Okay so what I do not understand is, How can you modernise the famous william shakespeare without modernising the language, it simply doesn't work. A 17th century tale modernised to the 21st Century has to have certain elements changed to make it work and in my eyes even though shakespears language is infamous. It's past its time and thus the story should have been fit to work with modern day language.
shareYou never watched the 1996 version of Romeo + Juliet? It certainly can work. I'm not sure about this movie of course, but the language thing isn't really a problem if it's done well. I think the problem is that most of the actors in this aren't really Shakespearean actors and they will probably look like they're struggling through it all.
shareI saw that version of Romeo and Juliet. It sucked donkey balls.
Though I'll hold judgement on this until I have seen it.
- Insert Poignant Quotation here -
I saw it. None of the actors struggled with it.
shareThere is little to no struggling with the actors in Much Ado About Nothing here. I think this version works because it doesn't draw attention to the fact that it's modern. It's not doing it to be cute, it's just using modern trappings because it's what Whedon and his team had on hand.
In fact, I find it odd that you would point to Romeo + Juliet as working and then be fearful that the actors in this would struggle with the lines. I thought DiCaprio pretty obviously had no idea what he was doing or saying through that whole movie, and the majority of the cast were on the same path.
I won't argue that, most of the time, I'm not a fan of modern adaptations which don't update the language, but I really liked this version of Much Ado.
It's no new concept to mix modern day appereance and traditional way to speak the lines, especially counting for Shakespeare plays. Often done on stage too.
I think a lot of ppl have expectations how details should be done (not only counting for movies) and have problems to adjust when it is done in an 'unexpected' way....
____________________________________________
Scaper,Browncoat,Sharpe,B5,Wiseguy,Wire,Sherlock
elitists/hipster =/= superior
fanatics =/= fans
I thought the trailer was very well put together. This was my most anticipated film this year and the trailer simply got me more hyped. Though, I can understand if it put some people off.
http://thecinemareviewed.blogspot.com/
I disagree. I think it's refreshing to have the actors perform the text in a modern-day setting. What makes it work is reading the lines in a contemporary cadence. No bombastic recitals, just taking the poetic language but reading it as if you were having an everyday conversation. It's an unusual juxtaposition but one I like.
shareWhy get upset about what kind of English they are speaking when the play is originally set in the region that is now Italy? You first need to go ask Shakespeare what he was thinking by having all the characters speak in English.
"My name is Paikea Apirana, and I come from a long line of chiefs stretching all the way back to the Whale Rider."
Because he was an English writer, writing for English audiences. I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that your everyday Elizabethans wouldn't have bothered to go see his plays if they were in Italian or Danish.
*eye roll*
”Do the stars gaze back?" Now *that's* a question.
You reminded me of greatly of this skit from MadTV, namely Larry King off of this skit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpjoEK_nlSk
And we're supposed to give a *beep* about your opinion on linguistics when you use a word like "disappointation"?
Nice try.
HAHA!! I was just about to post that I was "dissapointated" at their use of the English language.
Also, I was going to say how much I loved Loves' Labours' Lost.
The world belongs to the meat eaters, Miss Clara, and if you have to take it raw, take it raw.
^^^^^^ I said amen.
shareLet's try that once more, this time with a better understanding of the English language.
share