From: joan@med.unc.edu (Joan Shields)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Regarding Henry:Henry V vs Henry V: Shakespeare and Men's
Date: 15 Apr 92 19:43:28 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: UNC-CH School of Medicine

In article <1992Apr9.162229.4877@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>In article <28752@brahms.udel.edu> conrad@brahms.udel.edu (Jon Conrad) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr9.011042.27900@Princeton.EDU> egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges) writes:
>>
>>>Axiom (feel free to argue): Shakespeare was a poet first, a dramatist
>>>second.

I was talking about productions of Shakespeare's plays and you suddenly
bring up his sonnets.  His sonnets are wonderful, they're beautiful but I
wasn't talking about them.  

>Then you'll have to explain why Shakespeare is rarely placed on stage
>unaltered, whereas he is almost always read in uncut form.  The 18th
>Century saw plot lines changed, whereas we now see plot lines preserved,
>but text cut, and cut substantially....so much so it changes meaning and
>even comprehensibility.  For example, the viewer of the Olivier and
>Branagh films is puzzled by Montjoy's "thou never shalt see herald any
>more", for Montjoy seems to be a trustworthy diplomat and a stand up
>guy.  Henry's immediate riposte, "I fear thou wilt come to me for
>ransom" is cut.  The elision makes Montjoy's reappearance puzzling,
>whereas Henry's line makes Henry's rageful "comest thou for ransom" at
>Montjoy's reappearance after the battle completely comprehensible.

You know what's so funny about you?  You accept one form of alteration,
why you even quote it, yet you deny another.  It's very difficult if not
impossible to do truely authentic Shakespeare.  For one thing, the languge
being so important (as you have so often pointed out) it would have to be
done in the original Elizbethean English, in early 17th century dress, the
female roles played by boys, in an open air theatre, surrounded by a roudy
audiance roaring at all the obsene bits.  Of course, that's silly,
taking authenticity to extremes.  Me, I think that you grade authenticity
by your own opinions - which is your interpretation, which is fine if you
acknowledge that.  The beautiful thing about his plays and even his
sonnets is how open they are to interpretation - how easily they translate
through time and language - how well we as people of the 20th century can
understand and appreciate them.  To deny the importance of that is to
deny Shakespeare his genius.  You, who read and quote a Shakespeare
translation claiming authenticity!  A translation is always different, is
always an alteration of the orginal

>The READER sees these things.  The viewer is normally denied them.  This
>means that Shakespeare is primarily a poet in the sense of talking to a
>reader.

The plays were written to be preformed - you seem to have forgotten that
most people in Shakespeare's time could not read or write - in fact, it
was only because of Shakespeare's family background that he was taught to
read and write.  Ha!  Earlier you called me a philistine - you are a snob.
You would restrict Shakespeare's plays and sonnets to only those with a
college education.  

>Not so.  The notion of Shakespeare as a comfortable Philistine dramatist
>makes the problem plays and the tragedies incomprehensible.  They also
>flatter our modern day "popular" culture, which is in actuality a form
>of highly sophisticated propaganda for ruling class views.  See my posts
>on Henry V, Platoon and other films for details.

Propaganda?  Well, I guess it's fitting that a propagandist ought to be
done by other propagandists.  Don't believe Shakespeare wrote propaganda?
Take a look at HENRY IV - Joan of Arc was portrayed as a slut, a whore,
quite different than the French view her, or perhaps you consider
Shakespeare's version to be historically acurate?  But of course, these
are artistic liberties - however, they are also propaganda.  Take a look
at all of the historical plays and then browse through a few history books
(not just English either).  Shakespeare was real good at upholding the
views of those in power as well as the common views of the time.  

>>Actually, it looks like he did have to put up with a certain amount of
>>it.  (See the textual studies of the evolution the plays underwent in
>>the performance system.)
>
>In Hollywood, screenwriters are rarely given creative control
>approaching that of Shakespeare, and their work is never published in
>the manner of the First Folio.  

That was then this is now.  Some writers have quite a lot to say about
what goes in a script and what doesn't - creative control is largely a
matter of clout and stubborness and money.  The relationship playwriters
had to the stage is very different than what the relationship is now.  

Persoanlly, I think it best if you stay in your ivory tower, wrap yourself 
in your naivety, and read aloud the sonnets in their original Elizabethean
English - stay away from the theatres and movie houses or with your
attitude you'll aways be disappointed.

Joan
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies