View Single Post
Old 04.03.2006, 04:42 PM   #16
Hip Priest
invito al cielo
 
Hip Priest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Birkenhead
Posts: 9,397
Hip Priest kicks all y'all's assesHip Priest kicks all y'all's assesHip Priest kicks all y'all's assesHip Priest kicks all y'all's assesHip Priest kicks all y'all's assesHip Priest kicks all y'all's assesHip Priest kicks all y'all's assesHip Priest kicks all y'all's assesHip Priest kicks all y'all's assesHip Priest kicks all y'all's assesHip Priest kicks all y'all's asses
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpectralJulianIsNotDead
I do like Kenneth Branagh's versions though. Tom Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Gildenstern are Dead is a great watch/read.

Rosencrantz and Guildernstern is a great film, I think. Tim Roth and Gary Oldman are perfect, and the film's top quote comes from the travellingtheatre owner: Well, we can do you blood and love without the rhetoric, and we can do you blood and rhetoric without the love, and we can do you all three concurrent or consecutive. But we can't give you love and rhetoric without the blood. Blood is compulsory. They're all blood, you see

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpectralJulianIsNotDead
I think Shakespeare is a good writer and a cunning linguist, but I think he lacked in storytelling, which is what I am after when I read a book or watch a movie. He created interesting situations in his plays, but a lot of his stories just lacked something. Take Romeo and Juliet for example- it is very didactic, teaching the lesson "teenagers are stupid" and kills off the only interesting character fairly early on (mercutio). Not to mention that he uses dramatic irony like a crutch.

I agree with your R&J example, and to an extent with your point generally. He wrote some incredible - quite incredible - stuff, but some of his plays suffer from cliches (even for the time) and in particular from having too many unnecessary sub-plots that don't fit in. Or from just not being very good (eg MEasure for Measure).


Quote:
Originally Posted by SpectralJulianIsNotDead
Compare that to any Dostoevsky novel. Dostoevsky's characters were extremely well developed, and no significant character was lackluster. He was a master of manipulating the reader and used all forms of irony.

This is a debate that cropped up on the old board at times. I'm a great lover of Shakespeare, but I can see that Dostoevsky was more consistently great. I would contend, however, that when Mr S. got it right, he surpassed Dostoevsky by a not inconsiderable margin. The Tempest and Timon of Athens are beond comparison, in my opinion.
__________________

Abhor that which is evil; cleave to that which is good.



http://www.flickr.com/photos/outsidethecamp/
Hip Priest is offline   |QUOTE AND REPLY|