On 10/24/08 4:46 PM, "jacquesdebierue" <jacquesdebierue@ yahoo.com> wrote:
> The problem with Shakespeare is that it's archaic language. If you get
> into it, you will probably love it. On the other hand, if kids can't
> get into the language, it's a lost cause. He wrote what he wrote.
>
> I have found that there are people who can't get into the hardboiled
> language, for example. It pains me to say so, but some people are
> repelled by it, or it doesn't "sound" in their heads. We fans think
> the straighforward, cut-to-the-chase way of telling is optimal (in
> some sense) but you should hear what non-fans say about it...
>
> Best,
>
> mrt
I reckon its the other way around. Shakespeare wrote poetic language and the whole point of exposing young people (and old) to it is to inculcate in them a love for language.
The best way to do this is through performance. Performance first, then read the words.
Shakespeare didn't write his scripts to be read as books but as plays to be performed.
His genius was that his words were so good they stay in the brain.
Movies like the Baz Luhrman production of 'Romeo and Juliet' and Mel Gibson's Hamlet, to name but two, demonstrate how universal the stories are.
TITUS? Yes, some performances of the Bard's work can be incomprehensible and pompous but please don't make the mistake of attributing that to the source material.
The Bell Shakespeare Company, by co-incidence, are currently performing TITUS in here in OZ and their production owes a lot to Tarentino from what I have heard
about it.
And surely 'The Scottish Play' is one of the best and most famous Noirs of all? Anybody seen Polanski's version?
Eric
Make the switch to the world's best email. Get Yahoo!7 Mail! http://au.yahoo.com/y7mail
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 26 Oct 2008 EDT