Let Me Just Sum-Up Macbeth For You Right Now. (1 Viewer)

Lolita Twist

Rose-hustler
1) Shakespeare was on cocaine and LSD simultanesouly, all the time.
2) Shakespeare had too much ego and too many words to say one simple thing.
3) King James I of England was a pussy because he wanted Shakes to write something about Scottish royalty and the supernatural and have it make sense.
4) Macbeth had schitzophrenia and suffered paranoid delusions.
5) Lady Macbeth was a sociopath who suffered from clinical depression.
6) Roman Polanski cannot make horrible films produced by Hugh Hefner and expect people to enjoy it.
7) Polanski is unoriginal. I don't care if his pregnant wife got murdered by other LSD-trippin' psychos.

End rant here.

Though I have to say. Having the freedom to disect the play from a psychological point of view was entertaining.
 
First of all, the Polanksi film is terrible so I hope you're not basing your critique of "MacBeth" based on that version. When Roman Polanski is on the money he is one of our finest modern film-makers, or perhaps you missed "Rosemary's Baby", "Chinatown", "Tess", and "The Piano".
 

Lolita Twist

Rose-hustler
No, no. I've read the play, recently, then watched the film. I like Polanski personally, I like people that are somewhat disturbed or percieved that way. Rosemary's Baby was good... though there's something about older films that aren't in black and white, that hurt my eyes... though the production value is not Polanski's fault. I just felt, "oh, cool, Polanski's done a film version of Macbeth..." I thought it would've been more original, not just "by the book", per se.
 
I'll take the Mel Gibson version of "Hamlet" (also a rather traditionalist and literal adaptation) over Polanski's "MacBeth" any day -- and I don't even like Mel Gibson (well, except for the Road Warrior movies). But my personal favorite film adaptation of Billy Shakespeare was the awesome postmodern version of "Richard III" that Ian McKellan did a few years ago.
 

Lolita Twist

Rose-hustler
I enjoyed the one with Leo and Claire Danes I think it was, a very modern version of Romeo and Juliette... there's this very cool scene where Romeo and Benvolio are playing pool and going through their lines in a way where they can also relate to the pool game. (There's a literary-element word for it but it escapes me at the moment.) IE) "This hit you miss."

Never seen Mel's Hamlet, that should be... interesting. I don't like Mel Gibson either, though.

About Richard III... who's seen Richard Dreyfuss in Neil Simon's "The Goodbye Girl" where he's supposed to be playing Richard III as a "flaming homosexual"... "...Taking away one of his prime motivations!... He wanted to hump Lady Anne!"
 

vodka

Miss Take
I loved the modern version of Romeo and Juliette. I think it was a captivating merger of things that should not have worked, but yet somehow did in a weird and grotesque sort of way that is captivating.

And Mel Gibson was a surprisingly good Hamlet.
 

Lolita Twist

Rose-hustler
I loved the modern version of Romeo and Juliette. I think it was a captivating merger of things that should not have worked, but yet somehow did in a weird and grotesque sort of way that is captivating.
I agree, Jen. I thought it was beautiful. The cinematogrophy blew me away, too.
 

ROC

It is what it is
But my personal favorite film adaptation of Billy Shakespeare was the awesome postmodern version of "Richard III" that Ian McKellan did a few years ago.

Yeah, I've heard Richard III is good, but I want to see part one and two first.



:eek:



But seriously folks... I thought the McKellan thing so good, I bought the DVD.
 

LickTheStar

Sad Flower in the Sand
McKellan's Richard is pretty good.

My favorite thing based on anything Shakespeare is Pacino's Looking For Richard. Long OOP and hard to find even on VHS... Of course, I haven't seen it in almost a decade at this point...

Beyond that... I don't really like a lot of adaptations. I still like seeing a traditional show every couple years, but... I don't feel the need to do much more than that Shakespeare-wise.
 
Claire Danes was sweet, yes.


it is true:
Mel Gibson being directed by Franco Zeffirelli is the KickAss-version to end all versions of Hamlet - ever!
... and a few years later, this prick Kenneth Branagh came along, with his warm version, hoping he could mess with that in any way...
Booooh! How cheap!
 
LTS, I thought "Looking For Richard" was the most pretentious faux "documentary" I ever saw. Didn't believe one moment of that film. And as a Pacino fan, believe me, I tried to like it but for a documentary, many of the so-called candid moments seemed forced and contrived. On the other hand, if you put a bunch of actors in a room with a camera rolling a self-consciousness is going to pervade the atmosphere.
 

Hosh

hoshomccreesh.com
On the other hand, if you put a bunch of actors in a room with a camera rolling a self-consciousness is going to pervade the atmosphere.

If you put a bunch of actors ANYWHERE, camera or no camera, that's what you're gonna get!

& the only dig at both the Gibson & Branagh films is that, christ sakes, they are both old men who are supposed to be playing a prince too young to assume the throne & they are both up there dragging their leather asses around...
 
Shakes Is Da Man

Let Me Just Sum-Up Macbeth For You Right Now

Mrs. G:

Do you not dig Shakes?
The Bard?

Different times, use of language?

His sonnets are beautiful.
Untouchable, I'm my opinion.

When I studied him back in the collegiate days, one of my profs emphasized that he wrote for people to hear what he was writing, live.

Almost like music, if that makes any sense.

And the crowd in the small theatre was involved, amped, and responded.

Not being alive a hundred or so years ago, I cannot claim this to be fact.

But dang, what I wouldn't give to be there, and watch one play...

That would rock, like a concert of language....

Pax,

homeless mind
 

LickTheStar

Sad Flower in the Sand
LTS, I thought "Looking For Richard" was the most pretentious faux "documentary" I ever saw. Didn't believe one moment of that film. And as a Pacino fan, believe me, I tried to like it but for a documentary, many of the so-called candid moments seemed forced and contrived. On the other hand, if you put a bunch of actors in a room with a camera rolling a self-consciousness is going to pervade the atmosphere.

Quite possibly it is. As I said... its been awhile.

I wonder what I'd think of it 10 years later now... I was young and in love.

Wait what were we talking about?
 

Lolita Twist

Rose-hustler
Do you not dig Shakes? The Bard?

The thing about me and Shakes... I admire tremendously what he did with words... though I have a theory, that if one was to strip away say, Romeo and Juliet, for example... what you would have is a plot about two crazy teenagers that kill themselves for their love. Macbeth was an interesting story, I give it that, that and Hamlet have to be my favorite plays by Shakes...what annoys me about him though, was that he constantly felt the need to "over-say" things... he couldn't just say one simple thing. Or rather, "a profound thing in a simple way." I admire that he wrote so people could "hear", that's often what I try to do. Though in this day and age, most people can't hear what he's trying to say anymore. Almost, tragically, as if he's lost his significance.
 

Digney in Burnaby

donkeys live a long time
I've been reading the Bukowski interview book, Sunlight Here I Am. Lots of interviewers bring up Shakespeare. One take by Bukowski:

"No, Shakespeare didn't work at all for me, except given lines. There was a lot of good advice in there, but he didn't pick me up."

Maybe Bukowski needed the cocktail napkin version of Shakespeare.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top