Future releases

I've seen parts of Patrick Stewart's MacBeth. Well done but I really miss the medieval setting for that play.

Though the acting was not as fine in Gibson's Hamlet I just thought the scripting and directing brought a clarity to the play, perhaps because it was a more meathead version.

The other thing that can be cut out of Shakespeare is his triple and quadruple layers of simile and metaphor. Once you've described something poetically you don't have to go back and keep beating it to death. Pick the best one and move on.

The BBC covered 4 plays recently in a series they called the Hollow Crown.
Its starts with Richard the II, Richard the III, Henry IV and Henry V.
I thought Richard II was superb and highly recommend it, sadly I cant say the same about the rest. You will probably want to watch Richard III as it follows diectly on, but I'd give the last two a miss (unless you are huge fan of Falstaff), particuarly Henry V which is not a patch on Brannaghs and has some, in my view, terrible choices of dialogue they have cut.

look it's mary crawley

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Hi Semiramis! I agree- I do love the Brannagh version- the two scenes where he and then Betrice overhear the set up is hysterical- most Ive ever laughed at a Shakespeare comedy- but Brannaghs is a very jolly (for the most part) exhuberent and traditional telling of the tale- I think this will be more contemporary and more film like if you know what I mean- much as I love Brannaghs Shakespeare films I sometimes feel he doent make as much use of the medium of film as he might- they are more like filmed stage plays sometimes (I particualry felt that with his version of Hamlet).

THAT's what I like so very much about him! Acting seems to have priority in his films - as it would seem natural for everything that involves Shakespeare, I believe
Love Brannagh's Othello-version as well.

Yeah, it really is Mary Crawley, Norc

Im all for acting having the priority but he seems to make less and less use of the fact its film as he goes along- if you compare Henry V to his Hamlet, Hamlet is much more staged whereas Henry V feels like a film that just happens to have been written by Shakespeare.
I'm not sure Ive seem Brannaghs Othello.
I did see the Al Pacino in Merchant of Venice and I have to admit to not having very high hopes for it, I really couldnt see Pacino in the role- but he is superb in it.



David Tennant's version of Hamlet is also worth a watch-

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I did see the Al Pacino in Merchant of Venice and I have to admit to not having very high hopes for it, I really couldnt see Pacino in the role- but he is superb in it.

Definitely missed that one! I really like Merchant of Venice, but haven't seen the film yet

I love Brannagh, he was brilliant as Gilderoy Lockheart in HP.

Semiramis wrote:
Love Brannagh's Othello-version as well.

Actually Branagh didn't direct Othello, just played Iago in it. But it was this portrayal that led a critic to remark the Branagh "is the only living actor who can make Shakespeare sound like street talk." If you watch his performance, the insight of that comment is apparent: Shakespeare rolls off his tongue like a cussing sailor. It's this naturalness that I think made his Crispin's day speech in Henry V vastly superior to Olivier's delivery.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:
I did see the Al Pacino in Merchant of Venice and I have to admit to not having very high hopes for it, I really couldnt see Pacino in the role- but he is superb in it.

Back in college, I had the great pleasure of sitting in while Patrick Stewart dropped by (before Star Trek made him famous) and talked to a group of theater students. He started off by talking about his first day of rehearsal at the Royal Shakespeare Company. He showed up with his lines memorized ready to go, only to find everyone sitting around a large table. The director turned to the first actor beside him as asked him to talk about his character. The actor talked for several minutes, after which the next one talked, and so on. As the discussion went around the room getting closer and closer to him, Stewart realized with horror that he had absolutely nothing to say. He resolved from that day forward that he would never again be caught with nothing to say.

It was true, he talked for a full hour nonstop, and was mesmerizing. One thing I remembered is he mentioned being recruited to play Shylock in The Merchant of Venice. He said he would only do it if allowed to play him as a monster. Up to that time everyone had been playing Shylock as a victim and symbol of human universality ("if you prick us, do we not bleed?"). He said that in Shakespeare's time Jews were universally considered demonic at best, subhuman at worst, and perhaps Shylock's lines could be reinterpreted with anger, not pity. He demonstrated by roaring: "If you prick us, do we not BLEED?!!"

I think this performance had a balancing effect on subsequent portrayals of Shylock, and Pacino took a middle and very realistic road, perhaps as a result of Stewart's monstrous performance.

how about that ending of girls huh

Al Pacino was heartbreaking but horrible. He really got the balance right, his Shylock was full of rancour and anxiety, but yet full of pathos and I really felt for him when he lost his daughter, his grief and rage was gut wrenching.

Yeah I was suitably impressed by Pacino interpretation of the character. You swing back and forth nicely from rooting for him to severely disliking him several times.

Hard to imagnine a modern film script being so brave as to have a main character who is so contentious.

its not exactly part of politically correct culture of today is it? but because its Shakespeare we can plum the depths of our inner prejudices and come up to air better people, thats why he was a genius, I guess he forces us confront our most hidden fears and nightmares.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Yeah I was suitably impressed by Pacino interpretation of the character. You swing back and forth nicely from rooting for him to severely disliking him several times.

Hard to imagnine a modern film script being so brave as to have a main character who is so contentious.

'House' and Archie Bunker is about as close as the modern age gets. But he still has to be lovable or nobody will go for it.

Star Trek

Mmmm, I have a very bad feleing about this.
Even more than the last film it doesnt much look like it has a plot so much as a series of unlikely events on which to hang spectacular action and sfx on.
I do wish the current crop of directors would understand that if I want a theme park ride I will go to to a bloody theme park!!

Brilliant! I think Id rather watch that version than the real one.

the newest star trek trailer is here
http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=36880

I dont know why I keep watching these trailers- it only gets worse- really? A helicopter thing hovering outside a building shooting through the windows? Again!!

I can't wait to see Star Trek: Into Skyfall!

If I didn't see the occassional uniform, I'd have never made the connection to Star Trek.

New trailer for World War Z- thats George Square in Glasgow in the opening city shots- I can imagine people in Philidephia scratching their heads and trying to work out where in their city that is and Scots sitting saying- thats NOT Philadelphia!

I loved Pitch Black and the Chronicles of Riddick, he's a cool dude.