• Previous message: Hardy M. Cook: "Re: Anything Goes"
• Maybe in reply to: Hardy M. Cook: ""Speaking Shakespeare""
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ]

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.2328  Friday, 22 November 2002

[Editor’s Note: The relationship of this thread to Shakespeare has
become tangential. –Hardy]

[1]     From:   Mike Jensen <jensensh@hotmail.com>
        Date:   Wednesday, 20 Nov 2002 09:03:44 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.2317 Re: "Speaking Shakespeare"

[2]     From:   Al Magary <al@magary.com>
        Date:   Thursday, 21 Nov 2002 00:08:09 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.2317 Re: "Speaking Shakespeare"

[3]     From:   John Zuill <joz@wave.bm>
        Date:   Thursday, 21 Nov 2002 14:58:12 -0300
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.2317 Re: "Speaking Shakespeare"


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike Jensen <jensensh@hotmail.com>
Date:           Wednesday, 20 Nov 2002 09:03:44 -0800
Subject: 13.2317 Re: "Speaking Shakespeare"
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.2317 Re: "Speaking Shakespeare"

As usual, I did not read Mr. Small's comments so I was unaware of them
until Martin wrote:

>Sam also described the film as "Full of overstuffed stereotypes",
>charging that "Mendes has no real understanding of individuals -
>everything is translated and interpreted in terms of mythical groups",
>and that for this reason he should "leave Shakespeare alone".

Assuming the quote is correct, I would remind Mr. Small that Sam Mendes
did not write *American Beauty*.  Alan Ball wrote it.  Ball created the
story and the characters.  As the director, Mendes told the story the
best way he knew how.

Mike Jensen

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Al Magary <al@magary.com>
Date:           Thursday, 21 Nov 2002 00:08:09 -0800
Subject: 13.2317 Re: "Speaking Shakespeare"
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.2317 Re: "Speaking Shakespeare"

Martin Steward wrote, quoting Sam Small:

>Sam also described the film as "Full of overstuffed
>stereotypes", charging that "Mendes has no real understanding
>of individuals - everything is translated and interpreted in terms
>of mythical groups", and that for this reason he should "leave
>Shakespeare alone".  But this seems to be the root of my
>American friends' misunderstanding (as I see it) of American
>Beauty - they were not aware of Mendes's work in
>Shakespearean Romance, and so were unable to put the
>film into the context of his developing career....

So a movie (or play or whatever) must not be judged as an independent,
self-contained work but only as part of an oeuvre?  This is an untenable
position, even disregarding Sam Mendes' very short career in films
(American Beauty was his first work; the recent Road to Perdition is his
second).

Certainly, one's appreciation of a work may be heightened if one is
familiar with some or all of the artist's other works, even in other
media.  But to suggest that one can "misunderstand" one work because one
is unfamiliar with or ignorant of the existence of the other works holds
the audience member hostage to the artist's purposes or procedure or
even future career, not to mention the availability of his work.  I
think even most artists would reject this position as arrogant.

Let me criticize American Beauty now and, at an appropriate time, Sam
Mendes' body of work.

For what it matters, as an American I saw this outsider's view of "my"
culture not as daring or original but as clichéd and strange, like a bad
translation.  Who is it that misunderstands?

Al Magary

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Zuill <joz@wave.bm>
Date:           Thursday, 21 Nov 2002 14:58:12 -0300
Subject: 13.2317 Re: "Speaking Shakespeare"
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.2317 Re: "Speaking Shakespeare"

>Sam also described the film as "Full of overstuffed stereotypes",
>charging that "Mendes has no real understanding of individuals -
>everything is translated and interpreted in terms of mythical groups",

It may be that Mendes is a good director of Shakespeare and not a good
creator of project in the classic sense of the film director. I agree
with Sam that American Beauty was so riddled with stereotype and cliché
that, for me, it never really acquired a viewing momentum. It was
leaden, and except for some of the images tiresome. When the homosexual
theme arrived and made its ludicrous and predictable appearance with the
same old disgraceful result, laden with inverted morals and
audience-congratulating nonsense, I was pretty sure it would drift into
obscurity. But it did not. It is said to be great art. I feel like
Elaine in "Seinfeld" when she is fired from her job and put in the dog
house by her friends for saying that "The English Patient" was drivel;
which surely one day people will see that it is.

Anyone remember "The Crying Game"? Does anyone care?

But directors are funny. Like writers or actors, sometimes the right
work is the key to something good and when you put them in the wrong
project they bomb.  Leonard DiCaprio was really great in "What's Eating
Gilbert Grape?" Maybe if he had stuck to that sort of film the way
Johnny Depp has he would had Depp's artistic success.

Perhaps money has some part to play in all this.

John Zuill
_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, editor@shaksper.net
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

• Previous message: Hardy M. Cook: "Re: Anything Goes"
• Maybe in reply to: Hardy M. Cook: ""Speaking Shakespeare""
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ]