From: Simon Brewer <simon_crbrewer71-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Shakespeare In Our Iconoclastic Psyche
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 1999 07:56:02 PDT



Hi

> it's a sure shot for>filmmaking because the story will resonate with 
>SOMEONE as it has become so>diffuse within our culture.   

>it's only recently>been so marketable because only recently has 
>iconoclasm been so globally>chic

But is this iconoclastic?  Shakespeare has become mainstream (though 
maybe not yet as much as it was in his own time).  I accept your point 
about it becoming well known globally.  

Also in what way is Shakespeare filmic?  I suppose plays and short 
stories have shorter plots and so are more suited for film.  But 
Elizabethan drama was carried heavily by words - and arguably the 
image is more filmic than the word.  I suppose their success is 
ultimately down to character and plot: lots of drama / conflict, 
sensational happenings, fundamental emotions.  Am I the only person 
surprised at how works from way back can still carry weight today?  I 
guess it's true there isn't progress in art like in science.  Some say 
film can become dated easier because it's a recorded artform - it 
can't be recreated for modern times like a drama is everytime it's 
performed (maybe this is why Shakespeare survives).  When it becomes 
even more distant in time and it's language less comprehensible (like 
say Beuwolf or even Chaucer) will it be as popular?

I've expanded a bit from the original question - but I think it's all 
relevant.

simon

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com


     --- from list film-theory-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---