Shakespeare should his plays be protected from modern slants?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamAssassin
 

I don't care what anyone thinks of me, WIlliam Shatner is a star and I loved the Rocket Man reference too.
That was a great one he did back in the day, all moody and being fair to Elton John, it was one of his better songs.

ETA Imitation if a form of flattery.
[yvid]
edit on 1/4/12 by LightSpeedDriver because: ETA
edit on 1/4/12 by LightSpeedDriver because: Broken mouse




posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by s12345
 



Hamlet is about a Danish prince who speaks Elizabethean language as all the other Danes in Hamlet because this was the language of Shakespeare. Othello was a Moor who spoke Elizabethean, Julius Caesar a Roman general and emperor who spoke Elizabethean. Titus Andronicus was also a Roman general. Romeo and Juliet were Italian but spoke Elizabethean. My point with this is that Shakespeare wrote it in Elizabethean to communicate to his audience, much as translating that same play into rap today would be to communicate Shakespeare's plays to a modern audience.

Further, Shakespeare mined historical accounts for ideas to write plays and then mangled the history to tell his own story. Richard III was no where near as villainous in historical accounts as he was in Shakespeare's play about him. Macbeth is a historical figure but Shakespeare's play has little to do with the actual historical figure. Should historical figures have been protected from Shakespeare? I for one am glad this was not so.

Even further, there are films such as 10 Things I Hate About You which is modern interpretation of Taming of the Shrew. There is a gangster film called Men of Respect that is a reworking of Macbeth. Akira Kurosawa directed The Bad Sleep Well (an adaption of Hamlet) and Throne of Blood (Macbeth) and Ran (King Lear). Should Shakespeare have been protected from these great works of art? Well...I guess I wouldn't call 10 Things I Hate About You a great work of art, but it is a very good film and has inspired at least a few who've seen it to actually read the source material.




edit on 1-4-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
Nobody gets to stop someone's remake of Shakespeare. What, do you want a "law" against Shakespeare parodies? It's not going to happen. If you want a law against Shakespeare remakes, then I want a law stopping "Dancing with the Stars." Then I want a law against Bertolt Brecht in general because I can't stand "Waiting for Godot."


Samuel Beckett, not Bertolt Brecht, wrote Waiting for Godot. Brecht wrote A Three Penny Opera and Mother Courage.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   
As a theater professional, I say have at him. Do whatever you want to the plays as long as you are faithful to the story.

But if I have to work on another poorly directed gender reversed Hamlet, I may just have to kill someone.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
 


I agree that Bill Shatner is a very talented artist/actor even though his singing(oxymoron?) career was a low.

I was tossing up between posting 'I'm too sexy", "Rocketman" or "Slim Shady". Slim Shady (from Futurama) is a personal favourite but the Youtube vids of it were crappy.

Did you happen to see the Shatner Roast?

Twas the funniest thing I've seen on telly in a very long time.

If you haven't, I thoroughly recommend seeing it.

I'd post a link to it on youtube but it would break the T&C in big way.



posted on Apr, 1 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Oh for what folly we bring when we sting so carelessly
All the while arguing the folly's which our stings will bring
Like worker bees which must die after
Only our inhibitions remain ever after
We sting each other as a resort to affirm our existence
We will die surely for this folly, as surely as a bee buzzes
And just as surely as a one hit wonder, we will fade away

But in the rear view mirror all will be explained
That we stung our folly's to death, and were judged inept of them
Because of all the natures of the buzzing,
Only the queen is left free on the board, of all things noisy only the silent will remain
For only she can move and act, whilst stinging at will, and remain intact for such a folly
Yes at old will, old will I-am shaking my spears so foolishly at nothing significant.

Poor Shakespeare he or should I say they, were but approximately about a 412 year wonder.
Dr Seuss VS Shakespeare round 1....Fight.


Some of the modern slants of Shakespeare are not bad at all.
This one is actually pretty good, but the music could use more work, and so can the rhyme, but other then that
It deserves a one handed clap.




Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 01:02 AM
link   
WWSS?

What Would Shakespeare Say? Let us look to his own words, words, words:

So our virtues lie in the interpretation of the time

~The Tragedy of Coriolanus~

Security Is mortals' chiefest enemy.

~Macbeth~

Light, seeking light, doth light of light beguile

~Loves Labors Lost~

My words fly up, my thoughts remain below: Words without thoughts never to heaven go.

~Hamlet~

More matter with less art

~Hamlet~

This above all: to thine own self be true;

~Hamlet~

What's past is prologue

~The Tempest~



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 02:09 AM
link   
I wonder what the OP thinks of Coriolanus then?


Coriolanus is a 2011 film adaptation of Shakespeare's tragedy Coriolanus, directed by and starring Ralph Fiennes in his directorial debut.[2] Shooting began 17 March 2010 in Belgrade, Serbia.[2]


Shakespearean work in a modern setting.



Don't explode bud, just pointing out a movie!!!! oO



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by bhornbuckle75
reply to post by s12345
 


It's not as if someone took the painting of the Mona Lisa, and cut it up, and made a collage out of it! Shakespeare's work is well into the public domain. Heck making a spin on Shakespeare's work is one of the most common things done in the film industry!

Let's not forget that Shakespeare, himself, very often drew his stories from earlier sources and stories. Romeo and Juliet comes from the story of Pyramus and Thisbe from Roman mythology, which Ovid told a version of (and Ovid was Shakespeare's favorite writer).

King Lear comes from actual ancient English history from the period soon after Roman rule there collapsed.

There are many other examples from Shakespeare's plays, in fact I think most of his works come from either history or are retellings of prior stories. If he did it with Ovid, why can't others try doing it with him?



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by s12345
Come on, rap version of Shakespeare. It's better to do and read something nearer to current english, than take a mans life work and piss on it. How about Oscar Wilde, Agatha Christie, or Beuwolf, or something more classical like The Illiad. Next time someone comes to see the Sisteen Chapel, put some emulsion on it, hell it's old anyway.

Trying a new take on Shakespeare doesn't destroy the original. The words are still there in probably 100 million published copies around the world for all to read, anytime they want to, and it will still get played in its original form from now until the end of time. There's probably multiple copies of his complete works in every single public and school library in the Western World, and probably in most others nations around the world, too. It's not like destroying some original fresco or painting, it's more like taking an image of a fresco and doing an Andy Warhol-style re-imagining to give it new meaning or propose a new way of looking at the thing.
edit on 4/2/2012 by LifeInDeath because: (no reason given)
edit on 4/2/2012 by LifeInDeath because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 05:08 AM
link   
Let's not cover the Beatles either. LOL.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   
A lot of comments by folks whose only association with the Baird is their high school reading of Romeo and Juliet. Sad.

Shakespeare (whoever he was) was a master of translating the human conditions to words. In an English far richer than we speak today. An English most readers never get past. 'Shakespeare sucks. Why can't he speak clearly?'

The stories themselves were not very original. Many were Greek tragedies or common folk morality plays. The people attending the productions expected that.

So if some modern hack wants to re-do his work, fine. No crime. However, do not expect it to be around another 400 years. Sort of like Mozart by accordion or Rembrandt in spray paint.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by s12345
 



Hamlet is about a Danish prince who speaks Elizabethean language as all the other Danes in Hamlet because this was the language of Shakespeare. Othello was a Moor who spoke Elizabethean, Julius Caesar a Roman general and emperor who spoke Elizabethean. Titus Andronicus was also a Roman general. Romeo and Juliet were Italian but spoke Elizabethean. My point with this is that Shakespeare wrote it in Elizabethean to communicate to his audience, much as translating that same play into rap today would be to communicate Shakespeare's plays to a modern audience.

Further, Shakespeare mined historical accounts for ideas to write plays and then mangled the history to tell his own story. Richard III was no where near as villainous in historical accounts as he was in Shakespeare's play about him. Macbeth is a historical figure but Shakespeare's play has little to do with the actual historical figure. Should historical figures have been protected from Shakespeare? I for one am glad this was not so.

Even further, there are films such as 10 Things I Hate About You which is modern interpretation of Taming of the Shrew. There is a gangster film called Men of Respect that is a reworking of Macbeth. Akira Kurosawa directed The Bad Sleep Well (an adaption of Hamlet) and Throne of Blood (Macbeth) and Ran (King Lear). Should Shakespeare have been protected from these great works of art? Well...I guess I wouldn't call 10 Things I Hate About You a great work of art, but it is a very good film and has inspired at least a few who've seen it to actually read the source material.




edit on 1-4-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)


Also, it is worth noting that much in Shakespeare's works was propaganda, or at least, pro-Elizabeth and pro-Tudor. Not necessarily because he supported the "PTB" or any such nonsense. It was just a way to make sure that the current government wouldn't find you to be "treasonous". Richard III is a great illustration. The title character was from the previous dynasty, in an age when some of the nobility may have still questioned the legitimacy of the Tudors (not openly of course). Turning an otherwise insignificant king into a twisted monster was a tilt of the hat to the current dynasty.
Also, Shakespeare was about entertaining and making a living. As with Poe, sometimes hack work produces the most timeless of art. And often "art for art's sake", a la many of the horrific modern Shakespeare variants, are never remembered.
But to answer the OP question: No. Let the terrible adaptations live or die on their own merits. And while I tend to think most rap versions of Shakespeare would be awful, what about that one that really hits the mark and does him justice?



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 09:24 AM
link   
No, that would be censorship. Who would protect his work from the hordes? Its in the public domain. I 'll tell you something else, I renounce/denounce all patents and copyright though don't go out of my way to steal either, but its not equality and having none of that intellectual ownership is absolutely essential to the well being of every single person on earth so we can live like the Venus Project in abundance, not scarsity. Everything else is just greed.

And why shouldn't someone make a rap out of it, if it makes them happy, and others happy watching it?

The original work is still there. And its still public domain, so we all have access to it.
edit on 2-4-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 11:26 AM
link   
I remember being told years ago in English class that pretty much every soap opera on TV has at its core a Shakespeare themed plot. I can see that they were right, because if anyone could capture the most tawdry and gritty side of human nature with class it would be the Bard. He was able to spin tales of lust, incest, murder, greed, and rage with a talent that has transcended time and a million different tastes. I was happy to watch a recent version of The Tempest (2010) and loved every moment. I can see its parallel in Forbidden Planet (1953 or sometime around then) which is one of my favorite movies of all time. There will be cants to reflect current trends in the Bard's plays, but we all know that his works will remain forever immortal.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   
I remember that Shakespeare said something about taking interest, which I found very interesting.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by s12345
 


are you proposing to allow politicians to force legal frameworks that determine how people co-create culture?
if you do
could you please reconsider

i can imagine you didn't like that version of good ol' Bill's work. what i would do in that case is turn to a version i do like and don't interfere in entertainment that some people dig



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by groingrinder
I HATE SHAKESPEARE....OR THAT BACON GUY. WHICHEVER WROTE THOSE AWFUL PLAYS!!! I hope to God I never see another work taken from Shakespeare and put on where I have the bad fortune to accidentally see a bit of it. What trash!


Anyone that has to "borrow" from Shakespeare must be creatively bankrupt.


That's a shame. Perhaps you don;t understand it. I didn't like Shakespeare when I was forced to read it in a school setting either. Then I saw Roman Polanski's adaptation of Macbeth.

Oh.

THAT'S Shakespeare. Rather different than I had imagined all those years. So go see Roman Polanski's Macbeth, then come back here and say you hate Shakespeare.

My guess is that you won't do that.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   
It does seem that if a person was redoing Shakespeare that much, wouldn't it be better to write your own stuff. After all a rehash of Shakespeare is just a rehash. Creating something new would be better. Shakesieare was inspired by classical literature as have many others. He did however write his own thing. The path to greatness for a that type of person lies in writing their own stuff. After all who is a greater person J.K.Rowlin, or someone rehashing Shakespeare. Do you want to be a Terry Pratchett or a minor bit producer/director, play writer in someone else's writings.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by s12345
It does seem that if a person was redoing Shakespeare that much, wouldn't it be better to write your own stuff. After all a rehash of Shakespeare is just a rehash. Creating something new would be better. Shakesieare was inspired by classical literature as have many others. He did however write his own thing. The path to greatness for a that type of person lies in writing their own stuff. After all who is a greater person J.K.Rowlin, or someone rehashing Shakespeare. Do you want to be a Terry Pratchett or a minor bit producer/director, play writer in someone else's writings.


In writing Hamlet, Shakespeare was "rehashing" Thomas Kyd's The Spanish Tragedy:


Many elements of The Spanish Tragedy, such as the play-within-a-play used to trap a murderer and a ghost intent on vengeance, appear in Shakespeare's Hamlet. (Thomas Kyd is frequently proposed as the author of the hypothetical Ur-Hamlet that may have been one of Shakespeare's primary sources for Hamlet.)





 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join