From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: Regarding Henry:Henry V vs Henry V: Shakespeare and Men's
Date: 9 Apr 92 16:22:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: Princeto.1992Apr9.162229.4877
Distribution: na
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU

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.
>
>Not even close to an axiom.  A highly debatable personal opinion of
>yours.

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.

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.

>  All these "he was X first, Y second" are fairly pointless
>anyway.

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.


  But to me (yes, personal opinion) Shakespeare's greatness lies
>in the fact that his plays still "play" on the stage.  Damn near all of
>them.  Yes, the poetry is great also.  (What about the plays that are
>largely prose, like As You Like It?)  But even without it, he was one of
>the greatest (maybe THE greatest) of dramatists.

Shakespeare's prose is poetry because it is an imaginative use of the
language.  Usually he'd put prose in the mouths of characters of the
lower classes (As You Like It probably was a formal experiment, again
indicating that S was a poet first, interested in messing with
language.)  


>
>>And if you knew the true abuse to which Hollywood screenwriters are
>>subject, you'd know that the author of Lear would not put up with it for
>>a second ("o reason not the need!").
>
>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.  

The amount of awareness and attention that Shakespeare's classes
demanded of all social classes cannot be compared to the braindead
quality of audiences for films like Fatal Attraction.  This is why that
supremely unimaginative monarch James II saw to it that the theaters
were closed.  Just as James' lineal descendants Manufacture Consent in
contemporary Britain (and among effete circles in the USA), mass market
movies Manufacture Consent.

If Shakespeare were alive today, he would be at best a
supremely frustrated alcoholic Hollywood screenwriter.
>
>Jon Alan Conrad
Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies