I’m quite fond of Shakespeare, I’ve taken several classes, read two thirds of his plays, studied a lot of the background material and generally just enjoy the great plays.
I particularly like movie adaptations of Shakespeare that stick closely to the original text and I’ve seen almost all of the truly important ones (I think) and would love discuss Shakespeare and Shakespeare movies with folks here. I’m currently looking for opinions on the movie “Ran” and about how good of a King Lear adaptation it is.
I would also appreciate suggestions for other movies and/or books about Shakespeare that are great but maybe more obscure and that I might not have heard of yet.
I am a huge lover of Shakespeare. I am not as connected to his work in film, but a personal favorite of mine is Baz Luhrmann’s Romeo + Juliet. Completely stylized and absolutely true to the book. They were very clever in how to update the look in order to make it accessible to modern audiences. If you haven’t seen it I highly recommend it.
As for Ran and King Lear, I haven’t seen Ran but will add it to my
Netflix queue now as King Lear is my favorite of all Shakepeare’s plays.
The 2001 movei “O” is Othello set in a 1990s high school, against the backdrop of a basketball team – sounds like it would be the worst thing ever, but it’s very, very good.
A young Mekhi Pfifer – Dr. Pratt from ER – plays the title role, and it’s a performance that just smolders. The movie was (unjustly) shelved for a couple years, and it makes you sad that he didn’t get some more primo roles in his youth.
For my money, its major contribution is that it gives the Iago character some more legit motivation than he traditionally gets.
What’s your feeling on Mel Gibson Hamlet vs. Kenneth Branaugh Hamlet? I’m guessing your preference is the Branaugh one since it follows the play more exactly.
For my part, --even though I’m totally more a Branaugh fan than a Mel Gibson fan—I found the Mel Gibson Hamlet the better one.
I haven’t taken any classes or done any real study of Shakespeare. I have always enjoyed his plays and Hamlet is at the top of the list. My favorite movie based on Hamlet is Franco Zeffirelli’s 1990 production feat. Mel Gibson. It isn’t a word-for-word production but the amazing cast makes it extremely enjoyable. I think it is very easy for a movie, based on Shakespeare, to get boring very fast without a excellent theatrical cast.
This is what makes foreign movies like Ran some of the best adaptations. Being placed in a setting completely different from what was written gives it the ability to be a creative take on a classic story. For plays I think it is best to stay true to Shakespeare’s language but in movies entertainment is king. Here are some of my favorites:
I still haven’t seen “O” but had heard it was extremely good.
Solai, you have, have, have to see Ran. It’s not a movie that asks to be seen constantly, as it’s something of a difficult film (what with its noh theater influence and all) but it really is one of the treasures of world cinema–and, if I remember my Lear correctly, a pretty close adaptation (even though the daughters are all sons in Kurosawa’s version).
You know, I’d actually agree with that. The Brannagh is somehow more faithful to the text, but Gibson’s performance as Hamlet is more vibrant and interesting.
Neither of them, though, hold a candle to Olivier’s, which while a little precious by today’s movie standards, is still a fine, fine film (and a great performance. And it has, for me, one of the best done ghosts of Hamlet’s father ever put on film. Very creepy and stylized).
Uchika, have you seen Julie Taymor’s Titus, adapted from Titus Andronicus? A really terrific version of a minor and not terribly well-received (at least today) early Shakespeare play. Some of the performances haven’t aged too well (for me, at least) in the ten years or so since it was released, but it’s still an amazing movie, especially visually and aurally (one of the best film scores I’ve heard in years).
So agree. I thought it just as accessible as even West Side Story, while changing nary a word of The Bard.
Also enjoy Greenway’s Prospero’s Books, Pacino’s Looking for Richard & Ian McKellen in his '95 Richard III as interesting more creative takes on his work.
Oh, and let’s talk Kenneth Branangh’s Henry V. Oh man, I love that movie. If you haven’t seen it, see it. At one time (don’t know if I could still do it), I could recite from memory three of King Henry’s speeches from that movie.
I’d love to hear other people’s opinions of that movie, I really would. But they have to be good opinions. Because if anyone dares say anything bad about it, I will go off into a corner and sulk
Yeah, that’s so true, Toaster. Aside from the Shakespeare stuff, I’d be hard pressed to name any K-Branaugh movie that was really memorable.
It’s is amazing to think that Branaugh was only 26 years old when he directed, starred and produced Henry V.
Anyone remember when Bush grinned and said that he had “read 3 Shakespeares too” on his break when asked what was on his reading list?
Boy, how I mocked him then.
I’m such a hypocrite. Couldn’t I have phrased that a little better…?
…I think he has 3 internets in the Whitehouse too.
I have a soft spot for his follow up to Henry V, Dead Again. A pretty cheesy premise around reincarnation and a murder mystery that he manages to pull off rather well while managing to not take the whole thing TOO seriously either and having quite a bit of fun. A nice contrast to the heady Henry V.
Now, doesn’t Brannagh have a musical version of Love’s Labours Lost or something along those lines with Alecia Silverstone? From what I gathered that one’s a must-miss, though I guess that’s rather rare for him.
I don’t know if it’s “the best” - that’s really very difficult to say, especially with Shakespeare and not the least because everybody has different tastes anyway. That being said, I love it. Henry V is probably THE play that inspired me the most, I used to be able to quote whole passage, particularly III,i - the people on my floor sometimes thought I was totally nuts when I’d recite Shakespeare aloud in the middle of the night just because I felt like it.
The movie is awesome, very different from Olivier’s version, very anti-war-ish, and I think it gets the irony across very well, first all the exciting speeches, then the glorious battle and at the end “who’s dead?” - “none else of name”, and all of a sudden the common folks are completely neglected again.
I have seen it and there’s a huge ton of allusions in this movie, ranging from the “Bachelor of the Year” in “Timely Magazine” to “Blaze of Glory”, I think that’s what it says on a sign or so at the gas station in the beginning. And then the fight scenes which are hommages to certain Western movies and all the Christian symbolism, neon crosses everywhere. Utterly beautiful imagery. I’ve heard some people say that they thought the MTV-ish look of the movie was inappropriate, but those are the old, crusty scholars who are still convinced that Shakespeare can only be fully enjoyed by reading it by candlelight in a library at Oxford. I’m an ardent supporter of performance studies and think that it needs, even though the text obviously contains all the important elements and stage directions, the plays need to experienced visually. I was at the reconstructed Globe in London a couple years ago (I saw The Tempest as a groundling) and the atmosphere there gives you a tiny glimpse into what it must have been like in 1600. Just imagine those masses of people crowded closely together, munching on their nuts and studies have shown that while audiences in today’s theaters react to a play as individuals, the psychology involved in Elizabethan times was totally different, the audience, because they were crowded together so closely, would react as one large mass, which affected the way Shakespeare had to structure scenes, every scene had to have its own little climax and then you’d have to have comic relief after most tragic scenes because the mass couldn’t keep the tension up for very long - just wow. That’s the first place I’d go if I had a time machine.
As for Ran and King Lear, I haven’t seen Ran but will add it to my
Netflix queue now as King Lear is my favorite of all Shakepeare’s plays.
King Lear’s certainly his most complex play, with Hamlet a close second. Any particular reasons why this is your favorite? Personally, I like Henry V and Measure for Measure best.
I haven’t seen either movie completely. I have seen bits and pieces of both in a class and from what I saw, Mel Gibson’s version was a bit more intimate while Branagh was doing the “grand ceremonial scenes” thing. But I’ll need to see the whole movies to be able to judge them. What I can tell you, though, is that the movie version of Hamlet that is currently my favorite is “Hamlet 2000: The Denmark Corporation” starring Ethan Hawke, Bill Murray (as Polonius) and Julia Stiles (Ophelia). I feel that between the other two “big” Hamlet adaptations, this version did not received the attention it deserved. It’s doing for Hamlet what Luhrman’s R+J did for Romeo and Juliet, it’s a very young, very modern movie (they use the original text, but they shuffled it around a bit) and Ethan Hawke is honestly the best Hamlet I ever saw. You need a very young actor to have a convincing Hamlet, he IS a student, after all, and Hawke is doing a hell of a job. He’s the geek Hamlet and he wears a cunning hat. He’s a computer/video freak and he perfectly conveys this sense of loneliness, of being the outcast who is intelligent but nobody is interested in the things he finds fascinating - every geek can relate to that! The only thing I didn’t like was that Julia Stiles didn’t get enough time on screen, but alas, that’s because Shakespeare never wrote truly great female figures into his tragedies, Ophelia and Lady Macbeth have strong impact at the beginnings of their respective plays, but their role diminishes as the male heroes become stronger. Desdemona is a little different, but not much, it’s still Othello’s tragedy in her case. Shakespeare’s best female characters are to be found in the comedies, especially Rosalind and Isabella (in Measure for Measure whom I think is the greatest of all of Shakespeare’s female characters).
I wouldn’t necessarily say that. Most people tend to think that only very famous and accomplished actors can play Shakespeare, but I would say that the exact opposite is the case. Probably everybody could play Shakespeare, given some training. The text itself contains all the necessary information and you wouldn’t even need a director. In fact, I’ve recently seen a very obscure version of Measure for Measure done by a very small British company, maybe even amateurs. They set the play in the contemporary British army hugely reduced the text, the movie has a running time of under 90 minutes, and yeah, it wasn’t Oscar quality, but it was still very very powerful and they were brave enough to give it a very convincing ending that was completely justified by the original text (the ending of Measure for Measure is a bit of a problem and there’s multiple ways to interpret it)
This is what makes foreign movies like Ran some of the best adaptations. Being placed in a setting completely different from what was written gives it the ability to be a creative take on a classic story. For plays I think it is best to stay true to Shakespeare’s language but in movies entertainment is king.
You’re totally right in saying that creative adaptations are oftentimes the best (for example Branagh’s As You Like It set in medieval Japan or his version of Love’s Labour’s Lost as a musical in the 1930s - he’s experimental and over the top some times, but you can tell that he just loves Shakespeare and that’s the most important thing).
I think that the main reason why Shakespeare is still topical today and still has this overwhelming impact on culture not only English-speaking countries, but internationally, is that the plays lend themselves to reinterpretations, the plays ask questions without ever giving clear answers, every new generation can have their own take on Shakespeare and they’re all just as valid.
tell me more about these, especially Throne of Blood, what I’ve heard about was mostly hear-say, nothing substantial.
“O” was somewhat teen-movie-ish, but a surprisingly good adaptation. Maybe not on par with “10 things I hate about you” which was probably the best teen-movie adaptation of a Shakespeare play (the other Taming of the Shrew movie is also cool, the one with Elizabeth Taylor, she looks beautiful in that costume), but way better than the dreadful abomination of Twelfth Night called “She’s the Man”
Solai, you have, have, have to see Ran. It’s not a movie that asks to be seen constantly, as it’s something of a difficult film (what with its noh theater influence and all) but it really is one of the treasures of world cinema–and, if I remember my Lear correctly, a pretty close adaptation (even though the daughters are all sons in Kurosawa’s version).
wow. I guess I’ll have to see Ran too.
I haven’t seen enough of Olivier’s work to really be able to talk about it, I have huge holes in my knowledge when it comes to older Shakespeare movies, but Olivier is where I would start. and will, probably, some day.
I had to split my post here, it says that 10885 characters is too long for a single post.
Uchika, have you seen Julie Taymor’s Titus, adapted from Titus Andronicus? A really terrific version of a minor and not terribly well-received (at least today) early Shakespeare play. Some of the performances haven’t aged too well (for me, at least) in the ten years or so since it was released, but it’s still an amazing movie, especially visually and aurally (one of the best film scores I’ve heard in years).
Titus was great! I think it was the first Titus Andronicus movie ever, Anthony Hopkins was a great Titus and boy, was the movie creepy, especially the beginning and the end in the collosseum-type arena. And you’re right, some scholars are even arguing that it wasn’t Shakespeare who wrote T.A. because they think it’s so bad. But hey, it was his first tragedy and when you look closely, you can discern the basis for many of his more successful later plays. And Elizabethan audiences loved Titus!
I haven’t seen Prospero’s books, was it really that good, I’m curious. I’ve seen Looking for Richard, though, but it’s been a while. Richard III with Ian McKellen was really very interesting, I loved how they did the beginning with the bathroom and the microphone. And McKellen is just a great actor and a very powerful Richard.
I have to post again to respond to all the posts people wrote while I was writing my earlier posts.
Haha, as I said, I could recite from it too, it’s really amazing how the words get stuck in your brain and work their way around in there and the feelings they evoke.
I hear that “Peter’s Friends” is a favorite among his British audience.
Maybe he read the comic versions
Speaking of which, there’s an AWESOME Sandman version of Midsummer Night’s Dream for which Neil Gaiman (spelling?) received a very renowned award, can’t remember which one it was.
While we’re still talking about Branagh, let’s not forget Much Ado About Nothing with Keanu Reeves and Denzel Washington.
Yes. But it’s not bad!!! You just don’t have to expect a film like Henry V, it’s a very very light-hearted adaptation of LLL, that is great because it makes an otherwise very different play accessible to modern audiences. It’s something like a Shakespeare popcorn movie.
Oh yes. Much Ado was a good one–and his then wife Emma Thompson of course has a major role in that. (as she does in Henry V).
Shifting to Patrick Stewart, did anyone besides me see his “king lear” in the form of “King of Texas”? It’s King Lear set in --I’d guess–Allamo era Texas, with Stewart as John Lear the cattle king who divides up his land between his daughters. It was pretty good.
That’s news! I’ve heard of the movie “King of California”, but not King of Texas. Let me check if that’s out on DVD, if so, I’ll netflix it immediately. (not scifi immediately)
Edit: Only on region 1 dvd. I hate the region system, it’s irrational! Bittorrent will have to help out with this one…
