The Destruction of All Things Good

[Canucklehead922]

I wanna rant about something that pisses me off to no end. It is this:

What makes my blood boil and hate coil in my heart (figuratively) is yahoos who make the following statement (or something much akin): "D-uh...gee...mebee we shou'd, y'know, change Shakespeare's work so he's, like, more comprehensible to the masses. Like, y'know, update the language and stuff."

To which my response is: "MORONS! You DON'T change Shakespeare's work! There are a few reasons why we study his works: a) his work is classic, if anything deserves that title; b) his sense of humour and drama is all-encompassing; c) his characters are fabulous; and d) the mose important reason: HIS WORK IS BEAUTIFUL POETRY!

Changing his work to dumb it down for the single-digit IQ of the average television viewer is to destroy the very reason why we study him in the first place! I can't stand these morons who don't take the time to READ what's placed before their eyes. Shakespeare, despite what people would tell you, is not difficult to understand; the words are not all out of use (most can still be found in the dictionary, and those that cannot are usually listed as footnotes or endnotes). The only changes I can approve of are those that change the spelling to common usuage; otherwise, it would be difficult to read. But the actual words should be the same. It is poetry of the highest magnitude; Shakespeare was the greatest author ever to put quill to paper. Anyone who says different is a moron who hasn't taken time to actually read his work.

By the way, if you're one of those yahoos who think Bacon wrote those masterpieces, you're then declared as a snob who can't believe that a man born with neither wealth nor title can achieve excellence.

(Everybody's favourite Canucklehead was been now locked away for the safety of morons everywhere.)

 

[Expertise]

Although I don't get extra upset about Billy's works (specificaly) getting dumbed down I think that the reason behind it is alarming and it really does piss me off.

Our schools and many parents are doing a LOUSY job of educating our kids. It has become so pervasive that unless it is simplified to an extreme it is not worth the effort or just "too hard". I coach kids and know them well enough to tell who is and isn't intelligent. So I find it particularly enraging when I see that even the intelligent ones are no where near where they should be academicly or intelectualy.

I firmly believe that many of the "new age" and "enlightened" educational philosophys are to blame. Being more concerned about a kids self-esteem than learning, along with "self-paced learning", the "Whole Language" concept and, this is going to piss some people off, integrating the intelectualy challenged in to main stream classrooms has been extremely detremental to our youth as a whole. There are many more of these absolutely ludicrous concepts in practice out there that I have failed to mention.

Our current educational system does not bode well for the future.

And if you really want to see something horrid check out the new Bible being put into many catholic churches. They have replaced the beautifly written King James version with something that reads like a third grade primer.

Venting complete.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

There are plenty of reasons to suspect that someone else wrote Shakespeare's plays, the least of which is the uncanny ability of a simple man who barely ever left his provincial county to understand the complexities of foreign courts and the histories and cultural references of a dozen nations, to be so widely read as to use ancient plays and an astounding number of mythological references in his work, and possess a vocabularly so immense that it rivaled that of the most learned men of his day. That sort of knowledge is not picked up just by becoming a voracious reader or by possessing a mere keen intellect. Still, put that aside and there are plenty of other reasons to suspect other men or writing the plays, including facts about publishing dates, notes in margins of other works, the neccessary underground voicing of royal and religious criticism, and the tremendous number of clues in the lives and works of other men who are much better candidates for "Shakespeare" than Bacon ever was. It's an old argument, with too many curious questions to be simply swept aside.

 

[Endlessly]

My favorite Shakespearean candidate is Queen Victoria. I sort of like the idea that a woman wrote the plays..

I agree though. I absolutely HATED the new version of Romeo and Juliet, with DeCraprio and that redhead, Claire Danes. She's a good enough actress, but not good enough for Juliet.. And what's there to say about Leonardo, except I've never failed to pay to watch the boy die. He dies well.

I try not to have problems with modernizing the settings of Shakespearean plays, because it's a testament to the timelessness of his work; however, it irks me as much as it does you when they change the language, or when the setting and the language doesn't jibe. (Juliet putting a gun to her head and saying 'oh happy dagger' did nothing for me.)

 

[Expertise]

Victoria? Wasn't he an Elizabethan? I'm very confused or very ignorant?

Until someone better proves the Bacon theory i'm accepting Willie as the author.

 

[Endlessly]

Doh. ELIZABETH, I meant. I always get those damned queens mixed up.. At least I didn't say I thought Shakespeare was really RuPaul.

 

[scylis]

yes, it would be Elizabeth, not Victoria...

anyway...
it's not just the fact that they "modernize" it, it's that they do a terrible job of modernizing it, too...

and i'd pay the 7-8 dollars just to see a 15 minute clip of DeCaprio dying...

 

[Weird Harold]

What's in a name?

it's not just the fact that they "modernize" it, it's that they do a terrible job of modernizing it, too...

Is it only when they keep Shakespeare's name for the story that it's a bad thing to modernize?

How many of you think that "West Side Story" is a bad movie(play)? It's just Romeo and Juliet in a fifties gang setting. How about "Kiss me Kate" or any of the other award winning adaptations of "the Taming of The Shrew?"

Almost everything the Bard wrote has been renamed and made into a movie, most of which made money and won awards. It's just when it's given the name associated with Shakespeare's version that people get upset.

 

[KillerMuffin]

And what's there to say about Leonardo, except I've never failed to pay to watch the boy die. He dies well.

Well oh my, I thought I was the only one who felt that way.

You wouldn't happen to be one of the generals in the great Mayonnaise Rebellion would you?

 

[Laurel]

Almost everything the Bard wrote has been renamed and made into a movie, most of which made money and won awards. It's just when it's given the name associated with Shakespeare's version that people get upset.

I was going to say that, but WH beat me to it and said it much better than I ever could.

Also, Shakespeare's FILLED with bawdy insults and crude humor that would have cause snickering in its time, but that we don't get because of the culture gap. Our view of Shakespeare as this creator of high-brow art is not entirely accurate - he was entertaining the masses, as do the movie and TV writers of today. So to poo-poo today's pop entertainment in favor of yesterday's pop entertainment is to miss the point, I think.

 

[Rosebud]

OMG Laurel...please tell me that it wasn't you that just typed poopoo...LOL

 

[Naked Hunny]

Now i was only 15 when the version of Romeo and Juliet with Claire Danes and Leo came out and of course me driven by my lust for Leo( ok that was then ive moved on) went to go see the movie. Now i will admit i read Romeo and Juliet not one time but 7 by this time (love love love it) and i was soooo disappointed in the movie that when asked by one of our teachers ( an English teacher at that) if we wanted to view the movie in class i was adamant about not watching it(obviously the bitch never watched the movie) I found it to be poorly redone. Now as was said there are many movies that are remakes of Shakespearan plays but all the words are changed to reflect today. In Romeo and Juliet they used the same wording but in todays setting no offense but it didnt make any sense!! OK damn ill stop typing now im starting to make my posts too long!!

 

[CreamyLady]

I happen to think "Ran" and "Throne of Blood" are far better than many of the so-called straight versions of King Lear and MacBeth.

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

I've always thought that the argument over the authorship of Shakespeare's plays, while interesting, is unimportant. Does it really matter who wrote these plays? All that matters to me is that they're the greatest drama ever written in the English language and a wonder and inspiration each time I'm lucky enough to see one performed or read a few scenes.

They could be written by Francis Bacon or Kevin Bacon and it wouldn't matter a whit.

 

[Endlessly]

It would if you were playing six degrees of Kevin Bacon.

 

[Laurel]

I liked Ran, and The Seventh Samurai, but my favorite Kurosawa was Dreams (which had no Shakespeare in it, but it DID have Martin Scorsese as Van Gogh)... But see - that was a master doing his version of another master, whereas the lameass Claire Danes/Leo DiCaprio Romeo & Juliet crap (which I didn't see, and don't want to see) wasn't.

OMG Laurel...please tell me that it wasn't you that just typed poopoo...LOL

All I EVER type is poopoo, my lil buddette...

 

[Laurel]

It would if you were playing six degrees of Kevin Bacon.

True! The game would be MUCH harder...

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

It would if you were playing six degrees of Kevin Bacon.

LMAO! Excellent point, Endlessly!

If you can connect Francis Bacon with John Donne in "six degrees of Sir Francis Bacon" (the all-time favorite Elizabethan party game) you'll win my undying love.