← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Gabrielle
Thread ID: 16326 | Posts: 9 | Started: 2005-01-16
2005-01-16 21:12 | User Profile
Note two things:
Shakespeare's works can't be 'gotten rid of'...but they can be distorted and judiazed...just like the Bible - if they can't destroy it right out, they'll pervert it and thusly, in a round about way, destroy it...
**"Joseph Fiennes, who plays Bassanio, is comfortable with the kiss and the idea that the two men may be lovers.
"I would never invent something before doing my detective work in the text," he told Reuters. "If you look at the choice of language ... you'll read very sensuous language.
"That's the key for me in the relationship," he said. "The great thing about Shakespeare and why he's so difficult to pin down is his ambiguity. He's not saying they're gay or they're straight, he's leaving it up to his actors." Merchant
"I feel there has to be a great love between the two characters ... there's great attraction. I don't think they have slept together but that's for the audience to decide."**
[url]http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movies/01/03/film.merchant.reut/index.html[/url]
2005-01-18 20:01 | User Profile
[I]Merchant of Venice[/I] is already a very dangerous play from the kosher point of view, because it not only exposes the jew but subjects him to ridicule. Hence, it must be nullified, and doing so has been a sort of ongoing project for the Elect of God for some decades.
In years past, the usual way of doing that was to teach Literature students that MOV was a "parody," a "scathing satire" of anti-semitism. There wasn't anything in Shakespeare's cultural context to support such a contrary conclusion, it's just that they had to indulge in some heavy-duty doublethink to keep us from seeing what was before our eyes.
I well remember, when I was at college, the Drama Club did a presentation of MOV in the school theater. I doubt that any university-level drama group would even be permitted to stage such a play in these prissy times, but this was in the mid-sixties, and Political Correctness was still in gestation.
At any rate, the student audience [I]howled[/I] at Shakespeare's Shylock caricature, and was rolling in the aisles when he got his repeated comeuppance at the end, just like the groundlings must have done at the Globe Theater. As a freshman English Lit major, I felt quite superiorly appalled at this unseemly display. Were these ignorant rabble so utterly unlearned that they couldn't understand this was a [I]satire[/I]? The joke was on me, of course, but I didn't figure that out until much later.
With today's rock-bottom levels of literacy, The Chosen can't take the risk that enough of the masses have been educated enough to have been through the "satire" indoctrination. Horror of horrors, they might even be crude and un-trendy enough to actually laugh at the parts the Bard meant to be funny! So they"update" the story with a "twist," throwing in a properly degenerate-chic angle -- and presumably softening the lines that are insufficiently respectful toward God's Very Own Hand-Picked Chosen People.
Keeping the lid on the truth -- it's a full-time job.
2005-01-19 03:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE]With today's rock-bottom levels of literacy, The Chosen can't take the risk that enough of the masses have been educated enough to have been through the "satire" indoctrination. [/QUOTE]
They don't hafta. Shakespeare movies weren't exactly box-office back when society was reasonably well-read; nowadays, you could film Shylock chugging baby's blood out of a longneck throughout the scenario, and nobody but the critics would be in the theater to know about it.
2005-01-20 19:50 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]They don't hafta. Shakespeare movies weren't exactly box-office back when society was reasonably well-read;
Might depend upon what you're willing to classify as "box-office." The Brando version of [I]Julius Caesar[/I] (1953) did all right, as did Olivier's [I]Hamlet[/I] (1948). I think the 1967 Burton/Taylor [I]Taming of the Shrew[/I] sold a few tickets, although it could plausibly be argued that this was more due to the gossip-column antics of its stars than any love of English prose. Certainly [I]Romeo and Juliet[/I] with Olivia Hussey (yum!) packed 'em in back in 1969.
The closer we get to the present, of course, the less well does Shakespeare fare in the amerika of [I]Shreck[/I] and [I]Lethal Weapon[/I]. Kenneth Branagh's 1989 [I]Henry V[/I] was a fine and stirring piece of work that probably failed to break even. Nor, I'm sure, did his 1993 [I]Much Ado About Nothing[/I], in spite of the loathsomely PC touch of casting the talent-free but melanin-rich Denzel Washington as Don Pedro, fare any better. I never bothered seeing Branagh's version of [I]Othello[/I].
[I]Titus Andronicus[/I], generally considered the worst of Shakespeare's plays -- and with good reason -- got a gore-drenched filming in 1999, with Anthony Hopkins in the title role. But even an audience weaned on splatter films failed to lift this atrocity out of the, er, red.
I did enjoy the 1999 version of [I]Midsummer Night's Dream[/I] with Kevin Kline (yeah, I know) as Bottom and Stanley Tucci as Puck, but since I keep seeing the DVD in the bargain bin at Wal-Mart, I think we can safely assume that it didn't sell any record numbers of tickets.
So I'd have to say that at least [I]some[/I] Shakespeare adaptations, if not exactly record-breakers, have at least done respectably well. But oddly enough, the closer we get to the MTV era, the less money they seem to make. Hmmm... Could there be a correlation? Naw -- everybody [I]knows[/I] that our "enlightened" modern social order is the best of all possible worlds. Only an Evil Right-Wing Racist would think otherwise.
nowadays, you could film Shylock chugging baby's blood out of a longneck throughout the scenario, and nobody but the critics would be in the theater to know about it.[/QUOTE]
Abe Foxman would be there, jowls a-wriggle as he jumped up and down, peeing his expensive pants while threatening a lawsuit.
2005-01-23 15:31 | User Profile
I saw TITUS a few months back, and the Brando JULIUS CAESAR just the other day. Despite all the TITUS production had going for it (big time English thesps, 'hot' director, expensive production, 'edgy', revisionist interpretation of the play) and the negatives associated with JULIUS (mixed cast of American and Brit actors, studio sets in place of location shooting, hidebound 'straight' reading of the play, etc).....well, let's leave it at "Hail Caesar". Brando's funeral oration has lost [I]nothing [/I] to the passing of five decades, btw.
Love HENRY V as well - both versions, actually - but for my money the best of all the Shakespeare films is Polanski's MACBETH.
[QUOTE]But oddly enough, the closer we get to the MTV era, the less money they seem to make. Hmmm... Could there be a correlation? Naw -- everybody knows that our "enlightened" modern social order is the best of all possible worlds. [/QUOTE]
You are forgettng the MTV-ized, rock-video version of ROMEO AND JULIET we were 'treated' to a few years back. And for all we know, there's an all-black, hip-hop version of the Bard waiting in the wings for us even now.
2005-01-24 14:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]
You are forgettng the MTV-ized, rock-video version of ROMEO AND JULIET we were 'treated' to a few years back. And for all we know, there's an all-black, hip-hop version of the Bard waiting in the wings for us even now.[/QUOTE]
You're right, I did forget that one, probably because I couldn't bring myself to bother watching it. Did it do well financially? I seem to recall it being given a good bit of hype at the time.
As for the negroid version of Shakespeare, I wouldn't rule it out. If Heebiewood can do it to Frank Baum ([I]The Wiz[/I]), they can do it to The Bard.
2005-01-24 20:13 | User Profile
Anyone who's followed this thread for this long may be interested in the following synopsis of [I]Merchant of Venice[/I] from the Sony Pictures website([url]http://www.sonyclassics.com/merchantofvenice/index_site.html[/url]):
**Set in the lavish era of 16th century Venice, Shakespeareââ¬â¢s most powerful play comes to bare in Michael Radfordââ¬â¢s THE MERCHANT OF VENICE, which follows the interlocking lives of a captivating assortment of classic Shakespearean characters.
Bassanio (Joseph Finnes) is the typical Elizabethan lover and aristocrat ââ¬â young, impulsive and romantic ââ¬âwhose lavish lifestyle has left him deep in debt and desperately in love the fair Portia (Lynn Collins) of Belmont. But to win her hand, he must prove his worth. To prove his worth, he must not only raise money he doesnââ¬â¢t have, but he must also correctly solve the riddle of matrimony bequeathed by Portiaââ¬â¢s late father.
Determined to call Portia his bride, Bassanio employs the support of his dear friend Antonio (Jeremy Irons),a successful merchant residing in Venice. But with no word from his trading fleet, Antonio is short of resources and must use his credit for a loan. This loan comes in the form of Shylock (Al Pacino), a Jewish loan shark who, like all his people, is forced to live in ââ¬Åghettoesââ¬Â and has limited access to the city.
Yet, all is not as it appears between Antonio and Shylock. Antonio has publicly denounced Shylock andother Jews for their practice of usury (loaning money at exorbitant rates of interest), and consistently hurts their business by offering loans with no interest. This set of circumstances, along with the persecution ofJews at the time, has made Shylock spiteful towards Antonio, who jumps at the chance to have the merchant in his debt.
However, this time Shylock decides to offer his loan at no interest; instead, he demands a pound of flesh from Antonio if his loan is not repaid on time. Confident that Bassanio will return his good fortune three times over, Antonio agrees to the unusual terms.
As Bassanio travels to Belmont with Gratiano (Kris Marshall) to woo his beloved, other events threaten to ruin his quest before it is fulfilled. Portia, in the company of her lady-in-waiting Nerissa (Heather Goldenhersh), has already been welcoming potential suitors, who at any time could solve the mystery ofher fatherââ¬â¢s will which states that she must marry the man who correctly chooses one of three caskets.
Then Antonioââ¬â¢s trade ships fail to produce any profit for the merchant. And, Shylockââ¬â¢s daughter Jessica(Zuleikha Robinson) impulsively elopes with Bassanioââ¬â¢s friend Lorenzo (Charlie Cox); in the process, she escapes with a fair amount of her fatherââ¬â¢s personal wealth. This shatters Shylock to the core and causes him to focus all his energy on the repayment of the debt, almost taking out a lifetime of discrimination on the merchant.
Upon hearing of his friendââ¬â¢s set of circumstances, Bassanio leaves Belmont and rushes home to find asolution to Antonioââ¬â¢s predicament. But before Bassanio can arrive home, the loan is declared in default and the distraught and semi-deranged Shylock demands his pound of flesh from Antonio in order to fully seek his revenge.
The Duke (Anton Rodgers), the reigning power in the city, has called a legal expert to the court toproceed over these extraordinary hearings ââ¬â is Antonio truly in default on his loan? Is the payment that Shylock is asking for justified? Can Bassanio return in time to save Antonio? In true Shakespearean fashion, all is not as it seems in a story wrought with morality, revenge, redemption and love.**
And the press kit adds helpfully:
**ââ¬ÅThis is a play about Anti-Semitism,ââ¬Â agrees Brokaw. ââ¬ÅAnd about discrimination and about prejudice but it is not Anti-Semitic. Shylock is a very sympathetic character. We understand his pain, we understand the toll of discrimination heââ¬â¢s faced throughout his life and we understand why he acts in a way that is perceived to be extremely vengeful.ââ¬Â
For Michael Radford the contentiousness arose because Shakespeare made that distinction between the Christians and the Jews but for him, the play is not about religious differences, it is about flawed human beings. Producer Jason Piette sees it very simply. ââ¬ÅItââ¬â¢s mainly a play which is more interested in the concept of forgiveness than it is whether or not Shylock is Jewish. Weââ¬â¢re in a society now that is rent and torn apart by racism so obviously that aspect of the play isgoing to come under a big magnifying glass but to my mind that is not an issue. Itââ¬â¢s so clear that Shakespeare is writing about racism but heââ¬â¢s not racist and the play is not racist. Itââ¬â¢s a true statement about culture at a particular time.ââ¬Â **
There's more, if you care to read it.
2005-01-24 20:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=arkady]This loan comes in the form of Shylock (Al Pacino), a Jewish loan shark who, like all his people, is forced to live in ââ¬Åghettoesââ¬Â and has limited access to the city. Jews were housed in ghettoes so that they had their own communities which they could run according to Jewish law. It was a form of consideration, not oppression. It's not like they were forbidden from venturing out of those ghettoes. [QUOTE=arkady]Itââ¬â¢s so clear that Shakespeare is writing about racism but heââ¬â¢s not racist and the play is not racist. Itââ¬â¢s a true statement about culture at a particular time.ââ¬Â[/QUOTE] This is simply asinine. Shakespeare was not 'writing about racism'. How could he be when the whole concept of 'racism' would not be invented for another 300 years? These people are just idiots.
2005-02-07 14:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=arkady] ââ¬ÅThis is a play about Anti-Semitism,ââ¬Â agrees Brokaw. ââ¬ÅAnd about discrimination and about prejudice but it is not Anti-Semitic. Shylock is a very sympathetic character. We understand his pain, we understand the toll of discrimination heââ¬â¢s faced throughout his life and we understand why he acts in a way that is perceived to be extremely vengeful.ââ¬Â [/QUOTE]
I saw Merchant of Venice yesterday and I highly recommend this film. Even if you don't like Shakespeare, the production of this film alone makes it worth seeing. Amazing.
Anyway, what's clear in the story is that racial differences ARE REAL and were always REAL in the years and centuries before 1960. The open acknowledgement of RACE in the film/story is THE thing that shocks these contemporary limp-wristed egalitarians, who are so thoroughly brainwashed they think even the utterence of the word "jew" should be a crime punishable by jail or death. In Shakespeare's time however, White men were still allowed to make race-based decisions for their own benefit. Boy, that must really shock Brokaw and his type!
Anyway, for viewers like me, I just smiled widely at seeing a portrayal of a Jewish character more in line with reality than I've ever seen on film before. The Jew Shylock is not a sympathetic character, contrary to what Brokaw says above. He's dirty, foul, greedy and especially unforgiving. No, of course, White men/Christians are not perfect by any means, but seeing how Jews were seperated back then makes perfect sense to the discerning eye in the light of current times, where Jews have assumed unrivaled power and have wrecked nation after nation by their practices. This fact was most likely lost on many a viewer but not on me.
[QUOTE]Portia, in the company of her lady-in-waiting Nerissa (Heather Goldenhersh), has already been welcoming potential suitors, who at any time could solve the mystery ofher fatherââ¬â¢s will which states that she must marry the man who correctly chooses one of three caskets. [/QUOTE]
Another reference to RACE is shown in the potential suitors for Portia. When the African prince comes to try his luck to win Portia, her awkwardness and fear about marrying this beast is painfully obvious. He goes on to pick the most simple, obvious casket, and, of course, loses. But, to the multicultural kommissars and race deniers, this scene must've given them a wedgie! I just laughed at loud.