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.
shareIt's Joss Wheedon, I've never NOT been disappointed with something made by him.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2056893/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1
www.notwithoutreason.com
Then why are you on a board for one of his movies?
Shoo, troll.
Because I like Shakespeare and was curious about this film and what others had to say about it. I'm not saying I'll always be dissapointed by his films, just so far.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2056893/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1
www.notwithoutreason.com
Shakespeare's troupe performed the plays in dress current for them - that is, NOT in togas and tunics for Julius Caesar or Anthony and Cleopatra, or A Midsummer NIght's Dream, but in doublet and hose, NOT in medieval dress for Richard III, but in what they currently wore.
As to performing Shakespeare's dialog while in modern or other dress that isn't from 1600, professional stage companies do it all the time. I've seen Two Gentlemen of Verona set like it was a Magritte painting, a TV version of Much ado set in 1910, complete with a silent Keystone Cops bit for Dogberry catching the villains, and on film, Sir Ian MacKellan did a marvelous Richard III set in a sort of alternate 1930's where his rise to power was akin to Hitler. Or try Gerard Butler and Ralph Finnes in the extraordinary Coriolanus.
Costume and setting are a way for the director to help the audience understand Shakespear's language and themes.
Shakespeare's troupe performed the plays in dress current for them - that is, NOT in togas and tunics for Julius Caesar or Anthony and Cleopatra, or A Midsummer NIght's Dream, but in doublet and hose, NOT in medieval dress for Richard III, but in what they currently wore.If Shakespeare's troupe jumped off a cliff, would you too? Just because the Elizabethans did something stupid is no reason for us to do so, too. They also had the female roles played by males; nobody in their right mind would advocate that. I'm surprised so many people apparently in their right mind advocate performing Shakespeare's plays in modern dress.
As to performing Shakespeare's dialog while in modern or other dress that isn't from 1600, professional stage companies do it all the time.Don't we know it. It's a damned cliche.
Costume and setting are a way for the director to help the audience understand Shakespear's language and themes.Indeed they are; but when the director stuffs Ancient Athenians or Medieaval Scots into tuxedos, he's getting in the way of helping the audience understand Shakespeare's language and themes, and doing something else: using costume as a way of signalling to the audience, by a dog-whistle pitch, that he's a knowing and avant-garde and non-bourgeousie fellow. share
and doing something else: using costume as a way of signalling to the audience, by a dog-whistle pitch, that he's a knowing and avant-garde and non-bourgeousie fellow.
Yeah, those folks at the RSC are such a bohemian, anti-everything-even-vaguely-traditional lot.Are they? I wouldn't know. But that's the signal they're sending whenever they stage Shakespeare in modern dress. Whether it's an accurate signal is another matter.
It's OK, you don't need to go and see it. Stay home with your Xbox and let the grown ups enjoy it!
Modern settings of Shakespeare are nothing new. David Tennant and Catherine Tate appeared in a very modern version of MAAN last year in London. Kenneth Brannagh's versions of Hamlet and Love's Labours Lost are in more up to date settings. You probably wouldn't understand the reference to the Falklands from an excellent version of Henry V we saw in the 1980s. I've seen a version of Richard III where the King gives a television address.
So your "disappointation" is your problem.
"David Tennant and Catherine Tate appeared in a very modern version of MAAN last year in London. "
Is that available on DVD or streaming anywhere? I really want to see that.
And yes the plays were originally performed in Modern Dress, it just happens to have been what was modern dress for the time.
http://www.digitaltheatre.com/production/details/much-ado-about-nothin g-tennant-tate
There you go.
Gotta go. Kisses.
I don't think the modern setting is the OP's problem so much as the language not being modernized to match. I think he's saying that if you are going to change the setting or time, the language should be changed, as well.
shareThe difference between those adaptations and this one is the actors are theatrically trained, and therefore the quality is superior.
shareIt actually works quite well. Give it a shot. There is a Shakespeare Festival in my city every year. They do their shows in all kinds of different time periods.... and it is always absolutely wonderful. There is no reason to modernize the speech.
shareSo no one is gonna call out the OP for calling Shakespeare's language "infamous"?
C'mon guys step your game up.
Even the most primitive society has an innate respect for the insane.
Shakespeare did actually invent over 1700 words we use today, so he did in a lot of respects have his own language.
shareIs disappointation a word? I do not think so.
share"dissapointation" ... my ass
share[deleted]