Favorite Shakespeare film adaptations? (1 Viewer)

[JohnRice]

Is that common knowledge? It had never occurred to me, though MacBeth is not one I am most familiar with. It does have some of my favorites lines, though.
Once again, Jack Briggs slices right to the point.
BTW, I wonder how many hundreds, if not thousands of times Romeo & Juliet has been adapted.

 

[Michael Reuben]

The Macbeth/Simple Plan correspondence is pretty much limited to a single character (Bridget Fonda's). Now if you want a genuine adaptation, there's Scotland PA, which got a very limited release early this year and has yet to appear on video. It's a clever, and sometimes very funny, modern retelling of Macbeth in a 70s fast-food restaurant.

M.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

John, it's the loosest of the adaptations, and I doubt it was even intended as an adaptation, but it's all there.

Bill Paxton's caracter is Macbeth.
the bag of money is Duncan.
Bridget Fonda's character is Lady Macbeth.
Brent Briscoe's character is parts Banquo and Macduff.
Billy Bob Thornton's character is Banquo.

Similiar themes, and similiar results. At the end, Bill Paxton's character is worse than dead.

 

[Rich Malloy]

As for King Lear, the only adaptation that comes to mind was the awful, awful A Thousand Acres.

I'm not a big Jane Smiley fan, but the book was at least a thousand times better than the movie!

 

[JohnRice]

There's also the rather weak new TNT version, King of Texas.

 

[Tim RH]

There was a version produced for TV four years ago that starred Ian Holm and was directed by Richard Eyre. I missed it, but it got great reviews. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to be on video in any form.

Yes, actually it is available on VHS at Amazon - http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...903887-5840736

 

[Derek Miner]

Of course, I forgot the scene in Orange County where we learn that great films have been made from the works of Shakespeare such as The Talented Mr. Ripley and Waterworld.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Shakespeare meant to be enjoyed by the intellectually gifted (most of the people who posted in this thread) and the lowly commoners (like me. )
Sure most people don't have a clue what the hell his plays are saying, and that's only because people today don't use English in that sense anymore. To be honest, Shakespeare had some nasty crude jokes and what not. Oh well, if I lived in England back in the day, I would've had more fun in the rough housing crowd than sitting in box seats watching a play.
Oh, back on topic, I don't think I've ever seen a "great" Shakespeare movie/adaptation.

 

[JohnRice]

Just an aside here, but as far as I know, Vader doesn't actually say that. The conversation goes:

Luke: "You killed my father!"

Vader: "No, I am your father."

Am I wrong?

 

[Dome Vongvises]

[monologue mode]
That JohnRice guy is right. Must I let on that I love the crude jokes of pulp magazines lest I lose respect of my fellow members?
[/monologue mode]

Seriously, I only posted that quote because I found it funny. But you're right, those are the correct words.

 

[JohnRice]

I've never seen or heard that before, so I just had to repeat it.

 

[Coressel]

My favorites are Prospero's Books and Titus.

 

[Tony_Faville]

Titus first and foremost. I still say Shakespear must have been suffering from hemorrhoids when he wrote that one.

Kenneth Branaghs Hamlet is next, followed closely by his Much Ado About Nothing.

 

[Danny R]

duplicate

 

[Danny R]

it was also my introduction to the beautiful-beyond-belief Kate Beckinsale

She's my Hero!

--

Felix, while you might not appreciate Shakespeare, you do have to recognize that he is universally known and referenced by many others. Studying his works can only help your education and enhance your understanding of films that often reference him.

After all, many films of late often use the old classics as their starting point. And not just Shakespeare, but Jane Austen and others.

 

[Tim RH]

Oscar Wilde has also seen a mild resurgence lately.

 

[Derek Miner]

Sure most people don't have a clue what the hell his plays are saying, and that's only because people today don't use English in that sense anymore.

But I have been oh so surprised when hearing the text performed how much can be understood. I love watching the stuff performed, but reading the text is a chore.

I once took a course where the professor must have been a masochist, as he wanted the class to read something like six plays three times each in one semester and keep a journal of certain aspects for each time we read it. Then we had to form groups and perform a scene from one of the plays as well. I think I got away with a B in that one, but it put me right off reading Shakespeare.

 

[Coressel]

. I love watching the stuff performed, but reading the text is a chore.

I totally agree with you, even though I'm a Shakespeare nut. I directed a production of Macbeth a few years ago, I played Cassio in a production of Othello, I've been working on my own adaptation of Hamlet for several years, my wife is a teacher of British Literature and I still feel the way you do!

 

[Michael Reuben]

I directed a production of Macbeth a few years ago, I played Cassio in a production of Othello, I've been working on my own adaptation of Hamlet for several years, my wife is a teacher of British Literature and I still feel the way you do!

Just goes to show that anything you have to do for work ceases to be fun! :wink:
M.

 

[JohnRice]

Rain,

because of this thread, I sat down and watched Romeo + Juliet again, which I bought a few months ago. Now I do remember getting a kick out of the change in timing of that last scene. I was glad to see Luhrmann had changed it without actually changing anything that happens, just the timing of events.

I had forgotten that Juliet actually sees Romeo drink the poison.

Both the original way and Luhrmann's way have their own value. Of course, as Michael pointed out, Luhrmann's way would not work in live theater, so they each work for their medium.