 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
24.242.116.115
In Reply to: Re:It ain't yer commas, Victor, it's yer apostrophes! posted by RGA on May 3, 2005 at 22:12:32:
It is considered and to the point. Probably more than mine! So let's take a look at what you say:Walt Whitman would appreciate your comments on experts, as you surely must know. He too thought every artistic creation had value, every work was an expression of, at the least, the times it was created.
Pauline Kael wrote an essay that you might have read concerning the same ideas: "Trash, Art, and the Movies," saying that our trash, our B-movies and drive-in flicks, can express more of the American culture than our high-art films. Certainly, I enjoy watching "The Wild Angels" or "The Last Man on Earth" than many other films from 1966 or 1962, respectively.
But I disagree with you on the idea that "many older films don't 'translate' well with today's viewers." They wouldn't be shown on TV or issued on DVDs if they didn't sell, and it isn't the older audience that drives these markets (except maybe that Red Skelton set I saw...but I digress!).
For someone who writes "film is far too low an art form to be considered worthy of my time," you sure post a lot on this forum! There is nothing wrong with admitting you like movies, LOL! And then saying "I don't really care how one judges a film to be quite honest," and putting that statement in a post where you lengthily explain part of what goes into your judgement of films. May I point out the contradiction? I know, consistency, hobgoblin, small minds. There is nothing wrong with being inconsistant every now and then. No one has ever accused me of being too consistent! Other posts that you've have written show also quite a concern with how film is judged.
I personally don't dismiss the Hollywood summer blockbuster out of hand. I actually LOVE "Jaws," "Star Wars," and "E.T.", saw each when they first came out (I saw "Jaws" on my very first date). I just don't think big theatrical re-issues alone show that a film has stood the test of time. You elaborate on this in your response (BTW, where did the comments about Spielberg being Jewish come from? But that is another post for another time, it is much too late to open THAT can of worms now!). I also think "Die Hard" will stand any test of time that is presented. There are others I can name, but I hope you get the gist of what I am saying.
To be stunningly obvious: just because a film opens "big" or has a huge advertising budget does not make it a classic that will live for the ages. But there are films that do open big and have huge advertising budgets and lots of stars and will be seen and enjoyed as long as movies are watched. And, as you point out, just because a film is low-budget and features serious navel-gazing, ALSO does not guarantee it classic status (the recent run of films like "Dogville" and "The King is Alive" are excruciating for me to even click by on TV!).
When you slow down and actually write what you think instead of relying on cheap comments you show yourself a better critic than you may want to let on. Of course that comment can apply to everyone, myself included. Let's face it, film is pretty damned interesting, and it's fun to talk about it.
Just two more things! Shakespeare IS incredibly deep IMHO, and it's the amazing combination of thought with word that makes him live today. Take a look at Stephen Greenblatt's book "Will in the World" for a good take on current Shakespeare scholarship that isn't too deep dish.
And I try not to put words in other people's mouths...too much! But you posted 207.81.75.114 under the title "Re: How about a specialty forum for American or English language films?" on March 15, 2004:3rd paragraph, talking about "Citizen Kane": "I have the conclusion that it's probably better suited to the American mind-set of the American Dream. I personally think it's handled better in Dustin Hoffman's Death of a Salesman (I never saw the original however). This was made for TV film based off of one of the great American novels."
This is where my quote of this statement comes from.
There are other things we can talk about but it is getting late...or early! Another time, perhaps. But I look forward to discussing them with you.
Take care and have fun, RGA!
PS: You indicated in an earlier post you are studying to be a teacher. And in this post you say "30+ year old RGA." Have you returned to school? I am a 46-year-old college student, preparing to teach high school English and Social Studies. Watch out! The day is coming when I plan to inflict Melville on bewildered students! What are you planning to teach?
Follow Ups:
This was made for TV film based off of one of the great American novelsYes I should have said Play not novel because oviously Death of a salesman was a play -- if you read it again with play it will make more sense. To put it bluntly I have never read the Greates American novel and didn't even know there was one (mildly sarcastic here LOL).
I love movies but I find a lot of people are very narrow on what they call good. If you like Jaws and ET then you have a greater understanding of the film's intent than many.
I'm not an avid movie wather -- I had a big run in the early to mid 1990s seeing about 65 films a year in theaters from about 1993-1998 renting many as well. But I'm only around 1200 movies total many of which include schlock horror films.
My kind of film critic to put it bluntly is Roger Ebert. He is a formula writer but good at it. It is obvious he loves movies and all kinds of movies. My film viewing motto is "I don't care about the subject matter but entertain me in some way." Spielberg I always feel I'm defending from attacks. It's silly because I've read bizzarre attacks on him for years. He's overly sentimental, his movies have happy endings (presumably because life never has any??). I have no problem with sentiment in movies. He is "mostly" an escapist optimistic director, if I had to creat a category for him. And what he does he does better than any other director I've seen. So does George Romero -- and if what they do isn;t to one's liking so be it.
I ignore the director as much as possible because I don't like going in to see movies with any pre-conceived expectations. I want to be swept up in the story than expect some masterpiece because the director is tied to it. I made the mistke of watching Maid in Manhatten because Ralph Fiennes was in it. I made the assumption based on prior work that he would add substance to this thing.
Spielberg is not free of pathetic efforts. I still admire him for saying that he should not have made the film and that he should have given the project to another director -- he said that about the Colour Purple which had what 11 Academy Award nomination -- all I can say is that it was a pretty darn good movie for a mistake at least relative to what other stuff is out there.
I was not attempting to knock Shakespeare - he is one of the few writers I enjoyed in my literature classes. I don't find his plots terribly deep. His writing style was fantastic, and his plots probably revolution at the time.
If we go to sales of re-print dvd's then take JAWS -- a film that when it came out arguably was scary and had a huge special effects wonder as the centerpiece (Though Spielberg hated the shark). We don't have a break down on who buys what on dvd. But I'm willing to bet more people and I mean 100 times more people are buying Jaws or Raiders over Some Like it Hot or Citizen Kane.
Jaws apparently is lasting for more than the thriller aspects and for more than the now fake looking shark. it has a heart and soul in there which people respond to and will continue to respond to down the road because it was helmed by a director who know how do heart even with deceptively simplistic dialog.
I should not have knocked older films because a few of my favorites are La Grande Illusion, the Seven Samurai, The Third Man. But I also love the character seeking Redemtion films like Pulp Fiction in a sea of wickedly strange dialog.
I'm not saying that bigger box office take means better films. Not at all. It is funny to me to see a movie like Spider a Canadian film not even get a theatrical release in my Canadian city while some idiocy of a movie like Ace Ventura take up 2 screens everywhere. On the other hand Spider requires some thinking and after a long hard week of work sometimes people do not want to do that - so Jim Carrey is there to save you.
Plus attention spans are shorter these days. People blame video games - but you know I bought an X-BOX and a game called Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic just to see. And I can safely say that if games continue on this path some movies are in trouble. the dialog story and depth of this game trounces the Star Wars Movies. And your $30.00 gets you 50+ hours of entertainment value.
I see a new art form, or the potentional for it, coming with these games. Maybe in another ten years we'll be arguing over the direction of the latest game.
But look what he could do armed with copies of Raphael Holinshed's "Chronicles of England Scotland, and Ireland" (1587), Plutarch's "Lives," and Ovid's "Metamorphosis"!There are other things in your post I would like to discuss with you. Another time, perhaps!
One cannot fathom a dumber line written by a human. How to discuss with such a person?
NT
"With the single exception of Homer, there is no eminent writer, not even Sir Walter Scott, whom I despise so entirely as Shakespeare when I measure my mind against his." GBSNow there's a quote! Slamming Shakespeare, dragging in a cut at Homer while he's at it, and putting them somewhere near the same plane as Sir Walter Scott! Very funny! How many critics would use those three names in the same sentence?!
But let's face facts: Shaw couldn't even come up with the right ending for "Pygmalion"!
But let's face facts: Shaw couldn't even come up with the right ending for "Pygmalion"!Let´s discuss that.
Why?
Well, Shaw´s play doesn´t end like "My Fair Lady" does...While in the film Liza subdues herself to Higgins, her Demiurge, the man who had created Miss Doolittle, in the original play she slams the door in his face, and the ending (as played) is somewhat left open to interpretation. And then Shaw wrote a "Sequel", where he calmly analizes the whole situation, and reaches to the conclusion that Liza will marry Freddy, that dolt who in the film sings "On the Street where you live", and what will happen thereafter...
Read the link, it´s interesting! And after that, just go to the end of Act V, and read the last lines in it...
"My Fair Lady" is Shaw´s "Pygmalion" blenderized by Lerner.
Regards
BF
I love Shaw's "Pgymalion," but when the author feels compelled to write an essay justifying why he ended the work the way he did....On a purely intellectual plane, I can understand why Liza does not come back and why she marries Freddie.
But the side of me that loves cheap sentimental claptrap gets chills when I hear: "Liza, fetch me my slippers." I suppose Shaw would get chills hearing those words too!
If I remember, this was a Greek play already, do you know who wrote it? And the differences with Shaw?
In any case merci for the above,Best Regards,
Patrick
Stupid me.
Thank you!
WEAK WEAK WEAK (well for William it's weka by most standards it's still very acomplished) -- it's no wonder so many kids hate Will the thrill. I suppose it can be taught well but I would rather discuss the idea of Romantic love in this one. We teach it in Grade 10 which I find one grade too early.The education system will insist on this play for the main reason that it covers most if not all the of the poetic devices(Macbeth I believe is the other choice teachers have)...but frankly R&J is weak compared to Twelfth Night or As You Like it or for that matter A Midsummer Night's Dream. I would much rather students grow an affinity for Shakespeare rather than merely cover some stupid governemtn exam so that they can memorize the definitions of poetic terms.
Besides these are hilarious plays -- and laughter is a great learning tool. Even the Helen Hunt filmed stage production of Twelfth Night works quite well. Indeed, the Ben Kingsley Midsummer is quite excellent -- Ben is such a terrific underrated talent.
nt
As I wrote before, Stephen Greenblatt's "Will in the World" is a good overview of thought on Shakespeare today. It shows how he was influenced by the events around him and used them or avoided them in his works in such ways that everyone...a king, a small business owner, a teenager in school...could see themselves in various works. It also shows how he works some interesting undercurrents of his personal life into various plays (the part discussing marital relations and "Macbeth" justified the book's price for me!).I love how Shakespeare incorporates the everyday ceremonies of life in his works. Weddings, funerals, dances (and until this century, duels!). Indeed, the book's central theme is that Shakespeare's work is the "Triumph of the Everyday." Deep thoughts can be presented in the most ordinary of ways.
Years ago, an instructor of mine said that playing Shakespeare is easy: "You just hop on the train and let him do all the work." That is the most astonishing thing about Shakespeare: the variety of ways that one can play what he has given us. I love Eugene O'Neill, especially the very early and very late works. But when I see "Long Day's Journey into Night", I'm going to see basically the same play I saw last time. I may see "Measure for Measure", and I'll hear the same words, but the acting choices can be very different! At the end of the play, when Claudio tells Isabella he is marrying her, she says nothing. In fact, there are 150 more lines, and this outspoken defender of chastity doesn't utter even a word. I have seen actresses glow with joy and pride, and I have seen actresses fume and stomp about, and I have seen actresses just stand still in slack-jawed shock. Those 150 lines don't change...but what Shakespeare gives the performer, and the audience, is incredible. "Infinite variety" indeed!
Look at the lines he wrote, the phrases he coined, the words he created! Phrases like "brave new world," "dogs of war," "by any other name would smell as sweet," and "Methinks the lady protests too much." The words "gloomy," "bedroom," "bump," "monumental," "battlefield," and 1700 others were first heard in his plays.
"Shakespeare is magic." Absolutely, patrickU!
Modern English (yes, with a capital "M") in the exact same sense Dante "invented" Modern Italian.
Too often, folks misunderstand "simple" for "simplistic."
Though he seldom uses "big words," the meanings in his soliloquies are subtle and beautiful as any words ever written.
I wouldn't put too much emphasis on what ONE actor or teacher says about playing any of Shakespeare's characters, especially since we have a video record of Olivier to consult...
Shaekespeare wrote his plays for the uneducated and illiterate of British society. His verse and language changed depending on who said what. At the moment the break-down escapes me and I don;t want to fig through my Norton Anthology because it's one heavy ass book :)
There are many English and theatre students who are afraid of Shakespeare. Since only "Julius Caesar" and a censored ("Peter, where's my fan?") "Romeo and Juliet" are all that is taught in most
American high schools, many students think Shakespeare is "difficult." The teacher's point in his lecture was to demonstrate that Shakespeare offered a variety of approaches and choices to the actor. But first, the actor should not be afraid of the words (I once saw a student reading "Hamlet" freeze before the big monologue and the teacher had to say, "Go ahead, Rudy!" before he continued)!BTW, I think it's wonderful we have Olivier's Shakespearan work to look at. But I also like Orson Welles' films, and I love listening to the John Barrymore recordings. I'm sure you'll agree with me that Olivier is one approach, but not the only approach, to Shakespeare.
Why did he do "To be or not to be" as a voice-over?!
...and when he howls over Cordelia´s death, despair reigns, both on stage and in your own heart!I have a wonderful album (LPs) of that, and I cherish it high...
Regards
BF
Thank God for those recordings! There are so many wonderful "aural-only" versions of great plays (BTW, if you've never heard the recording of "The Glass Menagerie" with Montgomery Clift and Julie Harris, I recommend you track it down immediately!). Whatever the decisions at the time about money that prevent us from seeing these on film or video today, at least we can hear some incredible performances!BTW, in an early draft of one of my posts, I pointed out that it was a shame that we could not compare Hamlets the way Thirties audiences in New York and London could: first Gielgud, then Leslie Howard, and finally Laurence Olivier, with the first two coming within a season or so of each other. At least recordings gives us the shadow of that kind of opportunity!
did Hamlet to a Star Wars kind of minimilist setting. Not my preference but playing Shakespeare is no easy task. I would like to have seen Ralph Fiennes's work in Richard II but alas my tastes are far higher than my bank account. So I'm stuck reading it which was never the point of Shakespeare's plays. And it SHOULD be on the stage -- all the film versions except for some of the BBC productions have all SUCKED royally. Though I never saw the Hamlets done by Brannagh or Gibson -- they'd just Hamlet it up ;) I suspect.
Correction -- I take my comment back -- I have not seen very many film production -- off hand I can think of only a few Romeo and Juliet in the 70s and a couple of Dissapointing Julius Caesar's -- so maybe there are good ones. I have not seen the Denzel Washington Emma Thompson one.
The Emma Thompson one is light and enjoyable, still has the lust for life from the original play.
I love him because of his profound view of mankind, his insight and understanding of the human soul. Our very own essence.
In the end, his humanistic reality and moral.
He is the master of the past and of the things to come.
Always copied and almost never reached.
He is timeless and hence a genius.
He is the best among the best, and yet he was like us, a brother.
I give the nuts and bolts, the craft, as my reason for loving Shakespeare's work. You point to his heart and his soul. Beautiful.
Together we have the whole.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
