A few years ago, this would have set me off on a rant about declining standards in education. Now, I'm just curious. The post is from a thread on another web board. Asief is a 17-yr-old in Cape Town, according to his profile:
In reply to:
Asief
My english teacher reccommended that we watch Hamlet before finals (literature's my first paper) as seeing it on stage may not have been enough. Yesterday, the Mel Gibson one was damaged at the video shop so we had to settle for what I'm assuming to be a British version.
Yet another British film that I hated, everything was so inaccurate from what we learned in class. If you don't know which one I'm referring to, the actors which I recognised were Kate Winslet (Ophelia) and Robin Williams.
It's really frustrating to see film makers who don't do their homework! eg: Men in early 19th century suits and oh yes, ELECTRICITY?!?!?!
maxqnz
That's not an anachronism, that's the setting for that particular production.
Asief
Thanks, you learn something new everyday... But I still didn't like the movie. One of the errors that had nothing to do with settings was Ophelia's virginity, but I guess there's no use stressing about it.
PS: I may be the only one in my class who has gotten an A for my lit paper in September exams but I have no idea what an "anachorism" is.
maxqnz
Anachronism: 1 : an error in chronology; especially : a chronological misplacing of persons, events, objects, or customs in regard to each other
2 : a person or a thing that is chronologically out of place; especially : one from a former age that is incongruous in the present
Is it really likely that a 17-year-old A-student would be unfamiliar with the word "anachronism"?
>>Is it really likely that a 17-year-old A-student would be unfamiliar with the word "anachronism"?
Or that Shakespeare committed plenty of them hisownself?
> Is it really likely that a 17-year-old A-student would be unfamiliar with the word "anachronism"?
Yes:-) It is likely that a surprisingly large proportion of all English speakers do not know the word. Not a majority perhaps, but a fair chunk nonetheless. So continue using it there Max!
As for Hamlet, the play's chronological setting is known to be imprecise but is, of course, generally considered to be the late medieval period. One fairly recent cinematic version (a pretty poor one) had Hamlet as the son of the owner of Denmark Corporation in New York, present day. Is that wrong? Considering the imprecision/universality of the play's text, I think such a setting choice can quite easily be justified even if the poor acting cannot.
> Or that Shakespeare committed plenty of them hisownself?
...deliberately too! :-)
>>(a pretty poor one)<<
Michael Almereyda's film was stunning. That is was in the language of post-modern gobbledigook and still stunning made it a triumph -- one unmanned border crossing's opinion.
In reply to:
Considering the imprecision/universality of the play's text, I think such a setting choice can quite easily be justified
Indeed. I said as much in in the rest of the post in which I used anachronism. I also confessed to enjoying Baz Luhrman's version of R&J.
> Michael Almereyda's film was stunning.
Wow! That's surprising to hear. You are the first person I've heard say that. All but a handful of people in the cinema walked out during the showing I was in. Which is not to say that I found it totally lacking in any merit, but as a whole it was, I thought, very weak. I liked the 'To be or not to be' soliloquy. And Polonius was funny! I'd like to hear what in particular it was that impressed you.
>>what impressed you
The visual language: It was a filmic film. In particular, I liked Ophelia and her pictures. Purists may have had trouble with the language -- I don't really remember -- but this was a film about images.
> this was a film about images.
Yeah, I'm with you. I thought the fountain death scene had a lot of potential, but I couldn't help but notice reflections of the film crew in windows, boom mics in shots and pretty much every other mistake a film maker can make - for me there is no excuse for that kind of thing, even if the project is interesting and ambitious. As for the acting, well I thought E. Hawke did a pretty good job; he always seems to get paired with a poor partner, IMO (see Linklater's 'Before Sunrise'). I think Ophelia was worse than any school play and it has nothing to do with an accent.
Well, it's too long ago, and I don't remember the quality of the acting, only a very general impression of the film, which I came away from very happy and satisfied.
I also don't remember seeing the reflections of the crew on glass, although I imagine the filmmaker was deliberately drawing attention to the filmmaking. This was a more daring approch in the 60s or 70s, I guess. I remember seeing one Goddard film which may take place entirely inside an apartment, or even a bedroom, with a prominent window overlooking a black night-sky in which flashes a neon sign. It is a convincing illusion, and so stands out, that you are forced to comment on it mentally as you watch the film: the location scouting, the setup, etc. At the end of the film, the crew strikes the set on camera, and the sign is revealed to be a small model, the window, a cutout in a flat. For a filmmaker interested in images -- and particularly for one with a post-modern obsession with self-conscoiusness (even though that should be a paradox) -- this sort of commentary on the image itself is more difficult to avoid than the next fix.
But it was precisely the obsession with image that I liked about it. Hamlet has never been my favorite Shakespeare, although I hardly feel qualified to say it isn't one of his greatest plays (my personal favoiite is Lear). But what irks me about Hamlet is its uniqueness among Shakespeare's plays. Shakespeare is superficial. That is, in general, while he deals with the great matters of the human condition, he does not indulge, or perhaps know, about the self, interiority and all its morbid shadows and reverberations. The play is the word, sparkles like the lake in August. The brilliance of superfices. And, then, her comes Hamlet, that brooding prince in his haunted castle. Oh, those rattlings of chains! I admire it, but I can't stand it. Or such was my feeling in 1990 when the film in question came out. And it was like a breath of fresh air. Frankly, it was Hamlet, and I didn't want to go. But go I did, and I found the literal superficialtiy delightful. Actually, it changed my opinion of Hamlet which, for the first time, I could enjoy.
edit: belliyth and I agree that we are talking about a film made in 2000; I have the 1990 date from imdb, but I think that's too early.
ya done gone over ma haid
Well, now, who's dang haid is it, anyways?!
but I couldn't help but notice reflections of the film crew in windows, boom mics in shots and pretty much every other mistake a film maker can make...
This leads me to believe, by, that these were deliberate devices of image that didn't work for you (or didn't work...period), rather than mistakes. I doubt any filmmaker at that level would be so unprofessional as to leave something like that in. I worked on a couple projects as a PA, and even if an extra so much as looked at the camera for an instant they cut, or reshot if they caught it in the dailies.