 
|
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 |
84.169.180.135
The Orson and Olivier for me, the first one, particulary for the last one.
Follow Ups:
...great direction, the characters seem so real and not like actors
reciting their lines in a stage workshop.Joseph
patrick,Movie versions of Shakespeare I like:
"Henry V"- 1945 Olivier- the shift between stage to location. Olivier's depth is wonderful. The scene where Henry wanders among the troops in the night before the battle is esp. memorable.
"A Midsummer Night's Dream" -1936 version with Merle Oberon and Mickey Rooney as Puck! Magic in black and white. I even love the opening credits of this movie: "Play by William Shakespeare/ Additional dialog by Sam Taylor". Now that's a credit!
"Othello": I do like the Orson Welles version- the way he presents the gradual deterioration into chaos of Othello through jealousy. Amazing photography of the low budget sets is wonderful.
"Romeo and Juliet": I do like the 1967 or so version by Zefferelli- amazingly delicate
"The Taming of the Shrew": There is nothing at all wrong with the Tayor/Burton/York version. This is really funny, physical, and you can understand every word. It's so difficult to get the meter running proerly and this is one of the most natural sounding versions of Shakespeare and of course Taylor and Burton are believable as a embattled but passionate couple.
"Richard III": I really, really liked the recent version with Ian McKellan as a proto-fascist usurper in the late 1930s. Every detail is just wondeerful. when McKellan's Jeep gets hung up, he calls in a ironic agony "My Kingdom for a horse" and it's chilling! Like so many English mvies, the casting for every part no matter how slight is fantastic. Even Downey did well as Rivers.
"The Tempest": This was one of the last three plays and is a really difficult one because of the complexity of the symbolism, alchemical content, and the proto-phycology. I think Geenaway's version, "Prospero's Books" is almost genius in presenting the magic island conjured by Prospero. The interruptions to show the magic books might have been better integrated, but the whole atmosphere of magic and the constant reminders of the play's symbolic elements: air, earth, fire and especially water is brilliant ans subtle. Gielgud is perfect as the intellectual going through an alchemical mid-life crisis. The nudity too was so naturally done as to make the body almost abstract and neutral. Fantastic.
Almost Shakespeare:
"Ran": The Kurosawa version of King Lear- marvelous n wevery way
"Throne of Blood": The Kurosawa version of "Macbeth" Beautiful, and the sinister Lady Macbeth was never more insidious.
Rubbish Shakespeare:
I just hate the Branaugh versions. Branaugh has no absolutely no feel for the meter or language and is wooden and confused throughout with two styles- quiet declamation and "angry" declamation. Disasters. I think his "Much Ado about nothing" is the worst Shakespeare ever filmed. His "Hamlet" is so dull, Branaugh is so stiff and remote and confused as to be unwatchable. I think of Branaugh as the English Kevin Costner.
Mel Gibson's vanity project of Hamlet. If Gibson had been the Prince of Denmark, it's was a good thing his Uncle took over the country. instead of deep existential angst and paralyzing ambivalence, Gibson shows us a confused idiot that spends his life reading lines badly from a book.
Cheers,
Bambi B
Hello Bambi B,First let me thank you for your long and detailed answer!
Let me give a few thoughts.Merle Oberon was a beautiful woman from India. But I am not very fond of her acting, in fact I am quite certain she could...not.
But her beauty shine...Richard III, well this film disturb me a little, it was fascinating in a way transposed in this post modern setting, but it was very loud ( I know WS IS ) and some parts well a little beyond my taste, for the rest I see it the way you do.
Branagh´s film "Much Ado about Nothing " is not that bad, no I do find it quite enjoyable, in fact.
As his portrait of " Shackelton" was also a good job.As for Gibson, I through with him. He is just too lousy.
Salut d´Allemagne!
Patrick
Oy Patrick!Shakespeare on film seems to always bring out extreme opinions and I think it's more difficult for those for those of us with English as a second language as the meter and archaic vocabulary is another level. Even a native English speaker speaking Shakespeare without knowing what they're doing, it turns to incompregensible mud.
I know a few words of French, Russian, and German- but only enough to realize how much I'm missing in some of my favourite movies.
Branaugh: I really can't tolerate his Shakespeare, but I agree "Shackleton" was excellent and the best work by far I've seen with him.
Gibson: He should stay with Road Warrior stuff and leave the classics to professional actors.
Maintenant, nous avons pour attendre seulement pendant quelque temps et nous aurons la "Hamlet" de Arnie Schwarzenegger: "Oh, dat dis twoo twoo solwid fwesh vould bee melting."
Salut d'Etat Unis!
Bam
Bonne soirée Bam!In fact if I read WS, I mean the old English version of course, I see the very " facteur commun " between this language and the French as it was at this time too.
Many similitudes and common way.But still the " music " is some times hard to catch, I must conceid for a non-native.
Branagh: I would say that he could not destroy the spirit ( for me ) of WS in his " Much Ado..." I felt the joy shining through, and the perfect setting in Italy like a ray of sunshine.
On " Shackelton " there is nothing to argue, it is just excellent.
For God´s sake! Don´t defy the almighty, Arnie as Iago, that would be " La fin du monde "
Bonne journée,
PatrickPS: Maybe the only way to really see WS in on the " planches du theatre " and nowhere else, came just to my mind.
Just buying a ticket for the "old Vic " and turn the time back to anno 1920 / 1968...
I love all of Welles' Shakespeare films! I think "Othello" is probably the best one overall, followed by "Chimes at Midnight" and then "Macbeth". Amazing things in all three, but the single best sequence in any Welles' Shakespearean movie is the fight in the mud that is the centerpiece of "Chimes".I also love Olivier's 1944 version of "Henry V." And I shall never forget Peter Cushing in Olivier's 1948 "Hamlet".
Because I once acted in a university production heavily based on it, I have a special place in my heart for Zefferelli's 1968 "Romeo and Juliet."
Just curious, how do the French jokes in "Henry V", and that great conversation between Catherine and her maid in Act III, Scene IV go over in France?
Well placed in the context of the long time feud between France and England they are the real original ennemies, the French still speaking of " the perfide Albion " you can imagine...
I think there always will remain a sekptical part in the relationship of the two countries.
See de Gaulle and Churchill in the last war at London town.Well I maybe the one here but I also like " Shakespeare in Love " for its lightness and spirit distilled in the essense of WS comedies.
Much less talked but also quite good is this one:
..but I really liked Franco Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet (Olivia Hussey was amazing) and Hamlet (I really liked Mel Gibson's performance). I think Zeffirelli has a way of capturing Shakespeare and making it readily accessible.
Cetaele (aka Bob)
Not at all, it has is very own special esthetical attraction.
What we also should not forget is Bergman´s " La Flute Enchantée "...
a Peter Greenaway filmLike stepping into an Elzabethan tapestry, great cinematography and sets
Grins
Greenaway is a hard sell for lots of people.I love this particualr movie, not only for the imagery, but for the pure pleasure of hearing Sir JG speak WS.
It is interesting that I generally love Greenaway, but feel he is prone to overdoing certain things. Thick imagery, like all strong emotion producing elements, should be done in tasteful moderation, and that part was missing, I thought.
Greenaway isn't interested in "tasteful". He's also not particularly interested in plot or conventional storytwlling. (Which is OK with me, since that's ALL nearly everybody else is interested in doing.)He's a formalist/constructionist. Prospero's Books and Pillow Book are almost like bookends - both explore PG's obsession with text, symbolism, imagery, numbers, form and transformation. I don't think he's done nearly anything as interesting to me since.
For this reason he will forever remain in the second echelon of movie makers - those with a promise but never time to polish their creations. Movie art requires that the director masters more than one element of it, and this is where he falls behind. He is one of the masters of shock imagery... well, that is good start. Yes, form falls under the same umbrella. But his philosophy is non-existent, and his work is heavily grounded and unable to fly, it just can't spread its wings.As you know I too am not too concerned with plot, but images all by themselves are just images, not movies.
8
----------
This space available.
It was like drinking from a fire hose. Somewhere there's got to be a limit to the extent of the relentless pursuit of thick imagery. Greenaway overdid it by a long shot, so it was over-indulgent and... boring...
Burgundian blur?
Any Shakespeare Olivier did was superb, from Richard to Hamlet and anything in between.
That little English fellow married to Emma Thompson (at one time), Branaugh, was too wimpish.
Olivier looked like a Prince, and the lisp only added to the mystique...(maybe the reason things didn't work out w/Ophelia was that he was gay---Shakespeare was, anyway.).
Not at all!
It was more a question for people who knew I was thinkink and talking about.
And guess what?
You also find out....PS: WS gay? That is not so certain as you would let us believe it. I may be more for " bi-sexual ".
Fine acting, but the age definitely kills the effect - he was 41 already.That is the curse of Hamlet - a bunch of good geriatric performances!
Branaugh is whimpy indeed.
If Hamlet was a youth, then much can be readily understood. But some scholars believe Hamlet was much older (though 30 something, not 40 something) and either certifiable or bent on power and revenge. There are textual hints in play they claim supports their hypothesis.As for "Larry". Lord Olivier was always far more impressive on stage than on film, at least to me. As was Burton, for that matter. Burton did come to learn "screen" acting, though. And there are moments in Becket and Spy Who Came in from the Cold which are excellent, indeed. Of course, the former was originally a play and the latter a very intllecualised spy thriller.
But, to me, Olivier never got the subtlties of acting on screen. Even when he aged and depended on film for money to fight his cancer he played overdrawn villians (often Nazis in hiding). He was an actor so thoroughly steeped in the projection required for the theatre that film was very difficult for him. His technique and tricks became obvious (blatantly obvious in Spartacus for example). Nevertheless, even in film, I have seen (and still see) far worse. His stage performances were absolutely electric, even at the Old Vic in his later years.
In fact, when I think that Richardson, Gielgud, Olivier, Burton, Scolfield, Judith Anderson, Joan Plowright, Helen Hayes, et al and even John Thaw and Jeremy Brett are lost to us on stage and that all we get now are movie actors with microphones; well, I am stunned at what has dissappeared.
Fine acting, but the age definitely kills the effect - he was 41 already.That is the curse of Hamlet - a bunch of good geriatric performances!
Branaugh is whimpy indeed.
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 ]
