For Friday, we're going to watch more of the film adaptation of A Midsummer Night's Dream, covering roughly Acts 3 and some of 4. We will discuss the film on Monday and I'll lecture a bit about the realities of Shakespeare's theater and his poetic language.
Until then, here are questions to respond to. As always, only answer TWO for Monday's class:
1. A Midsummer Night's Dream is set in ancient Athens and concerns both real and imaginary (mythical) characters--notably the spirit Puck, the lord of the fairies, Oberon, and his wife, Titania. Given this, why do you feel the film set the play in late 19th century Italy? What does this allow us to see and/or experience about the play or the characters? How does this setting mesh with the otherworldly aspects of the play?
2. This version is also very much a "star" production of the play, using seasoned Shakespearean actors such as Kevin Klein, Rupert Everett, Dominic West, and Anna Friel, along more mainstream actors such as Stanley Tucci, Michelle Pfeiffer, Callista Flockheart, and Sam Rockwell. Do you feel this performance serves the play more--or the actors? In other words, is this Shakespeare done by famous actors, or famous actors doing Shakespeare?
3. Based on this staging of the play, is this play a celebration of romantic love or a rejection of it? What do you think Shakespreare's (or the director's) intention is with all the mistaken lovers, rejections, and reconciliations? Cite a specific scene in your response.
4. If you've seen other productions of Shakespeare (whether on-stage or in a film), what do you think is the most important aspect of Shakespeare to preserve: the language, the story, the setting, or the characters? Which aspect shouldn't be tampered with, and by extension, which aspects can survive adaptation/tinkering? In other words, what quality seems to make Shakespeare Shakespeare? (and does this film preserve this?)
2. I think that it serves the actors. I feel like being in a Shakespearean production as an actor proves the skill of an actor. Memorizing Shakespeare and performing those complicated words seems harder to me than modern lines. When I see a famous actor doing Shakespeare, I view it as a “higher level” in their career. But, maybe I put Shakespeare on a pedestal a little bit.
ReplyDelete4. Shakespeare is ALL about the language for me. I really enjoy adaptations in not traditional settings or garb, but the original language has to be preserved. This adaptation seems to stay true to the language. The change of setting is not distracting to me, but I can see how some might have a problem with it.
Elyse Marquardt
ReplyDeleteQuestion 1: I believe seeing the film set in a more recent century in a country that everyone is familiar with helps the audience get into the story more. Nowadays, we all look at ancient Athens as a place that only existed in poems and epics; it IS a fairy tale, togas and chariots and all. So a popular country in which people ride bikes and wear suits and bow ties makes the story more relatable to the modern movie viewers. This also brings out the fairy world in sharp contrast, as the audience can clearly see that it is far different from the normal world of Hermia, Lysander, Helen, and Demetrius.
Question 2: Overall, famous actors were merely performing Shakespeare. I didn’t take them to fully be the characters, but instead they seemed to be secretly laughing at themselves and each other the whole time. Granted, it is a silly story; but the actors seemed to treating it so. (Kenneth Branagh does the best screen versions of Shakespeare plays that I have ever seen. His movies are superb examples of Shakespeare being done by actors who fully throw them into their parts and become the characters.)
Ashley Bean
ReplyDelete1. I kind of feel like the more modern setting really helps the mythical side of the story stand apart. Nowadays we generally associate fantasy type creatures with older times, like the Renaissance and even ancient Italy probably. So for this adaptation, it really helps to foil each story line against each other. Maybe to help make this story slightly less confusing even.
4. It really depends for me. I would say language, for the closer adaptations. Shakespeare's language always sticks out, I can hear a line and be able to recognize it if's his. However, I also would say story because of The Lion King. It's very lightly based on Hamlet, (Lion King 2 is based on Romeo and Juliet) but none of the language is even similar. The setting and characters are completely different, but I can still recognize it because of the story. I know that Lion King is not Shakespeare by any means, but it's a good example I think.
2. I think this play is being done by famous actors. To me it didn’t seem like they were really feeling what they were saying. I’ve never read this play or seen it performed so I don’t have anything else to compare it to, but just watching this version made me feel like they didn’t really get into the characters they were playing. It almost felt more like a joke than them actually wanting to tell the story. Maybe that’s the way it is in the book…. I don’t know since I’ve never read it, but to me it just felt like something was off.
ReplyDelete4. I think the most important aspect to preserve is the language. When you think of Shakespeare one of the first things you think about is the language that is used in his writing. It kind of defines him and so I think that it should be the one thing that isn’t tampered with. Each time a play is redone different actors are used so little things change - such as the way they portray that particular person or that moment - but as long as the language doesn’t ever change, the same message comes across.
2. I love that they use more famous actors, than traditional Shakespearean actors. To me, it doesn't get too much more difficult than Shakespeare, since there isn't a whole lot of room for improvisation and artistic freedom if you forget a line or get stuck. Therefore, being able to accurately and enjoyably is a major accomplishment. Of course, I'm biased and borderline idolize Shakespeare, but this is definitely Shakespeare being done by famous actors.
ReplyDelete4. The language. Without a doubt. The language is the most important part of any Shakespearean work. His use of the language is the entire reason we still study him today, the reason he didn't die out like so many other writers of his time. His work is all beautifully written and full of rich language. Yes, it can be a little difficult, but that makes it all the better. Every adaptation is slightly different; settings can be played with, entire scene can be cut, lines can be read with different inflections which change and audience's perception of a character, some people even believe that Hamlet was involved in a romantic relationship with his mother. You can play with all of this, and it still be Shakespeare. But when you start messing with the language, you lose the very essence of the play.
Great points--every performance IS different, since there is no ONE Shakespeare performance. The text needs to be interpreted since it is only beautiful language loosely connected by characters (Shakespeare didn't even provide stage directions--those came later by other hands). So the more we watch, the more ideas we see that might be hinted at in the text.
DeleteDevin Martinez
ReplyDelete2.) I felt like this performance certainly served the actors credentials immensely. Shakespeare's plays have been performed for hundreds of years by countless actors and these modern day celebrities probably take just as much pride being selected for the play now as other actors did 500 years ago. The fact that its performed using Elizabethan English speaks to the talent as this language is not so commonly spoken anymore. The play itself stays the same however each actor brings to the part a specific quality of pronunciation and dialect. Certainly something that would add credibility to any actor's resume. The production value is able to gain attention from a cotemporary audience by using famous actors from a modern era therefore encouraging a new generation to take interest in Shakespeare if they had not otherwise been exposed to it.
4.) For me Shakespeare's plays have always been about the language and the characters. I think a lot of us are drawn to the style of English spoken in his plays because its a very formal version of the English we speak today. Being that this was the norm for Shakespeare's time, there is a still a poetic form that exists in the dialogue of his plays. This is supported by the characters as well. Each character brings to the stage a different voice and personality that often effects the representation of the original intention Shakespeare had in mind for that role. John Malkovich is an actor whom I love to see in movies and a big part of why is because of his voice and enunciation of words. In the movie, "Lorenzo's Oil," Nick Nolte plays a part with a heavy Italian accent and it sounds (to me anyways) very strained. These qualities can make or break a performance for the viewer. To be more specific, it is not hard to tell the difference between an actor who is trying too hard to sound formal compared to another who the accent maybe comes a little more natural to. The language and the characters, to me, are the key to any reproduction of Shakespeare.
Great responses...as you suggest, the characters are trying to immerse themselves in the world/language of the play without calling undue attention to themselves. Your Nick Nolte example is great, since a bad (or odd) accent reminds us that this is an actor trying to play a part. We don't get the sense here that these actors are "wink-wink" playing Shakespeare. Though some suggest Kevin Klein is overdoing it a bit much in his comedic scenes (a matter of opinion--I don't mind it).
Delete2. This movie reminded me of the adaptation of “Romeo and Juliet” that starred Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes, to an extent. However, this movie wasn’t nearly as modernized as that one. But the similarities are strong. They both used mainstream actors and actresses and they stayed true to the language of the plays. I think this is probably extremely hard for modern stars, and truly shows timeless skills. I feel like using a mix of thespian actors and mainstream actors was crucial to this film. The mainstream stars help expose Shakespeare to a broader crowd, while the theatrical stars help keep it authentic. I feel like Shakespeare was served well in this production.
ReplyDelete4. Unfortunately, I’ve never seen an on-stage performance of Shakespeare, but I can say I’ve seen two movies now that preserve Shakespeare well, in my opinion. Shakespeare is so much easier for me to watch rather than read, maybe my imagination is just lacking. The thing that makes Shakespeare hard for me to read, is also the thing that I think shouldn't be tampered with, the language. It’s difficult, but it’s beautiful. I feel like liberties can be taken to make his plays more relative to modern times, but I don’t think it’s truly Shakespeare if you change the words. So much power is invested in language within a Shakespearean work; I don’t think it should be altered.
Great responses...yes, Shakespeare is much easier to watch than to read, because Shakespeare never felt he was writing a complete text. It was a play script, meant to be interpreted and filled in, despite the enormous wealth of the poetry. And yet, no performance can capture everything we find in the play: going back, we find more and more that this or that performance completely missed (or chose to ignore). It helps to watch him first, and then go back and read for the finer details that only careful reading can bring out.
DeleteKelsey Tiger
ReplyDelete2. I think this is famous actors doing Shakespeare. They became acquainted with their role and adjusted to meet the expectations. I imagine memorizing these lines and learning to speak “Shakespeare” was very difficult. So I think these actors deserve props for taking on a role this difficult. Therefore I think these actors/actresses served the play more.
4. Language. It’s almost like Shakespeare has his own language. Stories, settings, and characters can change but the language is really what makes Shakespeare, Shakespeare. I think by preserving the language a type of era is preserved too, which is important in Shakespeare.
Good responses--but why is the language so important? What does it say about his work and/or the world they come from? Remember that everything we've read so far has been translated, so what makes Shakespeare more 'pure' than, say, Chaucer? Shouldn't Shakespeare be translated as well so we get the story clearer? (I don't agree, but playing devil's advocate here).
ReplyDelete2. I feel the performance serves the play more. Although it is not always the case, lesser known actors/actresses may be less experienced. I think it would be a disservice to A Midsummer Night’s Dream. The actors seem to “lose” themselves in the poetry, and nostalgia of a Shakespearean work. I have seen these actors in other works, but it wasn’t a distraction for me. Now directors and producers play a huge part in the presentation of a film, but for the most part I think they wanted to keep the almost sacredness of a Shakespeare play intact as they reintroduced it to a modern audience.
ReplyDelete3. I believe this is a satire of romantic love. So in that sense there is a subtle rejection. To me nothing felt magically romantic about Helena stalking Demetrius through the woods. Titania giving potion to love a man with a donkey as his head was disturbing. Hermia and Lysander have a love that is still ignorant of they many dynamics in a relationship. Yet, they are willing to risk it all, run away to the woods, and somehow start a successful life together in a strange unknown place.
Shelby Pletcher
ReplyDelete1) I've seen 2 stage versions of this play, an older BBC televised production, and I read the play in high school, and out of all of those opportunities, I probably connected with the characters most in this film adaption than anything else I've watched or read. Not to say I didn't appreciate it before, especially considering how often I chose to sit down and watch all of these different variations of it. I love Shakespeare, but it's no secret that his plays can be confusing, which is why I appreciated this version of the classic play. By modernizing it, they made some of the characters more vibrant to me. Also, by diluting the difference between the real world vs. fantasy in all the original adaptions of this play, the fantasy world loses some of it's magic. Although, I will argue that by modifying this story from its original format like this could cheapen some of the language as it is. But that's an argument for another day.
3) I definitely have always seen A Midsummer Night's Dream as I see a lot of the less high-scale romantic comedy's of the 21st century, as nothing more than a satirical mock up of love. This play does not follow the typical style of a romantic story. Things go completely awry throughout almost the entirety of the story. I think this is what makes Shakespeare's works so long with-standing throughout centuries. It defies the seriousness we tend to think people of the 14th century English culture possessed. They were human and Shakespeare depicts this in such a unique, entertaining, beautiful way without losing the sentiment and sacrality of the human spirit.