As a some what classically trained actor (two years of an academic theatre school) I have always had a thing for Shakespeare. I love his work and have never had the fear that so many people seem to have for the language. Sure some of the allusions and idioms are obscure or their meanings are only relevant to Elizabethan scholars, but a good actor lets the emotion of the words in context convey what is needed for the audience to comprehend the meaning of the words.
Underneath the glamour and the trappings that accompany most productions there are universal truths that speak to all of us. Remember Shakespeare was a popular writer who depended on pleasing his audiences for making a living. An audience who if anything were even less educated then today's, made up of primarily illiterates who would need the stimuli of strong emotion to provide enjoyment. His plays are sexual, violent, full of bawdy humour and plots were dictated by the strong moral code of the time. The tragedies conformed to the tight rule of a hero whose tragic flaw brings about his downfall, the histories to extolling the virtues of the current head under the crown, and the romantic comedies all worked out right in the end.
What has always elevated Shakespeare head and shoulders above the rest was his ability to raise his content above the limitations of the style. Unlike today's sit-com writers who work within a similar format and let stereotypes and manipulation stand in for genuine characters and emotion, his ear for poetry and truth combined to entertain and enlighten the masses whilst never stooping to a lowest common denominator. Royal to peasant were equally comfortable with his work.
Our tendency to view Shakespeare's plays as museum pieces instead of living theatre is the thing that does them the most disservice. We suffered through a long period of staid costume dramas masquerading as performance with only a few notable exceptions. Not until Kenneth Branagh first began producing plays and filming did new life get blown back into Shakespeare for the first time since Peter Brooks interpretations in the early seventies. Aside from Mr. Branagh own productions we have seen a spurt of attempts at Shakespeare, some good, some bad, but at least people were attempting to use film and his plays for more then faithful reproductions of stage shows.
.jpg?t=20130517094513)
Article comments
1 - SFC SKI
I enjoyed this movie very much, and the commentary was also very enlightening.
2 - Eric Olsen
very thoughtful and interesting gypsyman, thanks and welcome!
3 - Meryl Yourish
The term "anti-Semitism" specifically means Jew hatred. Wilhelm Marr, a notorious Jew-hater, coined the term.
It's becoming fashionable for Arabs to try to claim it, but the fact remains: anti-Semitism means Jew-hatred.
4 - Phillip Winn
When people try to lay blame for anti-Semitism at the feet of "fundamentalist Christians," I know that they haven't spent much time with fundamentalist Christians. It would be hard to find a more Israel-supporting group of people in the world than your local fundamentalist congregation. It's primarily because of horrid eschatalogical theology, in my opinion, but it is a fact.
Anyway, I didn't realize that this was out on DVD already; I'll definitely check it out!
5 - gypsyman
This just a quick reply to the previouse two comments. 1)anti-semitism as per muslims. Technicaly jewish and arab peoples are both of the semitic race, both people's are from the same part of the world but have obviusly followed different paths over the last thousands of years. Your right that the term is applied to jews not arabs, but I think considering the recent display of anti muslim feeling the term could be expanded to include any prejudice against either people. That's just my opinion and its not that important to me. As the son of a Jewish woman who is somewhat visible in appearance, I've received my share of comments so perhaps that's one opinion I'll hold back on in respect of other's sensitivity.
As to the second comment about Chritsian fundamendalists. First by fundamendalist I'm not refering to any specific denomination, but using it as a term to refer to people who extoll radical beliefes such as Jews being responsible for the death of Christ, that being Black is the mark of Cain etc. These could be Catholic, Morman, Lutherian etc. for all I care.
Second. You will have to forgive me if I question you on the whether the support you mention is for the State of Isreal or the Jewish people. In my eyes there is a difference. I have read about certain denominations who support the State of Isreal's more radical elements,illeagel settlers and settelments for example, in the hopes of encouraging war because they believe that this will bring about the Last Judgement and they will ascend to heaven.
I'm sure that there are plenty of people out there who consinder themselves fundamentalist Christians who fall into neither of the previous camps, but quite frankly given the atmosphere generated by movies such as The Passion by Mel Gibson whose depictions of Jews as the murderers of Christ could not help but enflame hatred and its endorsement by so many Christian leadership figures, I think they would be a minority.
This reminds me of a Lenny Bruce routine: He's talking about the death of Jesus and he says: " Alright we admit it, we bumped him off, me and my cousins and my uncle Saul took him down to the basement and rubbed him out. But look you ought to be grateful we did it when we did it. Else you'd be seeing all these parochial school kids walking around with electric chairs on chains round their necks"
Oh well I guess I better shut up or I'll find myself in real trouble
Thanks again for the comments, and the movie is well worth seeing, its great and that's what the review was about in the first place.
cheers and thanks
gypsyman
6 - Phillip Winn
Gypsyman, again, you simply reveal ignorance of the people you're labeling when you describe what you consider to be "fundamentalists." Fundamentalism is widespread in Western Christianity right now, but the beliefs you describe are by and large relics of a bygone era, not at all widespread.
The Passion (which I haven't seen) was widely feared to stir up anti-Semitic sentiment, but in the end inspired far more positve benefits than the one or two isolated nutcases who used it as an excuse to act out their anti-Semitic routines. Again, the facts rebut your statements; it simply wasn't, in the end, an anti-Semitic movie.
As I've said, if you spend time with fundamentalist Christians, you'll find that they by and large support Jews, the Jewish state, and everything even remotely Jewish. The idea that any identifiably-large segment of Christians is harboring any sort of anti-Semitism is simply uninformed or decades/centuries old.
7 - Phillip Winn
P.S. I should point out that I was raised in fundamentalist Christianity, so I _do_ know of which I speak. More, I'm very active in the church today -- though not in fundamentalist circles -- and still count many fundamentalists as friends.