 sj |
||
|
||
BS: 'Updates' - why?
|
|
|
Subject: BS: 'Updates' - why? From: MGM·Lion Date: 26 Mar 14 - 01:52 PM I learned from a notice in The Times Saturday Review that there is a thing called "the Austen Project, an enterprise in which contemporary writers update Jane Austen's novels". Why? ~Michael~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Updates' - why? From: Bert Date: 26 Mar 14 - 01:54 PM Do they work for Microsoft by any chance? :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Updates' - why? From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 26 Mar 14 - 02:22 PM Good grief. Pity we don't still have the Death Penalty! (And WHO decided in the film to have Mr Darcy emerge dripping from a swim in his lake to encounter Elizabeth Bennett on his property?? It's NOT in the novel!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Updates' - why? From: Stilly River Sage Date: 26 Mar 14 - 02:57 PM True, Eliza, but as improvisation goes in a filmed version of the story, that was a very nice one. Have you ever seen the monstrosity that was made with Laurence Olivier and Greer Garson? (And though I have nothing against actresses who act at any age, Garson was actually OLDER than Olivier, and was supposed to be playing a 20-year-old opposite his supposed 27 years. I think they were both in their late 30s. By that age Miss Elizabeth would have been "on the shelf.") SRS |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Updates' - why? From: Musket Date: 26 Mar 14 - 03:08 PM Sometimes, updates can work. Sometimes they can't. Fantasy over what might have happened get people curious... For instance, Kate Bush updated Wuthering Heights, musically. June Tabor on her "Against the Streams" album recited a wonderful poem called Beauty and the Beast Revisited, about an ageing beast. Many, yours truly included, have written updates to Marriott Edgar's Albert Ramsbottom saga... That said, I see Michael's point.... If you sing a song that is not yours, do you always try to be faithful or are you creative and put your own stamp on it? (The only time I see red is when somebody says I am not singing a traditional song correctly. So, what is correct then?) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Updates' - why? From: GUEST Date: 26 Mar 14 - 03:37 PM PD James' 'Death Comes to Pemberley' and Jean Rhys' 'Wide Sargasso Sea' are two attempts to write a sequel or prequel to a much-loved classic. I read them both but couldn't enjoy them. It was similar to eating one of those 'lite' fat-free foods instead of nice real butter or cream. Most unsatisfying. I think authors are just trying to cash in on the originals, which many people haven't read anyway, so aren't likely to be upset. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Updates' - why? From: MGM·Lion Date: 26 Mar 14 - 03:44 PM I usually try to avoid dramatisations of novels I am particularly fond of, as they bring, in my experience, more annoyance than enjoyment or enlightenment. But I did watch the Colin Firth & Jennifer Ehle tv 'wet-shirt- version, & remember thinking it could be worse. In particular, I thought Ben Whitrow's Mr Bennet was perfect (even tho [& here comes the annoyance bit!] why did they rob him of the character's best line, "If any young men come for Mary or Kitty, send them in, for I am quite at leisure"?); & Alison Stedman, whom I generally find an OTT actress, was v right for Mrs B. & I have happy memories of Anna Chancellor's Miss Bingley & Lucy Robinson as her sister. (Anna C is JA's 8xgreat-niece, btw; did you know?) I recall the Olivier/Garson version from when it was new & I was 8 or 9, but recall little; except that IIRC there actually was a bit of dialogue between them, "Why are you so proud?" "And why are you so prejudiced?". Talk about spelling it out! But, even so, dramatisations into other media are one thing; reissuing the novels in updated rewritten form is another. I mean, why bother? Just write some new novels, why don't they? Let's have Moby Dick with radar & the Satyricon with Smirnoff vodka, why don't we? ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Updates' - why? From: Will Fly Date: 26 Mar 14 - 04:24 PM the Satyricon with Smirnoff vodka Well, I'd watch that! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Updates' - why? From: gnu Date: 26 Mar 14 - 06:11 PM "... reissuing the novels in updated rewritten form is another. I mean, why bother?" Cheap money? Otherwise, exactly what you said. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Updates' - why? From: ChanteyLass Date: 26 Mar 14 - 09:32 PM I have to put in a pitch for an earlier Pride and Prejudice TV mini-series which I thought was well done. It starred Elizabeth Garvie and David Rintoul. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Updates' - why? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 26 Mar 14 - 10:31 PM Money, naturally.Taking a plot as a starting point for a fresh work can be fair enough, but that is something. And i would draw a distinction between sequels and updates. updates. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Updates' - why? From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 26 Mar 14 - 10:31 PM Money, naturally.Taking a plot as a starting point for a fresh work can be fair enough, but that is something. And i would draw a distinction between sequels and updates. updates. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Updates' - why? From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 27 Mar 14 - 04:16 AM Oh dear, so sorry. The Guest up there was me. Forgot to fill in the little box before posting. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Updates' - why? From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 27 Mar 14 - 04:22 AM I've been thinking a little more about this, and have to admit that when I was a girl, my interest was caught by such films as 'The Hunchback of Notre Dame' , 'Oliver Twist', 'Great Expectations', 'The Barretts of Wimpole Street' and 'The Winslow Boy' etc. They were a bit 'watered down', but nevertheless were digestible for a small girl, and must have awakened a great pleasure in literature, because I went on to study it up to A level and Uni. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Updates' - why? From: Joe Offer Date: 27 Mar 14 - 04:46 AM I've never been satisfied with modern dress productions of Shakespeare and Gilbert & Sullivan. I suppose neither is what one would consider "period pieces," but both seem to work better in period costume and presentation. Same with the works of Dickens and Jane Eyre, which are sometimes presented in modern context. -Joe- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Updates' - why? From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 27 Mar 14 - 04:54 AM I agree Joe. The anachronisms really jar. But to be honest, Shakespeare for example is rather inaccessible to young pupils. I found it so when I was eleven and wading through Romeo and Juliet. A cartoon version or a 'lite' film of the play can get the general idea across more digestibly. I wonder how many pupils have been put off for life from reading the classics by a too-early and too-stodgy undiluted presentation? For myself, however, I can't abide modernised, updated productions. My sis has invited me up to Edinburgh in August, to go to some of the Festival productions, including the Fringe. It's exciting, but I just know (she has an avant-garde taste!) half the stuff will be raw, 21st Century adaptations. I'll have to be polite, but I shall inwardly cringe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Updates' - why? From: Jack Campin Date: 27 Mar 14 - 08:01 AM I can't abide modernised, updated productions. Me either. In particular any version of Shakespeare in modern upper-class theatrical English - Gielgud, Olivier, all that lot. They're simply trying to claim ownership of English literature on behalf of the propertied elite whose dialect they are speaking in. (A lot of Shakespeare's rhymes don't even work in their weird affected language). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Updates' - why? From: Will Fly Date: 27 Mar 14 - 08:11 AM I saw Jonathan Miller's original production of The Mikado for English National Opera many years ago - set in the 1920s and mainly in black, white and cream. Eric Idle played Koko and was wonderful in the part. It was all very tongue in cheek - and very, very funny. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Updates' - why? From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 27 Mar 14 - 04:09 PM I agree Jack. I heard years ago a recording of a chap who claimed to be able to read Shakespeare in the correct accent of the time, which had a Northern sound to it. Shakespoke apparently didn't speak with a posh, southern, BBC accent at all. I was amused to read in the paper that GCSE examiners in English Literature don't like the youngsters using modern speech when answering their exam questions. For instance, "Othello was a total twit 'cos Iago could twist him round his little finger." I think it's perfectly acceptable as long as one can understand it and get the gist. Do they expect their young pupils to speak with an Eton turn of phrase? It is indeed snobbery, and creates a barrier to enjoying plays and novels at one's own pace and level. I can't like it myself, but I've no objection to others getting into 'lite' classical stuff! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Updates' - why? From: JennieG Date: 27 Mar 14 - 05:27 PM The local dramatic society - formed in 1947 and still going strong (we're quite cultured out here in the Antipodes, you know) - is currently performing 'A Midsummer Night's Dream', Himself and I are going on Saturday night. I'll let you know how it goes; from what I have gathered it's in modern dress, but they have stayed true to the script. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Updates' - why? From: MGM·Lion Date: 27 Mar 14 - 06:52 PM We haved drifted a bit. But re Shax: I said in a review I wrote, probably about 25 years or so ago now, that it was refreshing to see a play done in Elizabethan-style costume, as modern dress had been the absolute bog-standard norm for so many years. In fact, of course, they were always played "modern dress" in Will's own time, in the sense that the Greek & Roman & Ancient British plays [Caesar, Coriolanus, Ant & Cleo, Troilus, Timon, Titus Andronicus, Cymbeline, Lear] would all alike have been played in contemporary doublet & hose, not togas and tunics or furs & woad. So Will wrote them for the language to fit any age; & I long ago became of opinion that the factors which bring about the success or otherwise of a production are independent of the costuming; I have seen some excellent ones, which really brought new insights, in modern dress, & some dire ones more apparently "authentically" costumed. It's the directorial vision & concept that count above all. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Updates' - why? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 27 Mar 14 - 07:03 PM Modern dress and situations in newer dramatizations of the operas are common. I much prefer the original versions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Updates' - why? From: Will Fly Date: 27 Mar 14 - 07:07 PM Michael - did you ever see Peter Brook's RSC production of "A Midsummer Night's Dream - 1970, if memory serves? I saw it twice, at the Aldwych Theatre, which was then the temporary home of the RSC, and absolutely adored it. It was totally fresh - mesmerising even. I recall seeing Peter O'Toole as Shylock at Stratford in, oh... 1960, I think - with Dorothy Tutin as Portia. Another stunning RSC production - totally different in concept from Peter Brook's "Dream", but excellent in a different way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Updates' - why? From: MGM·Lion Date: 27 Mar 14 - 07:08 PM They work sometimes, tho, Q. Didn't you like Jonathan Miller's very clever (& IMO thoroughly appropriate & true-to-the-spirit) mafiosi-style Rigoletto? ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Updates' - why? From: Will Fly Date: 27 Mar 14 - 07:09 PM I saw Miller's Rigoletto - wonderful stuff. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Updates' - why? From: MGM·Lion Date: 27 Mar 14 - 07:13 PM Actually, Will, I didn't like that Peter Brook Dream, with the jugglers & plate-spinning at all, as much as I had expected ~~ felt it was trying just that bit too hard. But I found it had an interesting feel to it, even so. Better than that daft one a few years later, at the National IIRC, that was all done in mud, for some reason, which I didn't think worked at all. ~M~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Updates' - why? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 28 Mar 14 - 03:28 PM Yes, the Rigoletto was interesting, but I guess I am too much "old school." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Updates' - why? From: Uncle_DaveO Date: 29 Mar 14 - 05:22 PM On the subject of novels being rendered as movies, that's always (or at least usually) tough to do. But one POSITIVE example I immediately thought of was Cider House Rules, a wonderful novel, and a wonderful movie. Why? Because the author of the novel (whose name I've culpably forgotten for the moment) would sell the film rights to the novel only on the condition that he, personally, had to write the film script; otherwise, forget it, there would be no movie. I heard him interviewed on NPR. He said he had no objection, in general, to his novels being turned into films by other writers, and that several of his prior novels had indeed been successfully converted to film by others, but from the time he started writing Cider House Rules he was rock-solid set on writing the film script for this one himself. And a masterful job he did on it, indeed. See it, if you haven't. Dave Oesterreich |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Updates' - why? From: Mr Red Date: 30 Mar 14 - 05:03 AM anyone been to the Jane Austen museum in Bath UK? even hard bitten Austenitic types were unimpressed. I was underwhelmed but was on a blind date with a lass studying Austen at Uni. There is not enough substance to build three floors of a house out of. IMHO. On the OP - commerce do what the hell they like. Opinions are cheap, but they sell for more than they are worth. Even in the Folk world! |
