|
fog and frost The whole time shift issue of moving from third to first has become less of a problem for me. I had a full Sunday after taking a small nap in the afternoon and woke early enough today to read some journals before sunrise. The morning forecast on the television mentioned fog, but all that I saw was frost on the surrounding roofs and lawns. The fog must have been closer to the lake than where I live. Last night I suffered through a Southern version of The Tempest and I have come to the conclusion that Shakespeare and the South do not mix. Normally I am open to new interpretations of some of the plays, but this brainchild failed to keep me awake. Prospero as a Southern plantation owner hiding out on an island in the middle of a river just did not work for me. The swampland of the South is not an exotic isle. I can't believe that Peter Fonda went from Ulee's Gold to this second rate movie. At least they didn't try to have them speak in iambic pentameter with a Southern accent. A good modern interpretation of a Shakespeare play would be the film version of Richard III with Ian McKellen in it. It really worked for me and I might even buy a copy of it. Here is what Amazon.com had to say about it: This film adaptation of a critically acclaimed stage production of Shakespeare's historical drama stars Ian McKellen in the title role. The setting is a comic-book vision of 1930s London: part art deco, part Third Reich, part industrial-age rust and rot. The play's force is turned into a synthetic high by art directors and storyboard sketchers, all of whom have a field day condensing the material into disposable pop imagery. This is a fun film, more than anything, so infatuated with its own monstrous stitchery that even the most awkward casting (Annette Bening and Robert Downey Jr.) seems a part of the ridiculous design. McKellen is the best thing about the movie, his mesmerizing portrayal of freakish despotism and poisoned desire a thing to behold. I still remember watching it with Tracy. In the opening scene, Richard is delivering his soliloquy in a bathroom while standing at the urinal. Then Tracy says why the hell is he is talking to himself as he pees. Sigh. I doubt that she paid any attention to what he was saying which is the point of the play. People talk to themselves in a play all of the time. It is just a convention of a play. If people can continually talk to the back of the head of another actor on a soap opera than why can't a person talk to himself while urinating in a play? Sigh. Is it that much of a reach? Amazon.com also mentions these staging devices: This unique adaptation of William Shakespeare's "Richard III" switches the story's setting from the 1480s to the 1930s and imagines what a fascist coup in England might have been like. Despite the change in milieu, the story remains the same. The malformed, evil Richard III wants to gain control of the throne and brutally kills anyone who gets in his way -- including the members of his royal family. Among Richard's victims are his overly-trusting brother, Clarence, and Queen Elizabeth's brother, Rivers. And their murders are just the beginning of Richard's devious plan to gain power. The film's many offbeat touches include Richard giving his famous "winter of our discontent" speech as a public political address, and uttering his classic line "A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!" when his jeep gets stuck in mud. Okay. Maybe Shakespeare isn't for everyone and I overreacted to Tracy's comment those years ago. I do have a tendency to only see things from my point of view. I had to make yet another trip into work on my day off. This time I actually set foot in the department where I work. There was the usual comments of what am I doing there and why am I awake. Sigh. Sometimes the vampire jokes grow a little old, but I do truly like the people that I work with so I don't mind the teasing. After my visit to work, I decided to take in Star Trek Insurrection. Not too surprisingly it left me yawning. It was just another episode of moral preaching brought to the big screen. The characters have lost all interest for me. They need to make the next step and ditch some of the characters and just focus on one of them in a new setting or something. Maybe it is time for someone to die, if they decide to make another one. Isn't this the thought behind the creation of Star Trek Voyager? They had taken the old cast of characters as far as they could and they needed to make a new chapter in the mythos. As far as I could see there was absolutely no new character development in any of the characters. It was a warm and fuzzy film Star Trek style. Maybe next week I'll go see the Disney version of the Bible. I can't wait to play with my new Moses action figure.
|