|
|
Post by ando on Sept 13, 2024 19:18:15 GMT
Coincidentally, ando, I was going to post a photo of Adrian's partial outfit from that scene for you before seeing your post here...
Said to have been mortified by M-G-M's shedding garb in 1970, Debbie Reynolds secured the dress:  It’s a beautiful gown, much of its colorful splendor lost to the b&w cinematography; probably a good thing, in retrospect, as the costuming and set design nearly overwhelm the performances in its extant state. Color would truly put the spectacle aspect of the film over-the-top.  My favorite colorized Shakespeare on film is a deliberately painterly one by Peter Greenaway -  Prospero’s Books, of course, is a visual interpretation of The Tempest and a kind of Shakespearean swan song for the late Sir John Gielgud, who, though he plays Prospero, speaks nearly all the parts. This YouTube copy is a fine full version. |
|
|
|
Post by ando on Sept 13, 2024 21:49:14 GMT
And not that his approach to film needs defending but Greenaway makes salient points about the state of contemporary cinema and its dependence on text in the interview below -
|
|
|
|
Post by NoShear on Sept 14, 2024 23:17:23 GMT
And not that his approach to film needs defending but Greenaway makes salient points about the state of contemporary cinema and its dependence on text in the interview below - I considered Peter Greenaway's stance on cinema versus painting - provided I'm correctly understanding him, ando... I think the viewpoint depends on which side of the camera or canvas you're occupying. 'Painting' a movie seems as if it could be as rewarding a creation as taking up a brush. Observing artwork and photos, though, is where one might argue the lasting depth of field over a film despite their fixed nature: I found a couple of Rick McCloskey's subjects have had a more profound impact on me than the entire Licorice Pizza even though Paul Thomas Anderson's said to have tapped the McCloskey yields for inspiration. I'm choosing the following example here as you might recognize the establishment from movies or television viewing, ando:  |
|
|
|
Post by NoShear on Sept 15, 2024 1:18:24 GMT
^ Another "Peter" and his cameraman, Russell Boyd, retroactively offer retort to my foolish suggestion in the form of a Valentine to film, ando:  |
|
|
|
Post by ando on Sept 15, 2024 14:40:56 GMT
And not that his approach to film needs defending but Greenaway makes salient points about the state of contemporary cinema and its dependence on text in the interview below - I considered Peter Greenaway's stance on cinema versus painting - provided I'm correctly understanding him, ando... I think the viewpoint depends on which side of the camera or canvas you're occupying. 'Painting' a movie seems as if it could be as rewarding a creation as taking up a brush. Observing artwork and photos, though, is where one might argue the lasting depth of field over a film despite their fixed nature: I found a couple of Rick McCloskey's subjects have had a more profound impact on me than the entire Licorice Pizza even though Paul Thomas Anderson's said to have tapped the McCloskey yields for inspiration. I'm choosing the following example here as you might recognize the establishment from movies or television viewing, ando: I certainly see your point but though the two separate mediums influence each other, comparing the power of their impressions on the human heart and mind is far too relative an endeavor to satisfyingly persue, wouldn’t you say? Rather like comparing Michelangelo’s Moses to DeMille’s Ten Commandments, if you see my point. Ultimately movies are about movement; their charms unfold in a different manner from painting, literature, sculpture or even live theater. But Greenaway’s point about the creative limitations of cinema set from start by having text as the basis for its creation is an intriguing one. To switch gears for a moment, I did a cursory glance at the Shakespeare offering on the free streaming platform, tubi, and was pleasantly surprised to an impressive little collection of very good interpretations.  I had forgotten how much fun Kiss Me Kate, the Cole Porter scored Taming of the Shrew musical was. The book from the play comes across as stiff as a board on film but the musical numbers are fabulous, including the leggy hoofer Ann Miller and a vey young Bob Fosse. |
|
|
|
Post by NoShear on Sept 15, 2024 15:44:43 GMT
I considered Peter Greenaway's stance on cinema versus painting - provided I'm correctly understanding him, ando... I think the viewpoint depends on which side of the camera or canvas you're occupying. 'Painting' a movie seems as if it could be as rewarding a creation as taking up a brush. Observing artwork and photos, though, is where one might argue the lasting depth of field over a film despite their fixed nature: I found a couple of Rick McCloskey's subjects have had a more profound impact on me than the entire Licorice Pizza even though Paul Thomas Anderson's said to have tapped the McCloskey yields for inspiration. I'm choosing the following example here as you might recognize the establishment from movies or television viewing, ando: I certainly see your point but though the two separate mediums influence each other, comparing the power of their impressions on the human heart and mind is far too relative an endeavor to satisfyingly persue, wouldn’t you say? Rather like comparing Michelangelo’s Moses to DeMille’s Ten Commandments, if you see my point. Ultimately movies are about movement; their charms unfold in a different manner from painting, literature, sculpture or even live theater. But Greenaway’s point about the creative limitations of cinema set from start by having text as the basis for its creation is an intriguing one. To switch gears for a moment, I did a cursory glance at the Shakespeare offering on the free streaming platform, tubi, and was pleasantly surprised to an impressive little collection of very good interpretations. I had forgotten how much fun Kiss Me Kate, the Cole Porter scored Taming of the Shrew musical was. The book from the play comes across as stiff as a board on film but the musical numbers are fabulous, including the leggy hoofer Ann Miller and a vey young Bob Fosse. Yes, that is a tasty looking spread of films there, ando... I immediately gravitate towards " THE TRAGEDIE OF MACBETH" as I was schooled on Shakespeare with a pair of screenings of the following during the second half of the 1970s:  Another of the aforementioned age-related Shakespeare posts I have in mind for you is Macbeth but not the one you might think. I shall save it for October for the obvious... |
|
|
|
Post by ando on Sept 15, 2024 16:46:06 GMT
I certainly see your point but though the two separate mediums influence each other, comparing the power of their impressions on the human heart and mind is far too relative an endeavor to satisfyingly persue, wouldn’t you say? Rather like comparing Michelangelo’s Moses to DeMille’s Ten Commandments, if you see my point. Ultimately movies are about movement; their charms unfold in a different manner from painting, literature, sculpture or even live theater. But Greenaway’s point about the creative limitations of cinema set from start by having text as the basis for its creation is an intriguing one. To switch gears for a moment, I did a cursory glance at the Shakespeare offering on the free streaming platform, tubi, and was pleasantly surprised to an impressive little collection of very good interpretations. I had forgotten how much fun Kiss Me Kate, the Cole Porter scored Taming of the Shrew musical was. The book from the play comes across as stiff as a board on film but the musical numbers are fabulous, including the leggy hoofer Ann Miller and a vey young Bob Fosse. Yes, that is a tasty looking spread of films there, ando... The screen snapshot was the tip of about 25 Shakespeare/ Shakespeare related films available on the free service. I admire the Polanski Macbeth though it unfortunately started a trend of showing the Duncan murder, which Shake deliberately left offstage. Kurosawa wisely respected this in his Throne of Blood adaptation. I think that once you start going down the gory road with that play the tragedy of character gets lost. Polanski’s overall message seems to emphasize the cyclical nature of dynastic violence and upheaval and suggests that it may be an unavoidable aspect of human ambition. K’s ending is much more optimistic in that he shows how humanity ultimately expels overgrown ambition. I’ve seen most of the major release versions of The Scottish Play, including the Denzel Washington starring Joel Coen film. To my mind none of them take the play any further than Polanski or Kurosawa thematically, although Scotland, PA is an often a joyous hoot. |
|
|
|
Post by NoShear on Sept 16, 2024 1:42:40 GMT
Yes, that is a tasty looking spread of films there, ando... The screen snapshot was the tip of about 25 Shakespeare/ Shakespeare related films available on the free service. I admire the Polanski Macbeth though it unfortunately started a trend of showing the Duncan murder, which Shake deliberately left offstage. Kurosawa wisely respected this in his Throne of Blood adaptation. I think that once you start going down the gory road with that play the tragedy of character gets lost. Polanski’s overall message seems to emphasize the cyclical nature of dynastic violence and upheaval and suggests that it may be an unavoidable aspect of human ambition. K’s ending is much more optimistic in that he shows how humanity ultimately expels overgrown ambition. I’ve seen most of the major release versions of The Scottish Play, including the Denzel Washington starring Joel Coen film. To my mind none of them take the play any further than Polanski or Kurosawa thematically, although Scotland, PA is an often a joyous hoot. If I correctly recall reading, ando, Roman Polanski's MACBETH bloodbath was suggested as cathartic cinema after the Benedict Canyon tragedy. Thank you for the SCOTLAND, PA tip:  - I love it! |
|
|
|
Post by ando on Sept 16, 2024 2:40:51 GMT
Thank you for the SCOTLAND, PA tip… You’re Welcome, though I did neglect to mention a version of the play that veers in the direction of Greenaway’s textless premise -  Macbeth (2018, Kit Monkman) When you get the chance I recommend at least a single viewing of Monkman’s film (lovely YouTube copy) if only to see how merely tangential the plot of Macbeth is to its unfolding here. And though the text from the play is employed it functions far more as a touchstone than narrative device. In retrospect, it seems more like an opportunity for Monkman to consider interiority (in general), domestic strife, caste, race, sex and film itself. I’m not sure if he is successful with it as (I believe) most people come to Shakespeare to engage with the classic themes that the playwright has left us to consider, not artful takes on abstractions from the play. But you could say that Scotland, PA is also an artful abstraction of Macbeth and as just as fully conceived as Monkman’s film. |
|
|
|
Post by ando on Sept 16, 2024 2:53:21 GMT
Oh, and I came across a nice primer on The Bard’s life, uncluttered with authorship question nonsense:
|
|
|
|
Post by NoShear on Sept 16, 2024 15:23:46 GMT
Oh, and I came across a nice primer on The Bard’s life, uncluttered with authorship question nonsense: Apparently, ando, I care that Shakespeare be one entity because I like how you seemed to have dismissed the Bard as a collective theory. |
|
|
|
Post by ando on Sept 16, 2024 16:41:36 GMT
Apparently, ando, I care that Shakespeare be one entity because I like how you seemed to have dismissed the Bard as a collective theory. My feeling is that there is no lack of identity politics in the plays which beg us to create them around their author. It doesn't appear to make life sweeter for anyone (except haters, for whom life will never be sweet). Why bother?  |
|
|
|
Post by ando on Sept 18, 2024 21:43:31 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ando on Sept 19, 2024 0:52:58 GMT
This is a bit of a spin off but today was Samuel Johnson's birthday and I'm reopening my copy of his prefaces.  An amusing presentation on Johnson's life work and influence. |
|
|
|
Post by ando on Sept 25, 2024 23:26:16 GMT
 While I’ve found Hamlet to be a generally dreary experience with the manifold stage and film productions I’ve seen over the years, I’m always willing to watch a new and/or interesting approach. Ambrose Thomas’ French language opera version of the play which played in Paris in 2022 to great acclaim (and far from dreary) is currently on Hoopla (w/English subtitles, my French is a bit rusty). There are some alterations from Shakespeare’s plot, as you might imagine, chief of which is a very different characterization of Ophelia, and the stage blocking interwoven with film framing, while initially off putting feels more organic as the opera proceeds. Ophelia’s death scene brings all of the production’s elements to the real climax of piece. Needless to say, I was disappointed with the alternative ending which, in my view, robs Hamlet, the character, of his raison d'etre and the audience’s sense of proper justice. But, let’s face it, the sopranos are gonna get the juiciest parts in most operatic treatments of the classics. Nonetheless, this is a Highly Recommended take on the play. See it if you can. |
|
