MovieChat Forums > Much Ado About Nothing (2013) Discussion > Elizabethan English...

Elizabethan English...

posted 11 years ago by jondoe888
7 replies | jump to latest

I dislike subtitles. Distracting! I turned on subtitles for this. It helped, but I still didn't understand the many ancient words and terms. But I understood the story. I would have liked it better if the subtitles were also in modern English, as an option. OK, it was interesting at times, hearing the old English. But I would have rather read the richer terms I could understand.
I never felt that 'richness' in the Shakespearean English, and I always fight the feeling that someone is still trying to force me to accept it!

I would have also liked a prologue, with names, faces, and the hierarchy of the characters. I was never sure who would be allowed to argue with whom...
There was a charm of the old language in a modern setting, with cars, guns, computers... The B+W was OK. Maybe it should have had less dynamic range, like movies from the 40's?

Amy Acker was the only one who I felt brought the language and spirit to the top. Nathan Fillion should have played another character. Something less goofy! I believe Hammer Man's lines were cut by Will, way back when... But he would have straightened out all this confusion in the first 20 minutes. Then driven away with Beatrice AND Hero!

[–] benman46 11 years ago

The reason why Shakespeare's plays are so beloved by actors and public alike are, due in a large part, to the language. Should you really be watching a Shakespeare play if you don't like the language?

[–] vividly_pathetic 10 years ago

"Should you really be watching a Shakespeare play if you don't like the language?"

This wasn't a play. Nor was it (at least visually) set in Shakespearian times.

[–] PreachCaleb 10 years ago

Nor was it (at least visually) set in Shakespearian times.

Nor were some of Shakespeare's plays themselves when they were first written or performed. What's that got to do with anything?

Straightedge means I'm better than you.

[–] vividly_pathetic 10 years ago

I haven't really studied Shakespeare in a long while, but I'm guessing the original plays' language and mise-en-scene weren't more than several centuries apart.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with the old language itself. But based off posters etc. I thought this would literally be a modern version. Instead it was as weird as having an American Robin Hood or Nazis speaking the Queen's English amongst themselves.

[–] chuck-526 10 years ago

...but I still didn't understand the many ancient words and terms

Sorry to break it to you, but this is only the (rather friendly:-) tip of the iceberg. Some of the other plays contain jargon and antique words that make this seem like a walk in the park. This play is noted for much of it being in prose rather than Shakespeare's usual blank verse. There are almost no archaic terms, and not that many words that aren't in use any more. (Obscure? yes - Retired? hmmm...) It's just that the torrent of words goes by so fast you think they're unintelligible.

Many of the "words" that seem so unfamiliar -in Dogberry's lines even more than most- never were meaningful words at all (and aren't unfamiliar because of their age). Rather they always were intentional confusions or mispronounciations ("malapropisms"?). Attempts at serious interpretation won't make sense of all these examples of "getting one's tangue all toungled up".

I would have liked it better if the subtitles were also in modern English, as an option.

Interesting idea, but... There are so many words, subtitles of a reasonable size that you could actually read in real time couldn't possibly capture the "translation". The other issue is it's not at all clear what the "translation" should be; many of the lines have so many layers of double meanings and puns that scholars and directors are still debating how some of them should be interpreted.

(This production for example interprets Margaret as a sort of proto-feminist bemoaning womens' lack of power, rather than as a bawdy fount of sexually suggestive witticisms. This novel interpretation isn't clearly "right" nor clearly "wrong" - it's just yet one more alternative latent in the language.)

I hope I don't sound too much like a hard-ass, but there's no substitute for watching a DVD and stop-and-rewind over and over, while consulting one or more resources (Google? Wikipedia? a dictionary? Cliff's Notes?). The theater experience is fine for getting the gist and enjoying the aesthetics, but it's no way to deal with the language if you're not already attuned to it.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] SallahTours 10 years ago

I thought Fillion was wonderful in context to Whedon's portral of Dogberry and the watchmen.