On 16/03/2022 01:55 pm, Jeff Layman wrote:
> Mike Swift wrote:
>> Calum <com....@nospam.scottishwildcat> writes
[re: "The Ipcress File":]
>>>> I've not bothered to watch it as they will have messed it about and
>>>> "re-imagined" it.
>>> Well, there wouldn't be much point remaking it if they hadn't.
>> Surely the author wrote it in a certain way, altering it is a bit of an
>> arrogant insult the them?
> So the interpretations of Shakespeare over the last 400 years are all
> bad if they didn't follow the original to the letter?
The majority do! "The Tempest" is the shortest of the plays and rarely
cut (whereas "Hamlet" - the longest - is frequently cut so that
audiences can get the last bus).
> One of my
> favourite films is "The Forbidden Planet", a remarkable science fiction
> film for its time. In the credits it states it is based on The Tempest,
> but I wonder how many Shakespeare purists would identify it as such or
> appreciate it.
If one knows and is familiar with "The Tempest", the plot (and some of
the incident) of "Forbidden Planet" are easy enough to spot.
But it is not a production of "The Tempest", any more than "West Side
Story" is a production of the Verona play.
> Providing what the author or writer intended in followed in a general
> way, I don't see a problem; it's the overall way it is carried out which
> is important. In a way, it's little different from the way symphonies
> and concertos are interpreted by conductors and soloists.
Shakespeare didn't conceive the plots of "Hamlet" and several others of
his plays. He re-wrote Holinshead and others for the plots of his ten
(English) history plays. But he didn't purport to be presenting anyone
else's work. Whatever had gone before, this was "Xxxxxx by William
Shakespeare" - something new - and unless we may one day yet be amazed
by a discovery in some forgotten dusty library - immeasurably better.