Randall Maysin Again wrote:Speaking for myself, I have a very specific idea of what a successful Shakespeare adaptation would consist of, that I've never seen embodied in any entire production, only in a few individual performances of specific roles in adaptations that are otherwise the standard deadwood, and don't make Shakespeare's language come alive and sound truly natural and felt, which for me is a feat something like turning stones into gold. Basically, Brian Cox in the Ralph Fiennes film of Coriolanus, and what I've seen of Olivier's performance in his Hamlet make the grade, and that's it. So it's a little strange to me that one would cite Shakespeare as a positive example--surely you don't have something like Polanski's Macbeth in mind? I wouldn't call that a work of genius.
You’re surprised I don’t share your idiosyncratic view of Shakespeare? Why would I? Frankly your view does Shakespeare no credit. He was apparently unable to write language that sounds alive and natural coming out of people’s mouths. Not much of a dramatist, then.
I haven’t seen Polanski’s film in forever. I barely remember it. I did see Joel Coen’s version last year after rereading the play and it was marvelous.
Throne of Blood is terrific too, as is
Ran. Kurosawa’s two were Harold Bloom’s favourite Shakespeare movies.
You didn’t say the adaptation had to be itself a work of genius, just successful and “reasonably” faithful. I might say
Apocalypse Now, but maybe it’s not faithful enough for you. Maybe Pasolini’s
Trilogy of Life? Some on here might say Welles’s
The Trial, tho’ I’m not the biggest fan myself.