>Othello asks him why he put him through all this torture >Responds with basically the 1600’s equivalent of “wouldn’t you like to know” and those are his last words
Holy kino
Is he the earliest example of a character doing bad stuff just for shits and giggles?
2 years ago
Anonymous
No.
2 years ago
Anonymous
There's tons of characters in e.g. ancient mythology who frick with people for no good reason.
Also there's clues about potential motives throughout the play (being jealous of Othello's rank, just standard racism, also Iago may believe that Othello cucked him)
yeah but Iago is not really comical, he's a satanic character through and through, his archetype can be found in Satan of Paradise Lost, Richard is a more simple character.
>not really comical
this is your brain on ~~*modern shakespeare studies*~~. Iago would have been played by the resident clown/fool of the theater company. he’s funny. satanic maybe, but funny too. cry about it.
2 years ago
Anonymous
what the frick is wrong with you lmao, why so angry? anyway, putting you weird attitude aside, I'm not talking about the performance, I'm talking about the character itself and he is not meant to be comical even if he is played that way. Iago is a double-sided character, he is someone playing someone else (something he repeats over and over throughout the play) him being comical is a mask, what lies underneath is not comical. Contrast that with Richard who doesn't have that nuance.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>he is someone playing someone else
funny you say that, Iago to me always seemed to me similar to Hamlet in that both seem to be self-aware of their roles as actors/characters in a play.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Oh please. That’s a trait that every major Shakespeare character from the Henriad onward possesses. Hamlet goes crazy because of it. Meta-theatricality is not a groundbreaking theory. All the world’s a stage.
>Iago would have been played by the resident clown/fool of the theater company.
funny you understood this yet you still missed the point of the character, you were close though
iago as le cHaOs has and never will be deep or interesting or true. he’s satanic but so are all villains on the renaissance stage.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>That’s a trait that every major Shakespeare character from the Henriad onward possesses
never claimed he was the only one >Hamlet goes crazy because of it.
Of course, he's the most popular character who is used as an example of this. >Meta-theatricality is not a groundbreaking theory.
Never even attempted to make the claim it was, don't know why you even thought that.
Your anger at some made up position you are ascribing to me made you miss the point I was making, that Iago is supposed to be more evil than he is comical and that him being comical is part of the "mask" the character as well as the actor is wearing, which goes back to the initial contrast I was making with Richard who does not possess this quality, which again is the whole point of the posts I was making but you have never addressed this to have a normal discussion. This is an interpretation of mine which I'm open to discuss.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>anger
first off i’m just having some shakespeare bants, didn’t expect a (you) in the first place so i was being an overly aggressive Cinemaphile autist. anyway, the post i replied to said he wasn’t comical, he was satanic through and through. i disagree, he is comical. he’s funny. he makes the audience laugh. he’s also awful, obviously, but his humor is a pretty significant aspect of the character, one that often gets overlooked.
What makes him different from Richard, I think, isn’t the mask of a clown or a deeper and pure evil underneath of it. Both have that. Iago’s is just more pronounced because at that point Shakespeare was a better writer who learned that real character is contrast. That is, Iago is only as evil as his honest, oblivious foil (Othello) allows him to be. Richard doesn’t lack a mask, he lacks someone interesting to plot against.
but enough of my theory. why do you think iago is satanic? there is a lot of heaven/hell/devil imagery in the play, i’ll give you that.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Don't get me wrong, I'm just glad I can have a conversation about Shakespeare with someone, and base this only on my own personal readings and some of Harold Bloom essays who I don't entirely agree with on several points. I didn't study Shakespeare or anything in a pozzed university lol.
Anyway, my opinion is that Iago is satanic in the sense that he is constantly rebelling against the established order and not necessarily to gain anything (in the play he doesn't really care about money, or women or even the position of lieutenant that he feels robbed of), simply to impose his will due to his vain and prideful nature. Also like you said, there are numerous references yo heaven/hell, but I think the most obvious one is his line "I am not what I am" which obviously parallels God's "I am that I am", so he himself seems to accept this role, and then there's a soliloquy of his which ends Act 1 with him making what is essentially an invocation of the forces of night and hell. He also tempts the characters in the play to ruin themselves, with drink, with jealousy, with the promise of sex, he never acts directly.
I think one of the main differences between him and Richard is that Richard is incompetent, something which Iago is not. But I do agree with you that he is better played comically, exaggeratedly even. I haven't had the opportunity to see the play live and see how he is supposed to be played.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Also, in case I'm not making a good enough case for my position, I recommend you read Harold Bloom's essay on Iago. It develops the idea further if you are interested.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>but so are all villains on the renaissance stage.
that's patently false or you don't understand what Satanic means, not even other Shakespeare villains are satanic, like Macbeth or Lady Macbeth. Iago is not chaos, there's a method to his actions, which stem from his rebellious nature.
2 years ago
Anonymous
-Edmund from Lear
-Aaron from Titus
-Percy from Henry IV
All rebellious villains. Are you really gonna try and argue that Edmund isn’t satanic? Lmao. There are plenty others that aren’t Shakespearean btw. Marlowe invented iambic pentameter.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Your reading comprehension is terrible. I never said Iago was the only satanic character in Shakespeare or in drama, but you did say all villains in renaissance stage are satanic, which again, is false.
>Marlowe invented iambic pentameter.
I don’t know what that has to do with anything I said or what point you are even trying to make with your posts.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Iago would have been played by the resident clown/fool of the theater company.
funny you understood this yet you still missed the point of the character, you were close though
>Ruining the lives of multiple people just for fun.
Richard III ruins the lives of many characters too, his the people who die directly because of him are much more than the ones Iago ruins
I fricking hate the ADHD Looney Tunes shit in Baz Luhrman movies (annoying/childish grunting and weird-for-the-sake-of-weird camera movements). Moulin Rouge has the same thing.
>saw my first pair of tiddies in english class thanks to this
unless it doesn't have breasts, which means they were in the other romeo and juliet movie we watched.
Branaghs Hamlet.
I don't care about shitty """purists"""" who insist that Laurence Oliviers lazy narcissism is a better manifestation of the character, it simply isn't. Branagh not only masterfully captures the vaccilations of Hamlet, he also has numerous, masterful allusions to Kierkegaard, he captured the quintessentially nordic temperament of the character with so much more skill than Oliviers homosexual queening.
Don John is terrible anyway. Keanu was wooden but the character is a completely two-dimensional villain who can be hammy or straight depending on what the actor/director wants.
Michael Keaton was a worse offender in that movie - Dogberry sucks but his performance was particularly annoying. Nathan Fillion did a much better job in the Joss Whedon film, and that's mostly because he played it straight-faced.
I saw Much Ado About Nothing on stage at the Globe a few days ago and loved it. The atmosphere was like pantomime which made it a lot funnier and more engaging. I think his comedies really need that audience aspect to work.
Why market a movie like this? People who love dumb Seagal-type army movies won't be interested because it's Shakespeare, and people who are into Shakespeare aren't into Seagal-type army movies.
Why market a movie like this? People who love dumb Seagal-type army movies won't be interested because it's Shakespeare, and people who are into Shakespeare aren't into Seagal-type army movies.
and yet it works and is a good adaptation and a lot of fun
The cover looks tacky but I can imagine the reasoning: Shakespeare buffs will watch it regardless and they might get a boost in sales from people who saw an action movie DVD in stores and didn't realise that it was Shakespeare.
Coriolanus isn't that great of a play. I feel like aside from Julius Caesar, all of Shakespeare's plays based on ancient Rome are just ass tbh. I mean, yeah Coriolanus is an interesting character with a unique perspective, but I think plot wise it's just alright. Nothing special.
I don't disagree just find this particular adaptation very enjoyable with all the scenery chewing and the sense of it all being "very serious" stuff while the film plays it full tilt, very silly in a good way
Branaghs Hamlet.
I don't care about shitty """purists"""" who insist that Laurence Oliviers lazy narcissism is a better manifestation of the character, it simply isn't. Branagh not only masterfully captures the vaccilations of Hamlet, he also has numerous, masterful allusions to Kierkegaard, he captured the quintessentially nordic temperament of the character with so much more skill than Oliviers homosexual queening.
>Watch Joel Coen’s Macbeth >Eager to see how Denzel lands the Tomorrow soliloquy >Just kinda goes off like a wet fart
I don’t think hearing those lines are ever gonna sound as cool as they do in my head.
I've long said that the issue with many takes on Shakespeare's soliloquys is that actors are so focused on giving their own spin on the words that they fail to capture the actual meaning. NOBODY speaks with the bizarre rushes and pauses that people inflict upon many of his most famous monologues. Half the time you get something like >Tomorrow... ANDtomorrowand... tomorrow... ... creeps IN this... pettyPACE
When in reality the lines should be read... well, how they're written on the page. I've seen a fair few Shakespeare adaptations, and I can't think of any that don't fall into this at some point or another. Even Olivier. Maybe I should check out more of Branagh's stuff.
Branagh does decent conversational Shakespeare but he always gives off this vibe like he thinks the audience are dummies and is trying to convey the meaning of the sentences as clearly as he possibly can. It's not very naturalistic.
many modern actors don't understand that many of Shakespeare's dialogues/soliloquies are actual poetry (because they don't have any classical education) and hence don't speak the lines with the poetical intent that Shakespeare clearly imbued in them. The tomorrow soliloquy is a prefect example, one whose way of saying the lines is explicitly pointed out in the lines themselves: "creeps in this petty pace". Though of course I don't think that would have been the problem with Olivier, but I'm sure it was with Denzel and also maybe Fassbender.
The stop-motion ones were cool and some of the stylistic 2d-animated ones, like the sort of eastern-european-style Macbeth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfnUq2_0FOY.
But some of them were fugly and looked like episodes of He-Man or something.
If you like Shakespeare (like really like it, not just posing) then it's absolute kino. Otherwise it's beautiful but way, way too long (literally over 4 hours).
What's the verdict? It's on my backlog since forever and I can't find the motivation to start it
>english teacher, the adaptation
Branagh has never produced shakeskino and never will. He’s boring and sentimental.
If you like Shakespeare (like really like it, not just posing) then it's absolute kino. Otherwise it's beautiful but way, way too long (literally over 4 hours).
It's a very solid adaptation - people who love Shakespeare and the language will probably enjoy it. On balance it's probably the best production of Hamlet on film. There's nothing wrong with any of the performances, some of them are fantastic and there are some amazing visuals (the main palace set is gorgeous).
However it's not particularly ambitious, they speak very fast to try and get all the dialogue into a sensible runtime so some of the pacing feels off, and it's quite self-indulgent overall (even by Branagh's standards).
You're not wrong but I still find that movie very comfy, I just view it as it's own story than a story about history
The depiction of Agincourt is pretty bad too though, for one of the most kino battles.
Still like the movie
I preferred his bizarre weaboo version of As You Like It. It's quite funny that it's set in feudal Japan yet there's no more than two asian people in the entire cast (and they're very minor characters). Also it's clearly being filmed in a forest in the UK and colour graded to make it look like Asia.
It completely fails as a comedy yet it does the sentimental stuff quite well (and it's probably the most beautiful Bryce Dallas Howard has looked).
I've never seen this will watch. I have the BBC's davit Tennant and Patrick Stewart edition where Tennant plays Hamlet as an autistic barefoot wannabe filmakker
Doesn't really work as a film. There's something about the whole vibe and the timing etc. - you kind of need that live audience energy and in the film none of the jokes land and there are awkward pauses throughout.
>There's something about the whole vibe and the timing
I completely agree. Couldn't quite put my finger on it before, but it is definitely better served as a live performance.
That reminds me of how much I fricking hate how Shakespeare is taught in schools. I can only assume the person that makes the curriculum fricking hates Shakespeare because it's like they specifically designed things to suck as much fun and entertainment out as possible.
It's fine. Nothing special and it's kind of Whedonised (he focusses far more on the snarky elements of the play than the sincere romance stuff). If you've seen any half-decent stage production you've probably seen it done better. I really like Nathan Fillion as Dogberry though - he takes a standard clown role and plays it deadpan and it works surprisingly well.
How has Shakespeare held up so well after all this time? You'd think the dialogue would be totally incomprehensible but it actually still works even though other things written at the time are pretty alien. Did he just write so well that English stopped changing?
English has changed plenty and there's a bunch of stuff in it that's pretty incomprehensible without knowledge (for example: "Wherefore art thou Romeo?" which means "Why must you be Romeo?", meaning that she's lamenting the fact that she has fallen in love with an enemy of her family). I think though that Shakespeare endures because he's just such a good writer that ever since, people have recognised this and strived to learn it and keep it in memory, so that new generations can enjoy it. Whether that will continue indefinitely, I really don't know.
Bruh it's very lazily written, at one point Tamora leaves her children unprotected with her number one nemesis Titus, even though she knows he is a capable warrior and a respected leader. If it weren't for Aaron being a proto-Iago and shitting on everyone, the play would not be anything.
I really love Scotland PA. It's the one Shakespeare adaptation where MacBeth takes place in the 70's, in a fast food restaurant, is KINO. It got me into actually appreciating his stories and seeing how they can be adapted into the wildest shit and still work. If you haven't seen Scotland PA make sure to give it a watch sometime.
Polanski's Macbeth. Has 70s grit and realism, felt like I was watching a movie rather than a play that someone happened to be recording.
Highly recommend.
>Gibson’s Hamlet is decent as well
This. hamlet pretty much knows he’s in a play. he’s meta-theatrical but struggles to inhabit the role of the tragic hero that’s been forced upon him which makes Mel’s decidedly un-performative and lucid approach to the character pretty hilarious. hamlet the character would have admired and envied Mel’s tacky action-hero the same way he admired the Player’s speech and the same way he envied Laertes’ boyish grief at Ophelia’s grave. gibson’s hamlet truly is the bellcurve of Shakeskino, and i sleep well at night knowing it is probably closer to burbage’s hamlet than branagh or olivier’s softboy approach could ever dream to be (or not to be). seethe.
i don't think i'm a brainlet, but honestly, 80% of Shakespeare's dialogue is fricking impenetrable. I cannot watch movies with the original dialogue and understand what is going on. Half the time I'm in the dark and have to draw conclusions from context and what's happening on screen.
It's all very impressive sounding but you have to be brilliant to follow this guy in normal conversation. i can't be the only one.
It helps to both to read the play and watch it (in theater or in movie), but in my experience a good adaptation is one where you can understand what’s going on even if you don’t understand the words being said.
Since this seems like an appropriate thread, what's your favourite opera film?
Other than Bergman's Magic Flute the only cinematically interesting filming I know is Chereau's Ring, which coincidentally Bergman was the first choice to stage.
I don't much care for most opera movies honestly. I'd rather read the libretto and listen along to the music. But if I had to pick I guess it'd be Horst Stein's Parsifal
I'm blue dabadee dabaday
>i'm based dabadee dabaday
Based
Based and Bluepilled
Throne Of Blood, Ran, The Bad Sleep Well, the list goes on...
Laurence Oliviers hamlet is good
Zulu
Good choice, but I would pick either this ...
.. or this.
Perhaps the real Sitting On Top of the World is the friends we made along the way, just rolling along.
10/10 kinographie
Probably this
The Olivier adaptation is also kino. Richard III is my favorite Shakespeare character, he’s so comically evil.
Iago is still the most evil character. Ruining the lives of multiple people just for fun.
>Othello asks him why he put him through all this torture
>Responds with basically the 1600’s equivalent of “wouldn’t you like to know” and those are his last words
Holy kino
Is he the earliest example of a character doing bad stuff just for shits and giggles?
No.
There's tons of characters in e.g. ancient mythology who frick with people for no good reason.
Also there's clues about potential motives throughout the play (being jealous of Othello's rank, just standard racism, also Iago may believe that Othello cucked him)
>refuses to elaborate
>leaves
with basically the 1600’s equivalent of “wouldn’t you like to know”
god that would be worse than the torture
>Refuses to elaborate
>Exeunt
"Watch your girl bro."
yeah but Iago is not really comical, he's a satanic character through and through, his archetype can be found in Satan of Paradise Lost, Richard is a more simple character.
>not really comical
this is your brain on ~~*modern shakespeare studies*~~. Iago would have been played by the resident clown/fool of the theater company. he’s funny. satanic maybe, but funny too. cry about it.
what the frick is wrong with you lmao, why so angry? anyway, putting you weird attitude aside, I'm not talking about the performance, I'm talking about the character itself and he is not meant to be comical even if he is played that way. Iago is a double-sided character, he is someone playing someone else (something he repeats over and over throughout the play) him being comical is a mask, what lies underneath is not comical. Contrast that with Richard who doesn't have that nuance.
>he is someone playing someone else
funny you say that, Iago to me always seemed to me similar to Hamlet in that both seem to be self-aware of their roles as actors/characters in a play.
Oh please. That’s a trait that every major Shakespeare character from the Henriad onward possesses. Hamlet goes crazy because of it. Meta-theatricality is not a groundbreaking theory. All the world’s a stage.
iago as le cHaOs has and never will be deep or interesting or true. he’s satanic but so are all villains on the renaissance stage.
>That’s a trait that every major Shakespeare character from the Henriad onward possesses
never claimed he was the only one
>Hamlet goes crazy because of it.
Of course, he's the most popular character who is used as an example of this.
>Meta-theatricality is not a groundbreaking theory.
Never even attempted to make the claim it was, don't know why you even thought that.
Your anger at some made up position you are ascribing to me made you miss the point I was making, that Iago is supposed to be more evil than he is comical and that him being comical is part of the "mask" the character as well as the actor is wearing, which goes back to the initial contrast I was making with Richard who does not possess this quality, which again is the whole point of the posts I was making but you have never addressed this to have a normal discussion. This is an interpretation of mine which I'm open to discuss.
>anger
first off i’m just having some shakespeare bants, didn’t expect a (you) in the first place so i was being an overly aggressive Cinemaphile autist. anyway, the post i replied to said he wasn’t comical, he was satanic through and through. i disagree, he is comical. he’s funny. he makes the audience laugh. he’s also awful, obviously, but his humor is a pretty significant aspect of the character, one that often gets overlooked.
What makes him different from Richard, I think, isn’t the mask of a clown or a deeper and pure evil underneath of it. Both have that. Iago’s is just more pronounced because at that point Shakespeare was a better writer who learned that real character is contrast. That is, Iago is only as evil as his honest, oblivious foil (Othello) allows him to be. Richard doesn’t lack a mask, he lacks someone interesting to plot against.
but enough of my theory. why do you think iago is satanic? there is a lot of heaven/hell/devil imagery in the play, i’ll give you that.
Don't get me wrong, I'm just glad I can have a conversation about Shakespeare with someone, and base this only on my own personal readings and some of Harold Bloom essays who I don't entirely agree with on several points. I didn't study Shakespeare or anything in a pozzed university lol.
Anyway, my opinion is that Iago is satanic in the sense that he is constantly rebelling against the established order and not necessarily to gain anything (in the play he doesn't really care about money, or women or even the position of lieutenant that he feels robbed of), simply to impose his will due to his vain and prideful nature. Also like you said, there are numerous references yo heaven/hell, but I think the most obvious one is his line "I am not what I am" which obviously parallels God's "I am that I am", so he himself seems to accept this role, and then there's a soliloquy of his which ends Act 1 with him making what is essentially an invocation of the forces of night and hell. He also tempts the characters in the play to ruin themselves, with drink, with jealousy, with the promise of sex, he never acts directly.
I think one of the main differences between him and Richard is that Richard is incompetent, something which Iago is not. But I do agree with you that he is better played comically, exaggeratedly even. I haven't had the opportunity to see the play live and see how he is supposed to be played.
Also, in case I'm not making a good enough case for my position, I recommend you read Harold Bloom's essay on Iago. It develops the idea further if you are interested.
>but so are all villains on the renaissance stage.
that's patently false or you don't understand what Satanic means, not even other Shakespeare villains are satanic, like Macbeth or Lady Macbeth. Iago is not chaos, there's a method to his actions, which stem from his rebellious nature.
-Edmund from Lear
-Aaron from Titus
-Percy from Henry IV
All rebellious villains. Are you really gonna try and argue that Edmund isn’t satanic? Lmao. There are plenty others that aren’t Shakespearean btw. Marlowe invented iambic pentameter.
Your reading comprehension is terrible. I never said Iago was the only satanic character in Shakespeare or in drama, but you did say all villains in renaissance stage are satanic, which again, is false.
>Marlowe invented iambic pentameter.
I don’t know what that has to do with anything I said or what point you are even trying to make with your posts.
>Iago would have been played by the resident clown/fool of the theater company.
funny you understood this yet you still missed the point of the character, you were close though
>Ruining the lives of multiple people just for fun.
Richard III ruins the lives of many characters too, his the people who die directly because of him are much more than the ones Iago ruins
Kinopilled
Based
(you)
Not memeing, I unironically liked it.
Still doing a little b8ing
Nothing to bait about it, it was legitimately good
Richard The Third is /ourguy/
/threa
I really have been meaning to watch that one. It looks fricking awesome.
It's very good.
It really is, check out the trailer if you need more of a push to watch it
Should I watch the previous two movies first?
to think dudes dressed like that. they look so fricking ridiculous.
ha ha biggus tittus
my personal favorite
king lear, RAN, nice....btw ran means chaos.
based.
kneel
I unironically love this goofy-ass film.
>do you remember me benny blanco from the bronx
I literally watched carlito's way last night, are you me?
K I N O
I
N
O
unadulterated kino
why the frick would you link the hungarian version
why wouldn't I?
>when the moonspeak kicks in
I fricking hate the ADHD Looney Tunes shit in Baz Luhrman movies (annoying/childish grunting and weird-for-the-sake-of-weird camera movements). Moulin Rouge has the same thing.
Moulin Rouge gave me a headache. Genuinely awful film.
I got filtered hard, imo og dialogues and whatever the frick the setting was produced cringe, not kino.
so stylized it works.
This, but 100% unironically. It feels exactly like a stage play.
>saw my first pair of tiddies in english class thanks to this
unless it doesn't have breasts, which means they were in the other romeo and juliet movie we watched.
This was actually the first time I saw a full feature of Rome and Juliet, and it's the best.
shouldn't it be "my only love sprang from my only hate"
or "has sprung from my only hate"
I honestly hate this movie. Don't get the praise for it. It gives me second-hand embarrassment.
Henry's come to see us!
the GOAT
Chimes at Midnight, starring Orson Welles as himself.
This
Chimes is the real Shakespeare Kino
Branaghs Hamlet.
I don't care about shitty """purists"""" who insist that Laurence Oliviers lazy narcissism is a better manifestation of the character, it simply isn't. Branagh not only masterfully captures the vaccilations of Hamlet, he also has numerous, masterful allusions to Kierkegaard, he captured the quintessentially nordic temperament of the character with so much more skill than Oliviers homosexual queening.
>Branagh not only masterfully captures the vaccilations of Hamlet,
I don't approve of corrupting Bill Shakespeare with Bill Gates mRNA microchips.
yeah except I viscerally hate Kenneth Branigan
This. Say what you want about Branagh being self-indulgent; It's easily the best film Hamlet.
>Say what you want about Branagh being self-indulgent
Branagh is self-indulgent and it's great
is that scut farkus?
His name is the Postal Dude, and yes
>all white cast
Macbeth
Throne of Blood (1957).
>tfw you gambled on a fart and lost
Watching Hollywood actors trying desperately to act to the same level as the theater actors was very funny.
What do you mean?
Don John is terrible anyway. Keanu was wooden but the character is a completely two-dimensional villain who can be hammy or straight depending on what the actor/director wants.
Michael Keaton was a worse offender in that movie - Dogberry sucks but his performance was particularly annoying. Nathan Fillion did a much better job in the Joss Whedon film, and that's mostly because he played it straight-faced.
I saw Much Ado About Nothing on stage at the Globe a few days ago and loved it. The atmosphere was like pantomime which made it a lot funnier and more engaging. I think his comedies really need that audience aspect to work.
How does this get so slept on?
>directed by Ralph Fiennes
I had no idea he started directing. Will check it out
Its a great flick. Super over the top, Butler and Fiennes hamming it up past 11, real grimdark modern war setting, lots of fun
I remember liking it. Has been some years though.
Why market a movie like this? People who love dumb Seagal-type army movies won't be interested because it's Shakespeare, and people who are into Shakespeare aren't into Seagal-type army movies.
Speak for yourself bro, Shakespeare with guns is always kino (see
and
)
checked
and yet it works and is a good adaptation and a lot of fun
No, I mean, why market it like it's a direct-to-DVD Seagal movie, complete with shittily photoshopping the star's head onto a soldier's body?
have you seen it? tbh it kinda is that lol
The cover looks tacky but I can imagine the reasoning: Shakespeare buffs will watch it regardless and they might get a boost in sales from people who saw an action movie DVD in stores and didn't realise that it was Shakespeare.
Is it a shoop? I can't tell, but he does wear that costume in the movie
100% in the movie
That's not even the tackiest poster for that movie
Coriolanus isn't that great of a play. I feel like aside from Julius Caesar, all of Shakespeare's plays based on ancient Rome are just ass tbh. I mean, yeah Coriolanus is an interesting character with a unique perspective, but I think plot wise it's just alright. Nothing special.
All his histories are pretty bad imo
Troillus and Cressida isn't. I remember liking it. Haven't read Anthony and Cleopatra but I'm hoping for the best.
Henry IV Part I is kino
I don't disagree just find this particular adaptation very enjoyable with all the scenery chewing and the sense of it all being "very serious" stuff while the film plays it full tilt, very silly in a good way
This one has a couple great scenes but the rest of it is quite tedious, bordering on pretentious even
Fricked up pacing in any case but if you want a high-brow kino it's a definite recommendation
it's fricking based and top tier kino
love it, the quasi-dystopian military aesthetic gives me the creeps in the best way
BLUE SPANIARDS!
I just discovered 20 or so RSC plays are on Britbox so I'm going to watch all of those. It works better on stage anyway.
Shakespeare without the dialogue isn't really Shakespeare.
These use the original dialogue:
Julius Caesar. Marlon Brando, James Mason
Lost
/thread
>Cinemaphile slept on these but gave their usual (you)s to luhrman, branagh, and denzel trash
board full of pseuds
I'm sorry I didn't give you a (you), ya fricking cry baby. I've been meaning to check out that version of Macbeth anyway.
🙂
Fassbender's Macbeth is pseud bait lmao
I desperately wanted to see Macbeth in theaters but no theater in my city was playing it. It was just endless cape shit.
Black person WHAT
It is borderline unwatchable, a complete waste of the assembled talent.
to be fair, the play itself is unreadable
>enter jupiter
will was just phoning it in at that point for the shekels
>Watch Joel Coen’s Macbeth
>Eager to see how Denzel lands the Tomorrow soliloquy
>Just kinda goes off like a wet fart
I don’t think hearing those lines are ever gonna sound as cool as they do in my head.
it couldve been better 🙁
macduffs stupid wife and keed...
I've long said that the issue with many takes on Shakespeare's soliloquys is that actors are so focused on giving their own spin on the words that they fail to capture the actual meaning. NOBODY speaks with the bizarre rushes and pauses that people inflict upon many of his most famous monologues. Half the time you get something like
>Tomorrow... ANDtomorrowand... tomorrow... ... creeps IN this... pettyPACE
When in reality the lines should be read... well, how they're written on the page. I've seen a fair few Shakespeare adaptations, and I can't think of any that don't fall into this at some point or another. Even Olivier. Maybe I should check out more of Branagh's stuff.
Stage performances are often better for this. Films overthink it.
Branagh does decent conversational Shakespeare but he always gives off this vibe like he thinks the audience are dummies and is trying to convey the meaning of the sentences as clearly as he possibly can. It's not very naturalistic.
many modern actors don't understand that many of Shakespeare's dialogues/soliloquies are actual poetry (because they don't have any classical education) and hence don't speak the lines with the poetical intent that Shakespeare clearly imbued in them. The tomorrow soliloquy is a prefect example, one whose way of saying the lines is explicitly pointed out in the lines themselves: "creeps in this petty pace". Though of course I don't think that would have been the problem with Olivier, but I'm sure it was with Denzel and also maybe Fassbender.
not the best but one of my favorites
it's underrated for sure
Some of these are kino
The stop-motion ones were cool and some of the stylistic 2d-animated ones, like the sort of eastern-european-style Macbeth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfnUq2_0FOY.
But some of them were fugly and looked like episodes of He-Man or something.
all of those are great
What's the verdict? It's on my backlog since forever and I can't find the motivation to start it
It sucks tbqh
It’s good! Ignore this guy
, when he sleeps he goes “honk mimimimimi”! LOL!!!
Never seen that movie though.
>english teacher, the adaptation
Branagh has never produced shakeskino and never will. He’s boring and sentimental.
If you like Shakespeare (like really like it, not just posing) then it's absolute kino. Otherwise it's beautiful but way, way too long (literally over 4 hours).
Thanks, the length is what discouraged me, obviously
It's a very solid adaptation - people who love Shakespeare and the language will probably enjoy it. On balance it's probably the best production of Hamlet on film. There's nothing wrong with any of the performances, some of them are fantastic and there are some amazing visuals (the main palace set is gorgeous).
However it's not particularly ambitious, they speak very fast to try and get all the dialogue into a sensible runtime so some of the pacing feels off, and it's quite self-indulgent overall (even by Branagh's standards).
A little more than kin, and less than kind!
it's fantastic. Stupidly good.
Complete and utter garbage that shits all over the character of Henry V
You're not wrong but I still find that movie very comfy, I just view it as it's own story than a story about history
The depiction of Agincourt is pretty bad too though, for one of the most kino battles.
Still like the movie
Agreed, the part where Henry kneels to the Moorish refugees and apologizes for his fair skin was surprisingly kino.
macbeth (polanski)
You now remember Branagh's unnecessarily horny musical adaptation of Love's Labours Lost
I preferred his bizarre weaboo version of As You Like It. It's quite funny that it's set in feudal Japan yet there's no more than two asian people in the entire cast (and they're very minor characters). Also it's clearly being filmed in a forest in the UK and colour graded to make it look like Asia.
It completely fails as a comedy yet it does the sentimental stuff quite well (and it's probably the most beautiful Bryce Dallas Howard has looked).
Bryce gets BLACKED in that movie tho
homie at that point bryce had done usimulated sex scene with black guy in von trier film. this shit is nothing.
Christopher Plummer, Robert Shaw, Michael Cane, and Donald Sutherland?? Kino.
I've never seen this will watch. I have the BBC's davit Tennant and Patrick Stewart edition where Tennant plays Hamlet as an autistic barefoot wannabe filmakker
For me it's Kozintsev's Hamlet and King Lear
Makes me feel like Brutus might not be an honorable man.
I like the Othello movie with morpheus.
Does Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead count?
Doesn't really work as a film. There's something about the whole vibe and the timing etc. - you kind of need that live audience energy and in the film none of the jokes land and there are awkward pauses throughout.
>There's something about the whole vibe and the timing
I completely agree. Couldn't quite put my finger on it before, but it is definitely better served as a live performance.
It's a shame because there's great actors in it and they clearly tried to do justice to the play.
Nope
I always think this is a film about 1920s american football based on the poster
based. wish this had been the whole movie
My favourite is the Norma shearer Romeo and Juliet. Its just luxurious and comfortable to watch.
Gonna check a lot of these out.
there is only one correct answer
You know you about to see some artistic breasts when the teacher rolls in one of these during Shakespeare Week
That reminds me of how much I fricking hate how Shakespeare is taught in schools. I can only assume the person that makes the curriculum fricking hates Shakespeare because it's like they specifically designed things to suck as much fun and entertainment out as possible.
Taming of the Shrew
I know it's not actualy Shakespeare but it's still great.
Is this any good? I hadn't even heard of it but I saw a blu ray of it for like £2 so I bought it blind, not gotten around to watching it yet
It's not very good, I saw it in theaters when it came out, and I was bored. Maybe if you like the cast it's worthwhile
It's fine. Nothing special and it's kind of Whedonised (he focusses far more on the snarky elements of the play than the sincere romance stuff). If you've seen any half-decent stage production you've probably seen it done better. I really like Nathan Fillion as Dogberry though - he takes a standard clown role and plays it deadpan and it works surprisingly well.
How has Shakespeare held up so well after all this time? You'd think the dialogue would be totally incomprehensible but it actually still works even though other things written at the time are pretty alien. Did he just write so well that English stopped changing?
English has changed plenty and there's a bunch of stuff in it that's pretty incomprehensible without knowledge (for example: "Wherefore art thou Romeo?" which means "Why must you be Romeo?", meaning that she's lamenting the fact that she has fallen in love with an enemy of her family). I think though that Shakespeare endures because he's just such a good writer that ever since, people have recognised this and strived to learn it and keep it in memory, so that new generations can enjoy it. Whether that will continue indefinitely, I really don't know.
>no Theatre of Blood
wtf
My man. Hammy kino.
FRICK TITUS ANDRONICUS. IT'S LITERALLY HIS WORST PLAY. THERE IS NO SENESE BEHIND IT JUST A GOREFEST AND THATS IT.
The only good thing that came out of it are Yo Mamma Jokes I guess.
It's about revenge. It makes sense it's just unpleasant.
Bruh it's very lazily written, at one point Tamora leaves her children unprotected with her number one nemesis Titus, even though she knows he is a capable warrior and a respected leader. If it weren't for Aaron being a proto-Iago and shitting on everyone, the play would not be anything.
>THERE IS NO SENESE BEHIND IT JUST A GOREFEST AND THATS IT.
>is shakespeare’s most popular play during his lifetime
heh, nothing personnel kid
Nah thee most popular ones during his lifetime were the British Historical plays
Nope. Titus was printed and performed way more than any history play. Seethe cope and dilate.
I really love Scotland PA. It's the one Shakespeare adaptation where MacBeth takes place in the 70's, in a fast food restaurant, is KINO. It got me into actually appreciating his stories and seeing how they can be adapted into the wildest shit and still work. If you haven't seen Scotland PA make sure to give it a watch sometime.
There was a 2005 tv series called Shakespeare ReTold where they recontextualised a bunch of Shakespeare plays into different modern day settings.
They did an interesting Macbeth where he was a chef.
Weird how MacBeth has ended up as a chef...twice. If anything it should have been Titus Andronicus.
Polanski's Macbeth. Has 70s grit and realism, felt like I was watching a movie rather than a play that someone happened to be recording.
Highly recommend.
Throne of Blood became my favorite movie long before I even knew it was a Shakespeare adaptation. It still gives me chills every time I watch it.
What was with all the little stubby shotguns?
McLintock! Starring John Wayne and Maureen O'Hara is loosely BASED on The Taming of the Shrew. Mel Gibson's Hamlet is decent as well.
>Gibson’s Hamlet is decent as well
This. hamlet pretty much knows he’s in a play. he’s meta-theatrical but struggles to inhabit the role of the tragic hero that’s been forced upon him which makes Mel’s decidedly un-performative and lucid approach to the character pretty hilarious. hamlet the character would have admired and envied Mel’s tacky action-hero the same way he admired the Player’s speech and the same way he envied Laertes’ boyish grief at Ophelia’s grave. gibson’s hamlet truly is the bellcurve of Shakeskino, and i sleep well at night knowing it is probably closer to burbage’s hamlet than branagh or olivier’s softboy approach could ever dream to be (or not to be). seethe.
I can't stand the writing and dialogue and style of anything Shakespeare
I'm totally filtered by him
Yeah well I can't stand the writing and dialogue and style of anything African-American
I'm totally filtered by them
me too
This thread gives off based vibes. Bump.
As a kid I always got confused by this thinking of the sitcom show Titus
Same. I thought that was him in the picture too just with his face covered up
Chimes at Midnight
Throne of Blood
Julie Taymore's Midsummer Night's Dream
RAN
Titus
sauce
Bearnaise Doppel
thanks boss
Shakespeare is for gays lmaoooo
i don't think i'm a brainlet, but honestly, 80% of Shakespeare's dialogue is fricking impenetrable. I cannot watch movies with the original dialogue and understand what is going on. Half the time I'm in the dark and have to draw conclusions from context and what's happening on screen.
It's all very impressive sounding but you have to be brilliant to follow this guy in normal conversation. i can't be the only one.
It's like that at the start, but you get used to it. It's like learning a new language (very very close to the English you're used to)
It helps to both to read the play and watch it (in theater or in movie), but in my experience a good adaptation is one where you can understand what’s going on even if you don’t understand the words being said.
> BIGUS TITUS
Since this seems like an appropriate thread, what's your favourite opera film?
Other than Bergman's Magic Flute the only cinematically interesting filming I know is Chereau's Ring, which coincidentally Bergman was the first choice to stage.
I don't much care for most opera movies honestly. I'd rather read the libretto and listen along to the music. But if I had to pick I guess it'd be Horst Stein's Parsifal
>Tittus
hehehehehe