 
|
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 |
68.82.238.89
In Reply to: Re: Please put your dukes down, RGA! posted by Gee LP on May 3, 2005 at 18:14:31:
Did I miss any comma's? Gee (pun...), these waters are getting dangerous!
Follow Ups:
I guess I stayed on the soapbox a little too long. But when someone comes out with guns a'blazin', blasting someone not only for what they are saying, but also the way that they say it, then t's had better be crossed and i's dotted. Repeating (because nothing RGA posted was an original or even interpretive thought) one sentence (!) ad hominem attacks on someone because he or she chooses to critique films in, gasp, one or two sentences, sure doesn't provide a lot of critical insight into a different position.And I'll admit the idea of someone who writes "alla", or thinks that Arthur Miller's "Death of a Salesman" was based on "the great American novel," suggesting someone else take a literature class....
Wow!As I wrote before, RGA makes some good points: There doesn't have to be "good" in a character for that character to be human or for that character to be interesting in a work of art. Iago, anyone? And the first "Godfather" film did romantize the familial aspect of the Mafia. But who, walking out of the theatre after seeing "The Godfather, Part II" would have wanted to join the mob? (I won't discuss "Part III" because IMHO that film never should have been made. It allows RGA to call the series a "Mob Soap opera" in a way that the first two films alone do not deserve.) And RGA demonstates knowlege of current teaching pedagogy when he discusses using, say, films about a historical subject in a history class (I think his specific example was the Holocaust). I won't even discuss the use of "Star Wars" or "E.T." as films that have withstood the test of time (and I love both films and think they both will be around for a long, long time!). Well, okay, one comment: will the re-release in 1000 theatres of "Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace" in a year or two prove IT has withstood the test of time?
But just because someone waxes effusively about "The Age of Innocence" (a Scorcese film I'll admit I don't care for), or suggests that films need characters with some amount of "good," does not mean that they deserve an attack along the lines of "another wannabe art-house poster," etc., etc.
So I guess my point is (no "little one snippet comment" here!) that while I agree with some of RGA's criticisms of tinear's comments, the personal criticism wasn't justified. When RGA really wants to sit down and write, he can add to the critical discussion. But the personal attacks do not shed any light on tinear's post. They only shows things about RGA that are perhaps not so flattering. It's one thing when Pauline Kael and Norman Mailer mixed it up, or Vladimir Nabakov and Edmund Wilson, but c'mon RGA!
suggest all characters had to have redeeming qualities (but most do; however, it may not suit an author's purpose to show a many-sided character).
Rather, I was criticizing Scorscese's bleak view of the human condition. His view is depressing, ill-humored, and in-human. The tragedy of Macbeth (though I'm loath to mention it in this context) or Richard II, for that matter, is his immensely complex character, with so many good pieces, turned to evil. Of course, Shakespeare shows the triumph of the more positive.
I don't need a "feel-good" story but merely one which doesn't tilt unreasonably (and in Scorscese's case, repeatedly) towards the dark.
The question is whether you paint with a broad brush. If a subject is not to your liking, do you judge the work based upon whether YOU like the subject matter? Which is what I think you are suggesting. YOU do not like Scorscese's subject matter, and critique what his films are about rather than how they are about the subject. There is no difference in that analysis than someone who is aghast at public nudity concluding that David is vile and without merit. I believe that would be the position of our former United States Attorney General. Such a opinion would render a fair number of paintings at the Met as being mediocre.Too many people on this forum, I feel, spend too time discussing the qualities of a film on the basis of there being too much violence, sex, dialog, etc., as though a violent, sexy, comedy, etc., cannot be good.
My own take is that Scorscese is one of the best filmmakers making films in the last thirty years. That is my opinion. There is no right or wrong answer. There have been a few times that I have not enjoyed a film, gone to rotten tomatoes, seen that 80% of the professional critics enjoyed the film. I am not arrogant enough to think that those others got it wrong, and I got it right. I am grounded enough to think that maybe the problem is with me, rather than the film. Maybe I did not see something I should have. Maybe I did not appreciate either the culture, the history, something that would have snapped the film into focus for me.
Unfortunately, our society has decayed into this me first mentality, where the weak links are with something or somehere else. If I did not like the film, it was because it was not good. Not because I did not understand it. If I do not make enough money, it is because society held me back. Well, have you ever thought that maybe the problem, for lack of a better word, is with you?
Scorscese grew up in Hell's kitchen, at a time when Hell's kitchen was every bit of the word. He says that his films come from the types of people that he knew, and saw on a daily basis. I was not there. I could not imagine living there. Have you lived there? Was your existence violent, having either lived it or seen it on a daily basis? If there was no humanity in that life, and those characters, why should Scorscese put them there in his film.
Some have this misguided impression that, while art can take you to a better place, it can also show you a place that you would not otherwise have knownn. In other words, educate you. If Scorscese is showing us the characters he knew, and the places he knew, than I want to see it, warts in all. If I want humanity, then there are other videos on the shelf.
sale on them this week, or what?
Again, I have no problem with violence or the subject matter: I like and admire Tarantino.
No, my problem is the perspective, the lack of humanity in Scorscese's vision. He exalts the violent. To watch him work is to see sadism and mayhem lifted to an altar of worship.
Ultimately, that is also the major problem I have with his friend Coppola's Godfather. The Pacino and Brando characters are elevated to sainthood. Oh, sure, Michael is shown to be nasty to his wife and murdering his brother but these become insignificant in his "character"'s life, which is about carrying on the family business, i.e. crime (murder is ok but, horrors, not drug-selling!).
Neither of these gentleman have a moral bone in his body and THAT is my objection. Both cross over the lines of portrayal from depiction to empathy and then sympathy.
Again, your are missing the creative origin of their respective works, which, to be fair, should be considered in your evaluations. Tarantino never pretends that he culls the violence and lifestyles of his subjects from his personal experiences and observations. They are purely from his imagination. The purpose of his films are not to educate the filmgoer, but rather to entertain. I do not doubt that there are some that can be entertained by pure violence, but Tarantino uses style, I think inventive and creative use of the English language, and creative conversation, to offset the violence.Scorscese, on the other hand, uses his personal knowledge of those he has witnessed, and the community he grew up in, as a source for his more violent films. Why? Because he is attempting to bring that experience to your living room. You know, there are people that do not want to know what happened in Cambodia, the Soviet Union, and Nazi Germany. And there are people who do want to know what happens in the seedier side of American society. And that is fine.
But do not look through the window, decide you do not like what you see, then complain that the communicator did not present the truth to you in a way that you did not appreciate. Simply look the other way. Is there humanity in the Mafia? I am no expert, but I have read Valachi's and Fratiano's books, and there was no humanity therein. And they had no moral bones in their bodies, either. Should the books not have been published? There is no question that the older mafia types disliked making money from drugs, and there numerous gangland murders for no other reason than some older mafioso refused to reap the financial rewards of drugs, and so were seen as a hindrance to the organization. In corporate America, you are laid off, given your pension and a new watch. In organized crime, you are murdered. That is reality. Why criticize Scorcese because he gives you a dose of reality? Must film always be a fantasyland? Must it always make a judgment for you? Have we lost the ability to see evil even when the film maker does not hold a sign to the camera and tell us that killing is bad? Can film never educate? I like my fine steak without steak sauce, thank you.
Therefore, to compare Scorscese with Tarantino is unfair, because the two are trying to do different things with their films. I try to appreciate both for their individual visions, and what each tries to accomplish with their films. Would you compare Jerry Rice with Emmitt Smith because Rice is faster than Smith, or Smith can run through more defenders?
change the topic when cornered or is it purposeful?
The Mafia books you mention (I'll throw in Mario Puzo, as well) do not ascend to art, and to be fair, they don't attempt to. Scorscese DOES in Mean Streets with his emotional portrayal of the underlying friendship between the Keitel and the DeNiro characters...and then fails in subsequent films about the mob to so humanize them. We are left with a squalid, brutish vision of the world. There is no redeeming value in any character. None.
By focusing his lens so closely, Scorscese fails to place his subjects into context. An example: one can make a film about Nazi concentration camps w/out just showing the torture and killing. Films such as Schindler's List do so and rise to art.
Scorscese fascination with ugliness and thugishness lowers him into the sewer. He is so bereft of feeling he won't even look upward.
There was no redeeming value in Amon Goeth in real life or the film and in fact Spielberg and Ralph Fiennes did a fantastic job of giving Amon a multi-dimensional persona that is fitting to the pre-emininant historical novels by Christopher R Browning (Ordinary Men...) and Daniel Goldhagen (Hitler's Willing Executioners).Goodfellas (which should have won best picture and director as most pro critcs acknowledge) lead character had redeeming qualities relative to many of the others. People in this world you may be surprised to know value greed and the easy life above all else and love to have power. Nowehere is that more clear than in Goodfellas and indeed Schindler's List. Gang mentality doesn't go away, desire for power is capitalism and if you can;t play within the system you create your own or your the sheep like most of us forum posters who do our job for X amount of money and lead vanilla lives.
Scorcese grew up in anything but a vanilla world and his world is our world -- just the part we like to hide under the covers. His characters in the films I believe work best Taxi Driver and Goodfellas have redeeming characters or at least pitiable characters even tragic. I have not seen Mean Streets - I bought the Scorcese Box Set(first one) and will look through the films to see where I stand when I see a larger sampling of his earlier work.
I'm not convinced that he is necessarily any better a director than Steven Spielberg --- Frankly from what i can tell Scorcese is successful in a narrow subject matter and far less successful when he he strays from the seedy. Spielberg can do it all whether it's the big stupid cheesey popcorn movie that is just one bag of fun or when he does something like Schindler's List which transcends the movies and is by quite a wide margin the best film I have ever seen. The anti-Spielberg crowd can kiss my hairy butt on this one.
Spielberg also has made some of the biggest dung heaps I've ever seen -- so at least when he misses he misses BIG. I'd have it no other way.
I am not changing the subject. I referenced the mafia generally, and the books on the mafia specifically, only to demonstrate that what Scorscece depicts in his films are real people, as did Coppola in the Godfather films. My use of those books was only to buttress my argument that what Scorscece is doing is different than what Tarantino is doing, and to compare them is to compare apples and oranges. Once again, for the learning impaired, Scorscece is attempting to give you a window into a world that you are probably not familiar with. Tarantino is not. Scorscece is attempting to portray real type people in a real environment. Tarantino is not. Scorscece is trying to educate you, in addition to entertaining you. Tarantino is not. If you have a problem with viewing a film which attempts to depict violence that takes place in parts of our country as it is perpetrated by amoral people, who have not a humanistic bone in their body, and would rather have a film maker tell you that violence is bad, and provide you some style, panache, and, at the end, that all the bad guys in black hats get their commupetance, then the limitation is with you, not Scorscece. Ironically, you enjoyed Tombstone, with it's "humanistic" portrayal of Doc Holliday, a ruthless killer. So, maybe your preference is that the film maker rewrite history to make images tidy. To each his own.I am merely asking you to carry your analysis to the logical extreme, and you refuse to do so, for reasons which are obvious. When you compare Scorscece to Tarantino, I write that you are comparing apples to oranges. I provide you specific reasons why. I provide you specific examples for Scorscece's window on his world. Yet you refuse to address any of those arguments. Why? Would you compare Tarantino to Hitchcock, and then conclude that Tarantino is somehow lacking? Oh darn, there I go changing the subject again.
Well, I, for one, wish RGA best of luck in his discoveries, but I would like to warn him of trying to pass judgements way too soon. I recall one exchange with him some months ago when he went from "Fellini... who?" to making such harsh statements about the director (based on him watching just one film, as far as I recall... the 8 1/2) and pronouncing his art deficient and not worthy of attention. In his previous post you will see more references to that great work, so I believe more studies are in order.
First let's discuss what stands the test of time. Who decides? I am sick of reading people on forums say their little seen movie as standing the test of time. A small minority of self proclaimed experts (only similar thinking people agree) will call some unknown movie as standing the test of time. Well guess what, every movie that is on a recorded medium 'stands the test of time" because eventually somebody is going to see it in 2005 when it was made in 1935.This is the same argument that is found in English Literature and what I wrote about on Death of a Salesman , which I never said was "based on the great American novel"). I'd like to see this since you have direct quotes around it. A select group of people decide what is to be canonized as great literature or in this case great film art. And there seems to be a direct correlation that if it’s popular then it must automatically be terrible and if it loses piles of money then it must be something wondrous. That is of course unless it is made in the United States and is funded by any sort of major studio.
I can make the proclamation that JAWS has stood the test of time if we consider 30 years to be a reasonable number. Yes Jaws the big summer blockbuster by Steven Spielberg (yes he’s a Jew and we know how many hate to give them any credit) but please all the art-house folks please argue that this film has not stood the test of time! The criteria is not that it needs to be re-released in order to have stood the test of time but that it had stood it’s own time or ANY time. The Age of Innocence tanked then it is forgotten now and sure to Tinnear and the great minority who liked this film to THEM it may stand up well. I suppose the real question is what the hell are they talking about when they say it stands the test of time?
“And what is wrong with "deep thinking film criticism in little one line snippet comments"? Pauline Kael got started doing the same thing”No there is no deeper thinking – if one can succinctly come up with something truly pithy that is one thing but in case you have not noticed Tinear and Victor are not Pauline Kael.
Well when we get into issues of grammar, punctuation, and spelling then I know how little the other side has to offer. Typing is not my forte.
I am not in film school. Film is far too low an art form to be considered worthy of my time. That is another argument for another time I suppose.
I don’t really care how one judges a film to be quite honest. I suggest that many older films do not ‘translate” well with today’s viewers. This is not the filmmaker’s fault as there were many rules that they had to follow to be allowed to show their movie. A lot of stupid things like if you have a love scene the woman on a bed had to keep a foot on the floor and other things that an audience today would not necessarily know and when viewing the movie might find it silly. Much of the acting, due to the style most actors were following also seems incredibly stilted to an 18 year old who has just seen Pulp Fiction. The context approach would be a good idea and I’m not saying that it must be followed or that it is even correct. A lot of older film critics lived in a different time and what is a pivotal very personal and emotionally wrenching film to 60+ year old Roger Ebert may play very differently to 30+ year old RGA or someone in their teens.
There are some people who rabidly hold onto their past and when younger are more impressionable. The film that made me love movies in the beginning I may hold onto for 40 years. There is absolutely nothing visually spectacular at all about Citizen Kane by today’s standards. Nothing! Sure if we put a qualifier like “it was a revelation of its day” or “it set a visual standard of such and such that many films have followed” but it certainly NEEDS this qualifier. In the “out of time” objective world its visuals would be laughed off the screen by some mediocre movie like the Matrix. And then we get some lame comeback that well Tarrantino is no good because he copied everyone that came before him. So, anyone who uses the word “THE” is copying the guy who came up with the word “THE”.
When I say judging a film on its merits I mean judging the film on what the filmmaker is attempting to attain. I find it totally asinine to compare most unlike films. There is a tier system to the whole thing that reminds me of Racial Eugenics. Drama is above Horror, character studies above comedy, Science fiction is beneath the lot and on and on.
Judging “Raiders of the Lost Ark” an action adventure based on old pulp novels which is comic book inspired was an idea of the Director who when growing up loved these stories. Now this is an example and not to be side-tracked into a review of this film’s merits. Most would agree that on the film’s terms it’s been done to brilliance (I respect that some will disagree but also respect that the vast majority and even pro-critics do agree on this film). Either way I am using it for the sake of argument. Now, enter a film like John Carpenter’s Halloween, or Blatty’s the Exorcist. Here are films that have zero in common with Raiders. These films were meant to scare and or disturb us. Once again, most people/critics felt they did a great job at doing exactly what the filmmaker set out to do.
No it is merely people pontificating that because they didn’t “like” a film or a filmmaker’s body of work then that film and or filmmaker is weak. There is no objective truth to any of this. Slick action films like “The Rock” serve a purpose and while not terribly deep or at all deep does this genre of action packed spew one liners as well or better than most.
I may like “2001: A Space Odyssey” or whatever art-house flick the art-house crowd thinks is great more because I find it might stimulate my intellect more, but better does not it make.
People get trapped into definitions and begin to hold very narrow views on art. On the music forum you have posters like Soundmind who holds a very narrow view of what good music is to a breakdown of superior instruments to the least useful. Funny, I don’t think my liver is necessarily more or less important than my pancreas but to each their own.
And since if I like Death of a Salesman as a commentary on the American Dream being a mirage for most and call it a modern tragedy I can back it up with babble written by a bunch of PHDs, well this will get me my A+ thank you very much. Am I right? Of course not, but wrong I can tell you I am not.
I was not attempting to attack tinear - I just unfortunately dumped it on him a long time dissatisfaction with self-proclaimed experts of SUBJECTIVE things like ART.
I am puzzled by your comment on Star Wars or ET. If you have a case to make against them or Jaws of standing the test of time then make it. Again, I hope not to read another self-proclaimed expert commentary that says something along the lines that “the dialog is goofy or the story is thin.” I agree on both counts but that won’t necessarily hinder it from lasting. After all Shakespeare was not incredibly deep and he’s managed to stay with us.
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?
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 © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
