Well, this film left me rather double-minded. What is good is that the original language of “The Tempest” is used in the movie practically without any simplifications, making us hear and feel the atmosphere of Shakespeare times. Peter Greenaway made it using his original and personal vision through the books of magic with which Prospero creates his realm. The film blends different art forms, like ballet, opera, painting, etc. And these combinations differentiate this adaptation of the play from the others. However, practically the whole cast of the film are naked people. Although this nudity is shown in the best taste possible, it is rather hard to understand the purpose of it, and, moreover, due to this fact the film cannot be shown to children. Besides, to somehow appreciate this adaptation you need to read the original play, otherwise it would be difficult to watch it and understand. Finally, “Prospero’s books” requires some patience for it lasts more than two hours.
LOL! I hope you are ols enough to watch such stuff... It is considered one of the best screen adaptations, starring some of the TOP actors of the past.
... left me IN TWO MINDS ... .... made it USE (bare infinitive, no participle I) ...
I have watched the film and I am still in doubt what impression it has made on me – good or bad. On the one hand it gives wonderful possibilities to listen to the pure English of the Shakespeare’s time. It’s also worth mentioning about the fact that we see both ballet and opera here and it perfectly supplement each other, thus forming the feeling of the complete picture. This circumstance makes the film unique in some way because it uses different art forms for conveying atmosphere and mood of that time. Undoubtedly, it attracts your attention. What I DON”T like, it is a fact a lot of nude bodies on show in this film. Some swimming underwater, some prancing around liberally.I completely agree with Nastya, and frankly speaking I don’t see point for it.
In general the film isn’t very different from the play, except the fact that the film tells us about Prospero’s books, from which he takes his knowledge and power in magic. But what struck me most of all is the fact that all (almost all) in the film were naked. This, honestly speaking, left a very unpleasant feeling. However, I think, the meaning of this "trick" is clear to me. If you have noticed, all court and noble men were dressed, except spirits, obedient Prospero, who were bare, showing thus their purity, the purity of their soul and heart. They, unlike the human, are clean.
The film I have watched gave me an opportunity to see how other man, the director, imagined the characters and the idea of Shakespeare’s play. It was rather unexpected for me to see nude people but at the same time it was interesting director’s view. Of course, it was not made without a reason and the method of conveying free and clear souls by nude people was quite unusual. And I think it would better to find another way. The film gave a chance to hear that language, the language of Shakespeare which undoubted made this film better. I think the actors were good and they could conveyed what I have expected.
An adaptation of Shakespeare's "The Tempest" features decadent sets, nude spirits, sumptuous video overlays, optical tricks, and animated books. Paintings from the Old Masters come to life and morph into each other as Gielgud (Prospero) reads almost every line of the play; even if you hate it, it's impossible not to be impressed by the massive scale and detail of this encyclopedic movie. This is a fantasy film that does a great deal that is new but one I cannot recommend without strong reservations. The plot is very similar to the book’s version. I guess the film reflects all the atmosphere of the Shakespeare’s greatest work.
Irene, we agreed - no plagiarism. Rotten Tomatoes is a good source, but you are to share YOUR ideas. Greg S, a super reviewer, is not my student after all.
:D ok) I've really have seen this movie, it's nice indeed) The plot is very similar to the book’s version. I guess the film reflects all the atmosphere of the Shakespeare’s greatest work. While watching it, I feel the language and the spirit of that ancient time. However, at the beginning I couldn't understand how the boy can urinate so long :D Is he human being?) Of course, it’s a symbol. In my opinion it expresses indifference and arrogance. I like this film because of its intricacy; abstruseness. Moreover, I was impressed by perfect dancing and gracefulness of movements, maybe it’s not a key point, but as a former dancer I always pay attention to the beauty and synchronicity of motions.
Well, this film left me rather double-minded. What is good is that the original language of “The Tempest” is used in the movie practically without any simplifications, making us hear and feel the atmosphere of Shakespeare times. Peter Greenaway made it using his original and personal vision through the books of magic with which Prospero creates his realm. The film blends different art forms, like ballet, opera, painting, etc. And these combinations differentiate this adaptation of the play from the others. However, practically the whole cast of the film are naked people. Although this nudity is shown in the best taste possible, it is rather hard to understand the purpose of it, and, moreover, due to this fact the film cannot be shown to children. Besides, to somehow appreciate this adaptation you need to read the original play, otherwise it would be difficult to watch it and understand. Finally, “Prospero’s books” requires some patience for it lasts more than two hours.
ReplyDeleteLOL!
DeleteI hope you are ols enough to watch such stuff...
It is considered one of the best screen adaptations, starring some of the TOP actors of the past.
... left me IN TWO MINDS ...
.... made it USE (bare infinitive, no participle I) ...
I have watched the film and I am still in doubt what impression it has made on me – good or bad. On the one hand it gives wonderful possibilities to listen to the pure English of the Shakespeare’s time. It’s also worth mentioning about the fact that we see both ballet and opera here and it perfectly supplement each other, thus forming the feeling of the complete picture. This circumstance makes the film unique in some way because it uses different art forms for conveying atmosphere and mood of that time. Undoubtedly, it attracts your attention. What I DON”T like, it is a fact a lot of nude bodies on show in this film. Some swimming underwater, some prancing around liberally.I completely agree with Nastya, and frankly speaking I don’t see point for it.
ReplyDelete.. see A point ...
DeleteI hope NO nudes at the theatre!
DeleteIn general the film isn’t very different from the play, except the fact that the film tells us about Prospero’s books, from which he takes his knowledge and power in magic. But what struck me most of all is the fact that all (almost all) in the film were naked. This, honestly speaking, left a very unpleasant feeling. However, I think, the meaning of this "trick" is clear to me. If you have noticed, all court and noble men were dressed, except spirits, obedient Prospero, who were bare, showing thus their purity, the purity of their soul and heart. They, unlike the human, are clean.
ReplyDeleteA good point!
DeleteDasha, you definitely have a talent for interpretation!
The film I have watched gave me an opportunity to see how other man, the director, imagined the characters and the idea of Shakespeare’s play. It was rather unexpected for me to see nude people but at the same time it was interesting director’s view. Of course, it was not made without a reason and the method of conveying free and clear souls by nude people was quite unusual. And I think it would better to find another way. The film gave a chance to hear that language, the language of Shakespeare which undoubted made this film better. I think the actors were good and they could conveyed what I have expected.
ReplyDelete... it was THE DIRECTOR'S interesting view.
Delete... which undoubtedLY made this film better.
An adaptation of Shakespeare's "The Tempest" features decadent sets, nude spirits, sumptuous video overlays, optical tricks, and animated books. Paintings from the Old Masters come to life and morph into each other as Gielgud (Prospero) reads almost every line of the play; even if you hate it, it's impossible not to be impressed by the massive scale and detail of this encyclopedic movie. This is a fantasy film that does a great deal that is new but one I cannot recommend without strong reservations. The plot is very similar to the book’s version. I guess the film reflects all the atmosphere of the Shakespeare’s greatest work.
ReplyDeleteIrene, we agreed - no plagiarism.
DeleteRotten Tomatoes is a good source, but you are to share YOUR ideas. Greg S, a super reviewer, is not my student after all.
:D ok)
ReplyDeleteI've really have seen this movie, it's nice indeed) The plot is very similar to the book’s version. I guess the film reflects all the atmosphere of the Shakespeare’s greatest work. While watching it, I feel the language and the spirit of that ancient time. However, at the beginning I couldn't understand how the boy can urinate so long :D Is he human being?) Of course, it’s a symbol. In my opinion it expresses indifference and arrogance. I like this film because of its intricacy; abstruseness. Moreover, I was impressed by perfect dancing and gracefulness of movements, maybe it’s not a key point, but as a former dancer I always pay attention to the beauty and synchronicity of motions.
No more comments!
ReplyDelete