Shakespeare at the movies

[BustyTheClown]

I'm off in an hour and a half to watch the Campbell Scott version of "Hamlet" -- it has the woman who plays Rebecca on "The Practice" as Ophelia. I'm not sure who else is in it, but I know that Scott is an alum of my university. He's coming in to talk to my Renaissance Literature class tomorrow -- a real live movie director!

I've seen tons of Shakespeare plays as movies. This is my second version of Hamlet -- no, third. The one with Kenneth Branaugh, the one with Ethan Hawke, and now the Campbell Scott version. I've seen both "Romeo and Juliet"s, as well as "Midsummer Night's Dream," "Henry V," and -- although it isn't a Shakespeare play -- "Shakespeare In Love."

What do the rest of you think of the various Shakespeare plays turned movies? Do you like the movies/interpretations? Are there some that you like more than others? Would you rather just read the play, or see it acted out in a theater? And if you're feeling adventurous and academic, are there any interpretive choices you've seen that you would change if it was up to you?

This is a lot to ask, but I think it could get interesting.

 

[Starblayde]

Henry V is fantastic.... Brannagh may have his downsides but he knows his stuff when it comes to putting Shakespeare on film....

Baz Lurman's (Sp.?) Romeo and Juilet was cool too, but that just loked great.

 

[April]

The Mel Gibson version of Hamlet sucked. No passion. Branagh's version was really good. But it's been a few years since I've seen it. I could be wrong.

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[Spinaroonie]

Mel Gibson was great in Hamlet

The old school R and J is awful (Except for the breasts if the girl was over 18 at the time)

The new school R and J had a great opening scene, then it went downhill.

 

[BustyTheClown]

The Mel Gibson version of Hamlet sucked. No passion. Branagh's version was really good. But it's been a few years since I've seen it. I could be wrong.

Oh, I've seen that one too -- not exactly the best version I've seen, lol...

The Ethan Hawke "Hamlet" has some incredibly interesting interpretive choices made. It takes place in NYC, commercialism everywhere. Hamlet is *obsessed* with media (videotaping, especially) rather than reading. One of my favorite scenes is the "To be or not to be" speech, which takes place as he strolls around a Blockbuster store in the Action section. Beautiful. Another excellent scene is where he's on the plane to England after being sent away by Claudius, talking about how he's done enough sitting around and how he will finally take action -- he moves from looking at TV screens, magazines, billboards, etc., all reflecting everyone else's view (or some sort of distorted, outside view of the world), to finally looking at himself in the mirror. Powerful stuff.

 

[Private Vasquez]

I've never seen ol' Bill at the movies...but if I do, I'll tell him you said hello

 

[Spinaroonie]

I LOVE Tom Stoppard. The man is freaking brilliant.

Tom does indeed rule....

However... if a director tries to incorporate Rosencrantz and Guildenstern into a production of Hamlet it will suck. I've seen it done and it was awful.

 

[April]

Ethan Hawke version. I think I saw it in the store. Maybe I'll watch it when hubby's on nights. He'd hate it I think.

 

[SexyChele]

If Kenneth Branaugh is attached to the film portraying Shakespeare, it will be wonderful. The only modern-day Shakespearean actor/director, IMO. Anything he has put to the screen, I've enjoyed.

"Taming of the Shrew" with Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton was also good.

Franco Zeferelli's (sp?) version of "Romeo and Juliette" was also well-done.

The version of "Hamlet" with Mel Gibson sucked big time - was tragic to both Mel Gibson and Shakespeare.

I guess I'm a purist - I didn't care for the "interpretive" Hamlet with Ethan Hawke. Too contrived, didn't "fit". The most recent try at "Romeo and Juliette" sucked as well. Well, what do you expect? It had Leo DiCaprio in it.

Truthfully, I prefer Shakespeare as it was meant to be done - on the stage. Shakespeare doesn't translate well to the visual medium, with the exception of Kenneth Branaugh.

See? I told ya I was a purist.

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[Spinaroonie]

That'd be a DAMN long show. I love R&G, maybe it can be done inside of Hamlet, maybe it can't. It's a beautiful piece. Time will tell, I'm sure.

It wasn't incorporating the complete text of R and G... but it was god awful. I would've left if I could've. Instead I watched ith dropped jaw, in disbelief of the bastardization.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

One reason why Shakespeare has survived is because his work is so open to vision and reinvention.

The weirdest interpretation I've ever seen is a tie between a New York Shakespeare Theatre production of "Taming of the Shrew" set in the Wild West with Morgan Freeman as Petruchio and Traci Ulman as Kate, and an "outer space" George Street Playhouse production of "Twelfth Night" ("Star Wars" had just come out and they were all inspired).

The best filmed version of a Shakespearean play is a subject for hot argument. Olivier's "Hamlet" is up there. For me it's Zeffereli's ethereal and lusty "Romeo and Juliet". Naked Olivia Hussey and a hell of a sword fight. Lovely. I heard the recent Ethan Hawk modernist "Hamlet" is supposed to be excellent. I haven't see it yet, though.

The worst Shakespearean performance in history, is me at 14 years old playing Bottom in a church production of "A Midsummer Night's Dream".

The greatest Hamlet is generally considered to be John Geilgud's.

The most interesting purposeful screwing up of something Shakespeare never intended but worked anyway was Kevin Branaugh choice to do Hamlet's "suicide" soliloquy to a mirror through which he believes his uncle is watching -- Hamlet saying "to be or not to be" to his uncle as much as to himself, almost willing the bastard to kill himself. Weird and brilliant, too, was his brightly lit castle, flying in the face of gloomy tradition.

Best line from Shakespeare? "By the pricking of my thumb, Something wicked this way comes", of course.

 

[Guest]

Truthfully, I prefer Shakespeare as it was meant to be done - on the stage. Shakespeare doesn't translate well to the visual medium, with the exception of Kenneth Branaugh.

Me, too! I've seen a bunch of Shakespeare and vastly preferred the live to the film versions of, well, everything. Kenneth Branaugh films are the exception because he was *born* to put Shakespeare onto film for mass market audiences. I'd go see anything at all he was a part of. Period.

When i was growing up, we used to go see plays at the Old Globe Theater complex in San Diego's Balboa Park. (It's right next to the zoo and one could occasionally hear lions roaring and other kinds of animal sounds during the out door performances.) Every time i visit my parents, my father and i go see some play or another at one of the Balboa Park theaters. I count myself lucky if it's something from Shakespeare but feel just as fortunate to simply be there for a live play.

I take my kids to plays in our area. It's somehow more fun, and more of an "event" we do together, then simply going to the movies. The cost is about the same, too.

Live plays are way cool. They're GREAT for dates, with your kids or with someone who is not your kid.

 

[cymbidia]

Ummm, that was me.

 

[QuickDuck]

One of my favourite movies of all time, has to be Kenneth Branaugh's Henry V.

At school, I could never get into Shakespear of any kind, but this movie..... well it just blew me away.

/wave
QuickDuck

 

[Spinaroonie]

At school, I could never get into Shakespear of any kind, but this movie..... well it just blew me away.

There's a bunch of reasons for that
1. A play is meant to be performed
2. OFten kids are forced to read aloud, which results in an unenthusiastic montone voice. Fun.
3. OFten english teachers don't understand it. At tbe beginning of R and J, they're pissing on a building, not brandishing literal swords.

 

[Ishmael]

The best Shakespeare interpretation that I've seen was the 'Taming of the Shrew' with Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor. Damn could they put their emotions out front.

Ishmael

 

[Marxist]

The problem with Shakespeare is that it seems mired in the stage. The best film of Shakespeare's work is RICHARD III starring Ian McKellen.

Truly a marriage of the two arts.

 

[SexyChele]

Ummm, that was me.

cym, you and I seem to have way too much in common sometimes. It can be a scary and wonderful thought!

 

[CarolineOh]

Nobody has mentioned the great Kurosawa adaptations of Shakespeare, Ran (King Lear) and Throne of Blood (MacBeth)

 

[Lovepotion69]

I liked Much Ado About Nothing. Branagh have quite good Shakespeare movies.

I wasn't too keen on Baz Luhrman's Romeo and Juliet though, I much more prefered Moulin Rogue!

 

[Starblayde]

Nobody has mentioned the great Kurosawa adaptations of Shakespeare, Ran (King Lear) and Throne of Blood (MacBeth)

Seven Samurai was fantastic....

Only caught 1/2 of Throne of Blood... wasnt as good but still held my full attention

 

[BustyTheClown]

Ugh, I loathed "Taming of the Shrew" with Elizabeth Taylor et. al. It was cheesy, overacted, and done poorly.

I wanted to wait until tomorrow morning to post about Campbell Scott's "Hamlet" but I can't. It was simply *amazing.* Scott gave one of the most convincing performances I have seen so far. It's set in the mid- to late 1800s, I think (I'm not very good dating stuff), which is strange because architecture, decorations, furniture, etc., were all very colorful, plush, and ornate. I can't quite determine whether that detracted from Hamlet's "madness" and solitude or contributed to it -- he's surrounded by beautiful gardens, lush woods, a beautiful palace, and yet he's utterly alone.

My Ren. Lit. professor told us that when "Hamlet" was first published (in the Quarto version, for those of you familiar with the publishing of plays in the Renaissance period), Hamlet's "to be or not to be" soliloquy was moved. In fact, Hamlet's following interaction with Ophelia was moved forward, as well. Rather than appearing in Act 3, Scene 1 (at line 55), it appeared (and most likely was performed) in Act 2, Scene 2, after line 169 when he enters reading a book and the King and Queen leave him alone with Polonius. Scott's version only moves the soliloquy forward in the action, but the effect is astounding. Rather than following the natural course of the play and building up to the speech -- which is a deep one about death, sleep, the difference between the two, and the reasons people suffer through life rather than killing themselves -- Hamlet seems to be more reactionary, more insane. His thoughts of suicide seem strangely out of place if the soliloquy is delivered in Act 2 instead of in Act 3.

I'm sorry, I know this will go in most of your ears and out the other, and I'm sorry to go into so much detail for seemingly no reason, but I found the effect of simply moving a speech that doesn't really fit into the narrative of the play anyway to be incredible. If you want to check it out, please do. I'd love to hear your thoughts on it.

Or we can talk about any other Shakespeare play any of you have interesting comments or tidbits to share. It'd be great!

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

I'm a First Folio man myself.