote:
f
> William Shakespear's original work. I do not think that many 12-16
> year olds would enjoy the movie as much, because of the use of old
> style english. I should know because a couple of my friends that saw
OTOH, I've heard that there are a lot of people in that age group, who
were completely unfamiliar with the original work, and were just blown
away by the modern-dress retelling. You know, otherwise intelligent and
educated kids who just ignored Shakespeare because it's "boring old stuff"
-- and I suspect a lot of them are going to discover the rest of his work
because of this movie.
--
Daniel Dvorkin
Petro
In article <848477...@batt.demon.co.uk>,
Count Von Sexbat <sex...@batt.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I am sure that I'm not the only person on alt.gothic who cannot speak any
>language other than English, but can talk and write it proper. (sic)
As far as I am can tell, there are only 2 languages in the world.
English and Greek.
--
Think Globally. Act Locally. Support your Local Politician. With a rope.
4 lines, it isn't the law, it is simple fire prevention.
Pain is a feature, not a bug.
pe...@suba.com pe...@encodex.com pe...@netsight.net pe...@smoke.suba.com
Siobhan NiLoughlin
Audrey Delong <ajde...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
> i know no one listens to me, but *i* for one have to think that
>shakespeare as high art thing is just *crap.* Everyone thinks that
>shakespeare was some sort of prodigy, and all the other jacobeans were
>illiterate knuckle draggers. Read Titus Andronicus and tell me what a
>fucking genius old billy boy was. then read some Dekker or Tourneur or
>Beaumont and Fletcher. iambic pentameter was the chosen verse form since
>Defence of Poesy. It's not that hard to write: try it. Nothing
>shakespeare did was that unusual for his time, and he did *nothing*
>original for people who aren't too goddamned lazy to learn a little about
>the history of their own language. Read Chaucer. read Gower.....Read
>'The Seafarer'. AUUUGGGHHH. Shakespeare is over rated!!!!
Every time I hear the 'Shakespeare as High Art' arguement I think
of some scene -- I think it was in Star Trek -- where somebody is
talking about the great literature of the 20th century, "You know,
Jackie Colllins... Jackalyn Suzanne... the *greats*."
Siobhan
...Normal is what cuts off your sixth finger and your tail...
Charlotte Ashley
just julia (jsta...@husc7.harvard.edu) writes:
> DrX (d...@www.netlabs.net) wrote:
>
> : motion picture anyway). It kind of reminded me of The Mask though. One
> : thing that bothered me most however, is the use of a really young romeo.
> : It kind of hurt some of the feeling behind the story.
>
> Um, but Romeo and Juliet are supposed to be what, 14, 15? I really liked
> them actually being the teenagers they are.
I loved it. it was so refreshing to see teenagers portrayed as real,
feeling human beings for once. And they both did such a bloody good job!
I think Leonardo Dicaprio is awfully good at crying. :)
Leanan Sidhe, who may be biased as she loved this movie pationately
because it was so sweet and romantic and tragic and depressing. It's been
one of those "starved for love" months...
--
I just feel sorta... empty.
Something that might resempble a webpage:
http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~bi284/title.html
+ +What's the world for if you can't make it up the way you want it?+ +
Charlotte Ashley
"Adam Hotchin" (ad...@astound.com) writes:
> BTW, if you don't like crying in public, DON'T see this movie. The death
> scene is absolutely heartbreaking.
I never cry at movies. My emotion control is impecable. Especially when
people I know are around but...
I cried. It was just cut so *close* and by the end I was so exausted
from the adreneline required to keep up with the movie and I was so sad
because of all the bitter recolections one experiences when watching
romantic movies..
How could I not?
Leanan Sidhe, rather embarrassed 'cause she went with a bunch of her male
friends who consider her "one of the guys" and this sorta shattered their
illusions. ;)
Mara collins
Charlotte Ashley (bi...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
: just julia (jsta...@husc7.harvard.edu) writes:
: > DrX (d...@www.netlabs.net) wrote:
: > : motion picture anyway). It kind of reminded me of The Mask though. One
: > : thing that bothered me most however, is the use of a really young romeo.
: > : It kind of hurt some of the feeling behind the story.
: >
: > Um, but Romeo and Juliet are supposed to be what, 14, 15? I really liked
: > them actually being the teenagers they are.
Just to add my (really bitchy-sounding) two cents, Claire Danes is
like 20 and Leonardo DiCaprio is about 24 - the characters are supposed to be
even younger. Romeo and Juliet is very much a young person's play. I do have
to wonder (since my knowledge of social norms and age groupings of the
Elizabethan era is very very poor) whether or not the estimation of maturity
is about equal between the two time periods.
As to the older/younger audience question, I am within the target audience
(I'll turn 20 next week), and I was extermtly enthusiastic about the movie the
first time I saw it. It was visually beautiful, and I was completely bowled
over by the sheer visual quality of the film. The second time I saw it
however, I was muich less impressed. I was able to note the fact that many of
the lines were so rushed as to make one wonder whether the actors knew what
they were saying, and I have utterly no clue what Mercutio said at the end of
the Queen Maab speech. Also, I think that John Leguziamo was horribly
miscast, and his portrayal of Tybalt was too much between the teeth. There
were a lot of other things I had problems with, but this is not
alt.siskel.and.ebert, so I'll stop now. In other words, I agree that it is
aimed speicfically at the younger, MTV crowd, and that it will probably prove
less enjoyable to those people who are actually concerned with the fact that
this is Shakespeare, not a movie. It isn't the beauty of the scene that has
made R&J one of the most well known works in the English language, it is the
beauty of the words, and the depth of the characters.
I'm babblng, so I'll stop now.
--
Mara
\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\////\\\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\
The dumber people think you are, the more surprised they're going to be
when you kill them. --William Clayton
//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\\\////\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//\\//
Kevin O' Gorman
jsta...@husc7.harvard.edu (just julia) writes:
>Um, but Romeo and Juliet are supposed to be what, 14, 15? I really liked
>them actually being the teenagers they are.
Juliet was 13, Romeo 17-18, if I remember correctly. Be a while before
Hollywood makes THAT one...
K.
-
--
.____________________________________________________________________,
(_____________{http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~spidey/index.html}_____________)
We move like vandals down darkened streets and talk like dime-store novels
(_______________________(========(__)=========)________________________)
Charlotte Ashley
> Audrey Delong <ajde...@email.unc.edu> wrote:
>> i know no one listens to me, but *i* for one have to think that
>>shakespeare as high art thing is just *crap.* Everyone thinks that
>>shakespeare was some sort of prodigy, and all the other jacobeans were
>>illiterate knuckle draggers. Read Titus Andronicus and tell me what a
>>fucking genius old billy boy was. then read some Dekker or Tourneur or
>>Beaumont and Fletcher. iambic pentameter was the chosen verse form since
>>Defence of Poesy. It's not that hard to write: try it. Nothing
>>shakespeare did was that unusual for his time, and he did *nothing*
>>original for people who aren't too goddamned lazy to learn a little about
>>the history of their own language. Read Chaucer. read Gower.....Read
>>'The Seafarer'. AUUUGGGHHH. Shakespeare is over rated!!!!
I have never claimed Shakespear was high art- but what the man (woman?)
did was write all of the most typical stories of all time *well*. Your
basic tragic romance is Romeo and Juliet. Basic Power-gone-mad is
Macbeth. etc etc etc I won't rant.
He wasn't perfect, but he wrote some good, solid little numbers. Universal.
Leanan Sidhe, who still reads Romeo and Juliet when depressed.
Ben Colborn
Cruel Parthenesa (sal...@freenet.msp.mn.us) wrote:
: Marjean Stewart Fieldhouse wrote:
: Tell your professor that the mark of a 'classic' work of fiction is
: that CAN stand the test of time and cultural changes.
That's what they like to say in lit classes, but I challenge that view.
The canon of classic works is extremely unstable, plus we project our own
subjectivities onto works generated by other subjectivities in other
times. That is, we may be reading the same words, but they are not the
same works.
: Mar-JEAN! *sniff* Shakespeare is immortal for two reasons:
Shakespeare is not immortal. He has been considered a classic for less
than 150 years. Before that he was trash. In another 150 years people may
very well wonder what the hell we ever saw in him.
Don't get me wrong, I *love* Shakespeare. But I think the reasons given
here for him being great are off-track. I'd love to stay and chat as
this is one of my fave topics, but I gotta run.
<> ben colborn <> colb...@uidaho.edu <>
<> Goth Code 2.0: GoHu+TW$CS$ TMJtYyuIn B6/35Bk!]2^2 cBKw--L PSaMoPr(Pa) <>
<> V-s M- ZGoGnInCl C++P3u a21+ n-- b:-- H178 g+T mEa3Ni3G1-3 w+T r+3 <>
<> D--h-- s9 k++BW RnSsWw N0893Pnw LusID- HfsS <>
the Albatross
Audrey Delong wrote:
> i know no one listens to me, but *i* for one have to think that
> shakespeare as high art thing is just *crap.* Everyone thinks that
> shakespeare was some sort of prodigy, and all the other jacobeans were
> illiterate knuckle draggers. Read Titus Andronicus and tell me what a
> fucking genius old billy boy was. then read some Dekker or Tourneur or
> Beaumont and Fletcher. iambic pentameter was the chosen verse form since
> Defence of Poesy. It's not that hard to write: try it. Nothing
> shakespeare did was that unusual for his time, and he did *nothing*
> original for people who aren't too goddamned lazy to learn a little about
> the history of their own language. Read Chaucer. read Gower.....Read
> 'The Seafarer'. AUUUGGGHHH. Shakespeare is over rated!!!!
<laugh>
You are brave.
And you have just violated one of Sexbats rules.
Of course, you may be one of the only ones who can say this here and
get away with it.
Shakespeare may be overrated- but then, what isnt?
I surely do like you.
Youre wrong here. But I like you. And, you're brave.
Bill Albatross
PS... this all reminds me of when Jon Sylverster callenged Ben Jonson to
rheme with-
I, John Sylvester,
Lay with your sister.
Ben Jonson answered-'I, Ben Jonson, lay with your wife.'
Sylvester answered, 'That is not a rhyme.'
'No', said Ben Jonson,'but it is true.'
Stolen from a biography I have.
> > Listening to Shakespeare actually makes you think about the words that are
> > spilling from the actors' mouths; this I think is a good thing.
> i have 4 words for you: Much Ado About Nothing. think Keanu.
> <shudder>
> > masterpiece, nor even a good Shakespeare film.
> did you think Zefferelli's redaction about the necrophilia play,
> erm, Romeo and Juliet, was any better?
> akane, with shakespeare *standing* on her last nerve.
--
++++++++++++++++++++
Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus,
I'm from Pluto, nice to meet you...
tpa...@fix.net
the Albatross
Charlotte Ashley wrote:
>
> I cried. It was just cut so *close* and by the end I was so exausted
> from the adreneline required to keep up with the movie and I was so sad
> because of all the bitter recolections one experiences when watching
> romantic movies..
By the end of the movie I felt sort of numbed.
Like Shakespeare had been using a jack-hammer outside my bedroom
window, there on my oh so modern street, while I had been trying to
sleep.
Albatross
Anti-MTV
ps... with the exception of the great cornholio
Bathsheba
Count Von Sexbat (sex...@batt.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> In article <56sneg$p...@newz.oit.unc.edu>
> gar...@email.unc.edu "Bathsheba" writes:
> >Actually, it's not old English, not even Middle English, both of which you
> >would not be able to understand at all.
> I am sure that I'm not the only person on alt.gothic who cannot speak any
> language other than English, but can talk and write it proper. (sic)
Sorry, that was not intended to be an all encompassing "you". It was a you that
refered to the person who posted saying that they had trouble understanding the
"Old English" spoken in said movie.
Charlotte Ashley
Mara collins (mara...@bu.edu) writes:
> Charlotte Ashley (bi...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
>
> : just julia (jsta...@husc7.harvard.edu) writes:
> : > DrX (d...@www.netlabs.net) wrote:
>
> : > : motion picture anyway). It kind of reminded me of The Mask though. One
> : > : thing that bothered me most however, is the use of a really young romeo.
> : > : It kind of hurt some of the feeling behind the story.
> : >
> : > Um, but Romeo and Juliet are supposed to be what, 14, 15? I really liked
> : > them actually being the teenagers they are.
>
> Just to add my (really bitchy-sounding) two cents, Claire Danes is
> like 20 and Leonardo DiCaprio is about 24 - the characters are supposed to be
> even younger. Romeo and Juliet is very much a young person's play. I do have
> to wonder (since my knowledge of social norms and age groupings of the
> Elizabethan era is very very poor) whether or not the estimation of maturity
> is about equal between the two time periods.
Claire Danes is 17 and Leonardo DiCaprio is 18-19.
Not *too* far off.
Leanan Sidhe, embarrased that she knows this.
Peter H. Coffin
In article <Pine.BSD/.3.91.9611190858...@www.netlabs.net>
DrX <d...@www.netlabs.net> writes:
> One
> thing that bothered me most however, is the use of a really young romeo.
> It kind of hurt some of the feeling behind the story...'specially b/c it
> was adapted to screen.
How old should young love be? The story to me have never been about
love unvanquish'd, but rather what happens to young idiots when their
parents politics and prejudices neither checked nor explained. It may
be a love story, but the tragedy came about not of love between two
people, but two teenagers' determination to have what was forbidden:
neither knew a damn thing about the other. They didn't have time for
anything but hormones and impetuosity.
<let the flames begin!>
---
"We've got a kitchen by Giger, but we're too scared to go in there."
Various Lies
In <570jbe$3...@suba01.suba.com> pe...@suba.com (Petro) writes:
>
>In article <848477...@batt.demon.co.uk>,
>Count Von Sexbat <sex...@batt.demon.co.uk> wrote:
any
>>language other than English, but can talk and write it proper. (sic)
>
>
> English and Greek.
Then you're at best pre literate.
No personal offense, but english, greek and the romance languages
aren't even the tip of even just the written iceberg, much less the
spoken one.
Jealousy (what 'de haole say?)
Count Von Sexbat
In article <5784fb$g...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>
lieh...@ix.netcom.com(Various "Various Lies" writes:
>> As far as I am can tell, there are only 2 languages in the world.
>>
>> English and Greek.
>
>Then you're at best pre literate.
"Do not trust Greeks bearing arms
as they are subtle and quick to cut."
/\../\
--
T.R.Fosdick
Count Von Sexbat (sex...@batt.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> In article <56sneg$p...@newz.oit.unc.edu>
> gar...@email.unc.edu "Bathsheba" writes:
> >Actually, it's not old English, not even Middle English, both of which you
> >would not be able to understand at all.
> I for one, can read Middle English pretty much fluently (there are occasional
> words that are so far out of useage, or have changed meaning completely
> that I need to check),
I too can read middle English fairly well, though I stand not a snowball's
chance in Hell of actually speaking it or writing it successfully.
> and my West Mercian Anglo Saxon / OE is good enough
> for me to show off at museums as long as I remember to apply usenet rule #1
> to real life.
There is some OE I can make sense of, but not a lot.
> I am sure that I'm not the only person on alt.gothic who cannot speak any
> language other than English, but can talk and write it proper. (sic)
I have 'little Latin and less Greek', speaking only English well, yet I also
manage to speak it with more than moderately accurate grammar, although I do
tend to split my infinitives.
> Rule 1: There is *always* someone who knows more about any given subject
> that you do.
Unless you're posting from AOL, of course.
--
/| Thomas Fosdick t.r.f...@dcs.hull.ac.uk |\
__/ |=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=| \__
\ | Please remember to mention me in tapes | /
\| you might leave behind |/
Petro
In article <5784fb$g...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>,
Various Lies <lieh...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <570jbe$3...@suba01.suba.com> pe...@suba.com (Petro) writes:
>any
>>>language other than English, but can talk and write it proper. (sic)
>> English and Greek.
>Then you're at best pre literate.
>aren't even the tip of even just the written iceberg, much less the
>spoken one.
No, No, you don't understand, the reason there are only 2 languages
as far as I can tell, is because if it ain't english, it's greek to me...
(hook line and sinker folks...)
Oh, and "pre literate?" I suggest you re-evaluate your position least I
find you, and pile boxes full of all the books I have read in the past 12
months.
You'd have trouble breathing. A _lot_ of trouble breathing.
forgo...@aol.com
>Juliet was 13, Romeo 17-18, if I remember correctly. Be a while before
>Hollywood makes THAT one...
in the 60's, they made one where the guy who played romeo was 19, and
juliet was 15.... then there's that 30's one, with the 45 year old romeo
and 35 year old juliet (i have to see that one in class soon)
Graham Dunn
In article <5784fb$g...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>, Various Lies wrote:
>In <570jbe$3...@suba01.suba.com> pe...@suba.com (Petro) writes:
>>
>any
>>>language other than English, but can talk and write it proper. (sic)
>>
>> As far as I am can tell, there are only 2 languages in the world.
>>
>> English and Greek.
>
>Then you're at best pre literate.
Funny, I thought he was post-ironic.
--
gd...@vex.net Graham Dunn in...@goth.org
Hello Kthulhu: World chaos through cuteness - DNRC
|| ||| | ||| |||| | |||| | http://www.vex.net/~gdunn
Dona
In <5758hk$l...@freenet-news.carleton.ca> bi...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Charlotte
Ashley) writes:
>
>Mara collins (mara...@bu.edu) writes:
>> Just to add my (really bitchy-sounding) two cents, Claire Danes is
>> like 20 and Leonardo DiCaprio is about 24 - the characters are supposed to
be
>> even younger. Romeo and Juliet is very much a young person's play. I do
have
>> to wonder (since my knowledge of social norms and age groupings of the
>> Elizabethan era is very very poor) whether or not the estimation of maturity
>> is about equal between the two time periods.
>
> Claire Danes is 17 and Leonardo DiCaprio is 18-19.
> Not *too* far off.
>
>Leanan Sidhe, embarrased that she knows this.
~D~
really, super-duper extra-special ashamed ;)
�---In the heart of the night, she smiles like mardi gras---
Now Playing: the channel two news theme, & what a theme
it is
------------...@ix.netcom.com---------------------
Posby
On 22 Nov 1996, Charlotte Ashley wrote:
>
> Mara collins (mara...@bu.edu) writes:
> > Charlotte Ashley (bi...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
> >
> > : just julia (jsta...@husc7.harvard.edu) writes:
> > : > DrX (d...@www.netlabs.net) wrote:
> >
> > : > : motion picture anyway). It kind of reminded me of The Mask though. One
> > : > : thing that bothered me most however, is the use of a really young romeo.
> > : > : It kind of hurt some of the feeling behind the story.
> > : >
> > : > Um, but Romeo and Juliet are supposed to be what, 14, 15? I really liked
> > : > them actually being the teenagers they are.
> >
> > Just to add my (really bitchy-sounding) two cents, Claire Danes is
> > like 20 and Leonardo DiCaprio is about 24 - the characters are supposed to be
> > even younger. Romeo and Juliet is very much a young person's play. I do have
> > to wonder (since my knowledge of social norms and age groupings of the
> > Elizabethan era is very very poor) whether or not the estimation of maturity
> > is about equal between the two time periods.
>
> Claire Danes is 17 and Leonardo DiCaprio is 18-19.
>
> Not *too* far off.
>
> Leanan Sidhe, embarrased that she knows this.
>
>
uh... no. I know I both heard and read that Leonardo DiCaprio is 24.
If only I could remember where....
He does look very young, though... perhaps my info is wrong. I just don't
think he is as young as 19...
(it's the important things in life that really matter... )
* * * * * . *
"She got from somewhere stones with eyes * . *
And plants that gave out screams and sighs." . ^ .
-Edward Gorey * . ^
. * ^ ... . * ^ . * ...... po...@aracnet.com
*
Peter H. Coffin
In article <5784fb$g...@sjx-ixn10.ix.netcom.com>
lieh...@ix.netcom.com(Various Lies) writes:
> In <570jbe$3...@suba01.suba.com> pe...@suba.com (Petro) writes:
> >
> >In article <848477...@batt.demon.co.uk>,
> >Count Von Sexbat <sex...@batt.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>I am sure that I'm not the only person on alt.gothic who cannot speak
> any
> >>language other than English, but can talk and write it proper. (sic)
> >
> > As far as I am can tell, there are only 2 languages in the world.
> >
> > English and Greek.
>
> Then you're at best pre literate.
> No personal offense, but english, greek and the romance languages
> aren't even the tip of even just the written iceberg, much less the
> spoken one.
It's a joke. A very literate joke, if you've ever heard someone mumble
"It's Greek to me". Especially in a Shakespear context.
Petro does little without reason.
----
Homepage is at | No skeletons in my closet; they're all
the usual address. | in the living room drinking martinis.
David Gerard
On Wed, 20 Nov 1996 20:52:12 -0600, DnA Dvorkin (dvo...@minot.com) wrote:
:In article <3290ec35...@News.US.Net>, Vam...@US.Net (Vampyre) wrote:
:> William Shakespear's original work. I do not think that many 12-16
:> year olds would enjoy the movie as much, because of the use of old
:> style english. I should know because a couple of my friends that saw
:OTOH, I've heard that there are a lot of people in that age group, who
:were completely unfamiliar with the original work, and were just blown
:away by the modern-dress retelling. You know, otherwise intelligent and
:educated kids who just ignored Shakespeare because it's "boring old stuff"
:-- and I suspect a lot of them are going to discover the rest of his work
:because of this movie.
I agree entirely. When we were being force-fed 'Macbeth' at high school,
they took us to see Polanski's film of it. *Cool*.
--
Rev Dr David Gerard f...@suburbia.net http://cougar.vut.edu.au/~gerdw/gothpix/
GothCode 2.0: GoAu!3CS+ TJt(ZZ) B10/23Bk^1 cR(DBR){G} p++ PPe(LNa) V++s M+3p1w
ZEx(!!--Go) C+3p1u a29- n!O b+:- H194 g+! m+)++( w+T r-4E D+~! h++TFe(Ad) s7 k+
Rn SrNy N0488Wn LauVIC+* HsMp1 500-Purity: 40.6% Beer makes you smart.
William Wylde
Laurie Luong wrote:
>
> u>
> Organization: Toronto Free-Net
> Distribution:
>
> Mara collins (mara...@bu.edu) wrote:
>
> : Just to add my (really bitchy-sounding) two cents, Claire Danes is
> : like 20 and Leonardo DiCaprio is about 24 - the characters are supposed
Hmmm... I thought Juliet was 14 and Romeo 17. Time to go get the
Complete works of William the Bard. Or is it on the net and can I save
myself a trip to the sub-urbanity insanity?
I'll see. *waiting for metacrawler search to happen- ah... there*
I found the complete works of W.S. (here:
http://the-tech.mit.edu:80/Shakespeare/works.html), but I can't find the
ages. *sigh* Guess it's time to read it again...
>
> : (I'll turn 20 next week), and I was extermtly enthusiastic about the mov
> happy (belated?) b-day! :)
Happy birthday, then!
>lauriel
--
C-ya in Cyberia!!
--------------------------------------------------------
**Wyldechylde** | "That which does not kill me
** Running Wylde ** | makes me stronger.."-Nietzsche
----------------*BITE ME FANBOY!*-----------------------
**automatic weapons for "group therapy"**
Home: http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/1680
--------------------------------------------------------
Luke Lakatosh
Ben Colborn (colb...@buzzard.csrv.uidaho.edu) wrote:
: That's what they like to say in lit classes, but I challenge that view.
: The canon of classic works is extremely unstable, plus we project our own
: subjectivities onto works generated by other subjectivities in other
: times. That is, we may be reading the same words, but they are not the
: same works.
Everything must be viewed in relativity. I have yet to see the "modern"
version of R&J but I have a feeling it's not fully "modern" even in ways
they intended it to be. For instance, the feudal system of "houses" does
not exist in American society further than corporations and political
parties. And yet, they use the subject of houses, as far as I know.
This is a weak supporting point but you get the idea. It's the same
thing with, e.g., different gods and godesses ... like the Sumerians who
had very violent, hostile, volatile gods because of the weather
conditions of thier area. So you can't expect a story like romeo and
juliet to transpose itself well. The political structres of the time as
well as the social and moral norms and mores were all different. I dunno
... I think it's a good idea and very inspired but I think the movie
would have to leave out some vital points of the play to fully modernize
it ...
Gemini
Loki
In article <57of8g$2...@cronkite.ocis.temple.edu> llak...@nimbus.temple.edu
(Luke Lakatosh) writes:
>Ben Colborn (colb...@buzzard.csrv.uidaho.edu) wrote:
>: That's what they like to say in lit classes, but I challenge that view.
>: The canon of classic works is extremely unstable, plus we project our own
>: subjectivities onto works generated by other subjectivities in other
>: times. That is, we may be reading the same words, but they are not the
>: same works.
>Everything must be viewed in rntended it to be. For instance, the feudal system of "houses" does
Loki | once sysop of TWWOL | f3...@unb.ca (preferred)
Brynjolfr Myrkjartanarson | now law student | d_fl...@husky1.stmarys.ca
http://husky1.stmarys.ca/~d_flemmi/
just julia
Luke Lakatosh (llak...@nimbus.temple.edu) wrote:
: they intended it to be. For instance, the feudal system of "houses" does
: not exist in American society further than corporations and political
: parties. And yet, they use the subject of houses, as far as I know.
Ah, but the two 'houses' are two warring family run corporations. Yeah.
: ... I think it's a good idea and very inspired but I think the movie
: would have to leave out some vital points of the play to fully modernize
: it ...
The new R&J isn't a full modernization in that it doesn't attempt to
account for all the inconsistencies (though there are some really amusing
things like that swords are a make of gun and the narrator is a
newscaster). Instead, it's a translation of the text into a
pseudo-present. It's not exactly modern america, but it's not ancient
verona. It's one of the better modern dress Shakespeare's I've seen.
Also, remember that things that sound really odd/silly can work really
well when integrated as part of the play. I saw the Orestia cycle
of plays (ancient Greek) and they were done partially in modern dress and
with many characters being cross cast (i.e. electra was korean-american,
cassandra was black, etc.) and it worked *so* well. There were many
things that sound jarring when taken out of context, but that worked
well in context.
julia
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Frequenters of lunatic asylums are familiar with the person who, being
convinced he is a poached egg, continually demands to be put on hot
toast, and is continually unhappy because no one will put him on hot toast."
--Arnold Benner -==- http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~jstarkey/julia.html
raskolnikov
Luke Lakatosh wrote:
> Everything must be viewed in relativity. I have yet to see the "modern"
> version of R&J but I have a feeling it's not fully "modern" even in ways
does
> not exist in American society further than corporations and political
> parties.
> So you can't expect a story like romeo and
> juliet to transpose itself well. The political structres of the time as
> well as the social and moral norms and mores were all different. I
dunno
> would have to leave out some vital points of the play to fully modernize
> it ...
I think they were looking to modernize it more in terms of its physical
setting (including guns, etc). Yeah, the political and social differences
between Elizabethan times and now would pose a problem with modernizing
the story, but I believe that was at least part of the purpose of giving
it a fictional location. That way they could make a sort of
temporally-hybrid film without compromising the meaningfulness of the
story. By placing it in "Verona Beach, CA", they could in effect isolate
the story from modern sociopolitical conventions, while still giving it a
contemporary feel. On the other hand, if they'd used something like "1996
L.A.," _that_ would create some problems!
As a note: A couple of years ago, I saw a production of Hamlet which used
the mid nineteenth century as its setting. Nothing was changed except for
the physical setting (i.e., no information was given as to the location,
exact time frame, etc), so the story lost nothing and was in fact rendered
_very_ well.
raskolnikov
(who's surprised he can use words longer than 2 syllables this
la...err, early...)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
raskolnikov (a.k.a. chuck) georgia institute of technology
gt3...@prism.gatech.edu http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gt3245b
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Kevin O' Gorman
gt3...@acmez.gatech.edu (raskolnikov) writes:
>As a note: A couple of years ago, I saw a production of Hamlet which used
>the mid nineteenth century as its setting. Nothing was changed except for
>the physical setting (i.e., no information was given as to the location,
>exact time frame, etc), so the story lost nothing and was in fact rendered
>_very_ well.
So long as it wasn't Hamlet as performed in the nineteenth century!
K.
-
--
.____________________________________________________________________,
(_____________{http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~spidey/index.html}_____________)
"I feel like I'm disappearing, growing smaller every day"
(_______________________(========(__)=========)________________________)
Dead Little Joey
Posby wrote
>
> * * * * * . *
> "She got from somewhere stones with eyes * . *
> And plants that gave out screams and sighs." . ^ .
> -Edward Gorey * . ^
> . * ^ ... . * ^ . * ......
She did her neihbor's orms in wax and stuck them full of pins and tacks
They expired with frightful pains inside their bowels, lungs, and
brains.
Sorry for that outburst, I just love Ogdread Weary
Yosa Addiss
But then, the demon, much too soon,
Returned one Sunday afternoon.
He siezed her hair, and with his hoof,
He kicked a way out through the roof.
The end had come, and this was it:
He dropped her in the Flaming Pit.
-Finis-
Yosa
(who is still looking for a copy of Ninety-two Entirely Evil Things to
Do.)
"Dance me to your beauty with a burning violin,
Dance me through the panic, till I'm gathered safely in,
Touch me with your naked hand, touch me with your glove,
Dance me till the end of love." --L. Cohen.
daemonus
A dreary young bank clerk named Fennis
Wished to foster an aura of menace
To make people afraid
He wore gloves of grey suede
And white footgear intended for tennis.
--
<daemonus> (who, by some strange quirk of fate, was at this very moment
browsing through his Amphigory book trying to decide which line of Gory
to include in his new and improved .sig file. No really, I was...)
...the shadowy, lurking character in the corner...
"Now go away, or I shall taunt yeou a second time!!"