Taken from the SMS thread: [quote:e6daed0c22="sleepy_sarge"][quote:e6daed0c22="Rincewind"]I'm quite enoying the BBC's shakespeare re:told. Though, I've only seen Macbeth and I thought they got the story a bit wrong. But it is a good example of re introducing shakespeare with out destorying it.[/quote:e6daed0c22] Yes and good on yer. I'm enjoying it too, and I agree it didn't destroy the original. However I also think it, and the others in the series, in comparison with those originals are pants. I hope I'm not being snooty about telling a story in different ways. I'm all for that. However let's compare like with like. The BIG difference between W. Shake.and all the interminable remakes is his (or whoever holds the current vogue for claiming his talent) use of language/verse. Kiss me kate, West side story etc etc...Wonderful cinema? Yes!!. They are on my list of favourite movies.!! Are they Shakespeare? No. Directors can do a great job of directing. I've not come across a script/screenplay writer who can match the Bard. In the Macbeth thing, the words just jarred horribly. I suspect this inconsitency of opinion is what is behind my a) enjoyment of the "one minute book" type of topic, and b) my desire to immediately join (lead?) Roman's lynch mob. PS I am still not a pedant... honest!![/quote:e6daed0c22] Yeah, the writing wasn’t a patch on him- but then Shakespeare is kind of hard to beat. I kind of forgave them of that because I think they’re retelling Shakespeare’s stories, rather than his language. So what the BBC is attempting to do is retell the heart of the story in a modern setting. Shakespeare’s eloquent use of verse wouldn’t, in my opinion, have fitted in here. People in modern setting don’t speak in the same rhyming method (I don’t know what it’s called) so using it would have been out of place. I liked that they at least used a few of the Shakespeare figures of speech that are popular today, such as, ‘You’re to full of the milk of human kindness’ and ‘pound of flesh’ and in ‘Much ado about Nothing’ apparently they used Shakespeare’s sonnets. Now, having forgive them of not having the same great use of language as the man himself (because they where never intending to retell his style just the basic story) I still have problems with the new ones (admittly I’ve only seen MacBeth). Firstly, they changed the nature of Duncan and Macbeth’s relationship. For those who haven’t seen it the new story runs like so, Macbeth is Head Chief at Duncan’s restaurant, Duncan himself has been elevated to status of celebrity chief, only his recipes and cooking that got him there are all Macbeths. Duncan never does the cooking but takes the credit. Lady Macbeth is the Maitre’d. Duncan’s son has little interest in cooking (only spending a few days in the kitchen) but is due to inherit it. 3 mysterious bin men are the witches. Mac duff, I think is a business partner, or something. The problem I have with the new one is that Duncan has done Macbeth wrong, by rights Macbeth should be the celebrity chief because it’s all his work. I don’t think this is true of the original play, Macbeth has no real claim to the throne- there is no reason it should be his other than because he wants it. In the new version Macbeth has reason to harm Duncan (maybe not kill him) because Duncan has robbed him. Also, I think a better metaphor for the witches should have been, instead of Bin Men, food critics. As they have the power to predict the future or destroy a career. Similarly as the witches can curse a ship, the critics can give a bad review. But that’s just my personal opinion. I agree with sleepy, that the writing could have been better. There where bits that I liked, I thought most of the acting was great. Macbeth especially. I liked him going a mad. I also liked instead of the woods of wherever beening the sign of his downfall, the bin men said ‘pigs will fly before you get harmed’ and at the end the police helicopter landed on the roof-flying pigs. I liked that. Has anyone else seen these? What did you think? I also have a great Idea for Romeo and Juliet retold (I say great, I mean, average)
I have watched all three of these so far: Much ado about nothing, Macbeth and Taming of the Shrew. I agree with you that the re-telling of his plays is in the idea and not in the actual content of Shakespeare’s plays and each play is re-told as such - they were produced with a different set of actors directors and producers and should probably be seen as individual parts of a 'set'. Much ado about nothing I thought was very well scripted and well played out, I enjoyed it immensely however I have not read the play so I do not know how far 'off track' it may have been. I thought that Macbeth had it's good points and not so good points- I didn't particularly think that Lady Macbeths scripting was strong enough although I believe that it was acted very well. I liked the dustbin men witches but I didn't think that the ownership of the restaurant was clear- How was Macbeth ever going to 'own' it? Taming of the Shrew- well the whole idea was good- having the main female lead as a politician but the change in Rufus Sewell's character (Petrucchio) from one of 'I couldn't care less' to 'head over heels in love' seemed slightly forced. Again I thought it was well acted - the snarling Shirley Henderson was great. (She also played Myrtle in the HP movies) I'm looking forward to Johnny Vegas as Bottom next week in a Midsummer night’s dream! A direct transportation of 15th century language into a modern setting would probably not have worked in this instance- although it has been done before! The range and number of words used in those times was much larger than it is now so to change Shakesperes work into modern English to fit the modern setting of these Television programmes probably wouldn't work.
I've only seen the total mess that was made of the Scottish play - a pity, because Much Ado and the Shrew are the two I have performed in most recently (in the last couple of years) - I'm sorry I missed them - or maybe not seeing what was done to the Scottish play - this series should never have been publicized as Shakespeare Retold - writers frequently steal old plots from earlier writers, this is accepted, but as far as I can remember even West Side Story was never claiming to be a re-telling of Romeo and Juliet, just "based on". It is perfectly possible to stage Shakespeare in the original language in a modern setting - or anything in between (I've seen productions where major speeches to the masses were delivered in a television studio, or - in an open-air production of Two Gentlemen of Verona - outlaws made their entrance in a vintage car) It is the beauty of the script which is important, not the setting - something which Shakespeare "purists" tend to forget - the ones who object to "modern dress" versions ignore the fact that in the original productions of, say, Julius Caesar, the cast were [i:7e3a2aac7f]not[/i:7e3a2aac7f] togged up in togas - they wore normal everyday medievel costume. Kiss Me Kate (which I have also performed in) is actually Shakespeare [i:7e3a2aac7f]within[/i:7e3a2aac7f] a play - a touring company with a plot situation which mirrors the play, but keeps to Shakespeare in the "on-stage" bits. Rosencrantz and Guildernstern Are Dead (yes, I've been in that too - twice) takes minor characters and follows them when they are off-stage, but in both cases the Shakespearian bits are followed accurately - well, apart from some of the speeches in the Shrew being turned into songs for Kiss Me Kate, but then if musicals had been in fashion on Old Bill's time, I'm sure he would have done the same.
Not being very knowledgeable about acting productions or basically anything artistic at all... Why bother creating a modern setting to stage a 15th century play? I'm not going down the purist route as you eloquently put it Pixel, and I understand that it may cost a lot of money to put on a production in elaborate costumes, but I mean, what's the point- does it bring anything new to the format? Do you think that it helps people like me who take a good few reads and a lot of questions/crib notes to understand Shakespeare better? My brother who told me he watched the three programmes told me he enjoyed them- He's never read Shakespeare or had any knowledge of anything that Shakespeare ever penned- perhaps this is part of the audience that the BBC wanted to reach? They ARE Shakespeare retold- but just not in our viewpoint! I think you just have to watch them with an open mind- they are a set of four of Shakespeare’s plays, and to do a series of them like this I suppose they couldn't NOT call them anything but Shakespeare Retold- If they didn't I think someone may have noticed! As someone who has preformed the plays, How would you suggest Macbeth be played?
While it *is* possible to have a modern day telling of shakespeare with the orginal language (I quite enjoyed the Bas Lurman Romeo and Juliet) that isn't what the BBC where trying to do. So you can't told it agianast them when they don't suceed in doing so. Also, I doubt is possible to commission prime time modern telling of shakespeare with orginal language. Sadly, this would alienate alot of the modern audience. Instead, the BBC attempted to create that stories in a setting that modern people could relate too. They wheren't putting on a play but turning shakespeares stories into Drama. Personaly, I love shakespeares use of language and would of loved if they got more of the orginal lines of the play in. While Macbeth wasn't perfect (I heard it was the worst of the bunch) it did manage to capture some of the spirit of the play. For me, I think attempting to retell the plays is far more interesting than just playing them. I'm watching these becuase I want to see how they're going to tell the play, and how the story will compare to the orginal. I think that is much more interesting and creative television that just making Macbeth. And I think it will get much more people interested in shakespeare. I do think that they (well, I've only seen macbeth) could of been much better and that they picked the wrong modern setting to retell the story.For example, I think something like a corperate take over/High Powered business would be a much better place to set Macbeth than a kicthen. But I really like the Ideas behind the show, I just don't think the excution of the idea was that great.
I thought they were very well made, the humour is still there and the stories and language are much more accessable to people. For instance, my friend Alex; She has never read Shakespere, and she prob never would. Yet because of the re:told series she has enjoyed stories she would never have appreciated before, and now she is actually trying to find the books to read the originals. If you want to see an exact version of a play, you go to the theatre. There is no point complaining that the re:told series told the story differently, because that is the point. The Taming of the Shrew was brilliantly done, and I think is the best of the series so far. ~B:wink:B~
I've seen proof that Shakespeare's dialogues can blend perfectly into modern (or somewhat modern) setting - [b:a2ce6c3a8b]"Titus", 1999[/b:a2ce6c3a8b], based on Titus Andronicus. The whole story - an exceptionally gruesome one at that! - was presented as a phantasmagoria of no particular time period, as opposed to real events set in a real environment (Imagine characters that duel with swords one minute, then drink Pepsi and play video games the next... Their costumes likewise went from ancient Roman to medieval to Tommy Hilfiger and back again). Suspension of disbelief was required from the start, and so you never got that "If it's set in a modern world, how come they're addressing each other as "Thou"?" feeling... Seriously, if you're in the mood for unbelievably well-filmed Shakespeare (believe me, you'll follow the plot with no trouble at all!), see [b:a2ce6c3a8b]Titus[/b:a2ce6c3a8b]! But, again, be warned - it's REEEEEALLY dark and twisted. The filmmakers bent over backwards to handle it artistically and with a ton of taste, however it's still what it is - probably the bloodiest play ever attributed to the Bard. It's not very well known for a reason!
Oh yes. Tongue removal, rape, murder, severance of limbs... Titus Andronicus is extremely bloody anyway. You had to offer people something [i:3c9f2f875a]really[/i:3c9f2f875a] fascinating (see: gory) to rival the main form of entertainment at the time; public executions. Oh yes, good stuff. Edited for lame typo I didn't even realise was a typo.
Did anyone watch the last in the series last night- A Midsumer Nights Dream , if so, what did you think?
The only one I've seen is Taming of the Shrew, which is annoying, because it's the only one where I don't know the original inside out! All I have to go on are Kiss Me Kate and 10 Things I Hate About You!! I thought it was a good play, regardless of whether or not it was true to Shakespeare. [quote:fc3d39c436="Rincewind"]People in modern setting don’t speak in the same rhyming method (I don’t know what it’s called) so using it would have been out of place.[/quote:fc3d39c436] And they did in the past????? I haven't seen Titus, but I though Baz Luhrman's Romeo & Juliet made very effective use of Shakespeare's language. I liked the little touches like naming the guns "dagger" etc, so everything was explainable. But then, Baz Luhrman has done lots of work with actors teaching them to really relate to Shakespeare, and I think he's proved just how possible it is. As far as retelling the stories goes, I can't help thinking with a lot of them that they're just the same plots that we enounter all the time. Love triangles, person hates person but loves them really and doesn't realise it, etc... Once you've changed the language (not forgetting that Shakespeare was a poet) and taken each plot out of context, eg taken the king from his scottish castle and placed him in a restaurant, can the rest of the story still really be attributed to Shakespeare? Of course, I could probably answer that question myself if I had actually seen the plays in question!
I saw a bit of A Midsummer Night's Dream last night, thought it was pretty good. Bottom was particularly funny.
I missed the Dream* last night because I was at the dress rehearsal of a production of Romeo and Juliet by one of our local amateur groups - the only way I could get to see it because I am lighting The Merry Widow the rest of the week. It was done modern dress as street gangs - bandannas, hoodies, baseball caps, shell suits, torn jeans - mobile phones and iPods - Friar Lawrence and Friar John became female vicars - but apart from gender-specific changes the text was in the original (apart from cuts, which are almost invariably done to Shakespeare nowadays because at full length the plays run too long for modern audiences - done in full they can run to over four hours, and with television programmes and films tending to be much shorter, audiences just don't have the attention span that they used to) - and it worked very well! *Otherwise known in theatrical circles as the "Tit and Bum" show (Titania and Bottom of course - what did you think I meant?)
I think the problem is here, is while a modern re-telling of shakespheare (with the orginal script) can be done, as a play or singular movie, your not going to be able to get one made as Prime time BBC One show- there just isn't enough appeal. It would cut off too much of the audience. So critismisms against The 'Re:told' series for not doing this aren't valid. They're not trying to put on a shakespheare performance. They are trying to capture the esstance of shakespheare great stories and protray them in a way that is accessable to a modern audience and still have the board appeal needed to win the rating wars. [quote:e198958ab2="Hermia"]As far as retelling the stories goes, I can't help thinking with a lot of them that they're just the same plots that we enounter all the time. Love triangles, person hates person but loves them really and doesn't realise it, etc... Once you've changed the language (not forgetting that Shakespeare was a poet) and taken each plot out of context, eg taken the king from his scottish castle and placed him in a restaurant, can the rest of the story still really be attributed to Shakespeare? Of course, I could probably answer that question myself if I had actually seen the plays in question![/quote:e198958ab2] On a very broad term, yes, these are themes we've encountered before. But to be honest thats so broad it doesn't really effect anything- those themes are common in every story. be back to this post later. Now even if you removed the language and the setting from shakespheare you've *still* got some great stories. Stories that prephaps even get over shadowed by the poetic nature of the writting. The Macbeth story isn't about 'Becoming king of Scotland' it's about ambition and murder, about Macbeths relationship with is wife, about how he deal with the crimes we commit. Thats what the story is about. At it's core and it's this is trying to be retold. How, you can say, that the BBC didn't tell this story in a good way- MacBeth was flawed. But what they where attempting to do was fine.
[quote:2367f75ff5="Rincewind"]I think the problem is here, is while a modern re-telling of shakespheare (with the orginal script) can be done, as a play or singular movie, your not going to be able to get one made as Prime time BBC One show- there just isn't enough appeal. It would cut off too much of the audience. So critismisms against The 'Re:told' series for not doing this aren't valid. They're not trying to put on a shakespheare performance. They are trying to capture the esstance of shakespheare great stories and protray them in a way that is accessable to a modern audience and still have the board appeal needed to win the rating wars. [quote:2367f75ff5="Hermia"]As far as retelling the stories goes, I can't help thinking with a lot of them that they're just the same plots that we enounter all the time. Love triangles, person hates person but loves them really and doesn't realise it, etc... Once you've changed the language (not forgetting that Shakespeare was a poet) and taken each plot out of context, eg taken the king from his scottish castle and placed him in a restaurant, can the rest of the story still really be attributed to Shakespeare? Of course, I could probably answer that question myself if I had actually seen the plays in question![/quote:2367f75ff5] On a very broad term, yes, these are themes we've encountered before. But to be honest thats so broad it doesn't really effect anything- those themes are common in every story. be back to this post later.[/quote:2367f75ff5] I agree- you have to take them for what they are- a retelling of the story- as was mentioned before. I thought that Puck (the bloke from Shameless) was excellent- he just seemed like a scruffy drug dealer trying to ply his wares of 'a few love potions or two' Bottom played by Johnny Vegas was also excellent.
