Re: [mythsoc] reading aloud (was A Tale of Two Professors), and Tolkien
> [Original Message]a
> From: David Bratman <dbratman@...>
> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Date: 12/2/2004 11:14:34 AM
> Subject: Re: [mythsoc] reading aloud (was A Tale of Two Professors)
> >I objected a lot to the idea of LOTR dramatized, but I think Jackson did
> >great job.may
> I am sorry to have to say this, but anyone who thinks that Jackson's films
> are a good _dramatization of LOTR_ (apart from any other qualities they
> have) doesn't know LOTR very well at all.That's OK. There aren't too many folks on this list that I let offend me.
I'm not going to turn green and sulk because you think I don't know LOTR.
I probably don't know anything about dramatization. I'm probably one of
those people who prefers to live in their own head (and I think that in our
heads is a fine and expansive place, so long as we get out now and then).
I maintain that it is Impossible to commit LOTR (or many another bit of
lit) to film, and that Jackson did so much better than I would have
imagined that I am happy. I certainly don't feel he needs to bang his knee
on his desk. And if he did, I'd probably offer to kiss it better.
> >I am also enough of a capitalist to appreciate, if with irony,
> >the level of art created for the movie and then marketed with apparent
> That's a different matter. I am in awe, I take off my hat to Jackson's
> ability to organize and pull off this enormous logistical accomplishment.
> More experienced directors than he have fallen flat on their faces on big
> projects far smaller than this one. I have _Lost in La Mancha_ rented
> the video store right now: the story of Terry Gilliam's disastrous attemptjudged
> to film Don Quixote. And then Jackson made a 10-hour epic that was,
> entirely on its own, fairly entertaining! Not entirely boring! That tooTerry Gilliam? Is he one of the Monty Python guys? There's a Terry there
> is unprecedented.
somewhere. So, tell us about it.
I don't think we had to sit through all ten hours at once in the theatre.
Could you imagine?
> But none of it has anything whatever to do with Tolkien.So?
> >What is the essence of Shakespeare? Shakespeare is just some guy whoor
> >rewrote a lot of things in a way that works really well for the public,
> >some such thing. How much of his work is truly original? Maybe some ofFair enough. I was thinking earlier, if the play on paper is not The
> >the sonnets?
> As you say, Shakespeare's plots are rarely original. Therefore his
> originality, and his greatness, lie in the way he told those stories. And
> the form he chose to tell them in was drama. That is the essence, or at
> least part of the essence, of Shakespeare.
Thing, then the playwright needs the actors. But the actors need the
playwright too. Does that make drama a living thing?
> >> Ontologically, a score
> >> is not music at all: it's instructions for performing music. The music
> >> does not exist until it is performed. Something similar could be said
> >> a playscript.Ooh, I got something right.
> >Or DNA, I suppose?
> Yes, precisely.
> >If we are made up of lots of things that are made up of things, at how
> >levels do you think there is sentience? And we are part of things thattwo
> >make up things.
> The secret lies in the complexity. Literature is made of 26 letters in
> cases with a few punctuation marks, nothing more. Where lies greatness?And gals.
> In the complexity with which those letters are arranged. Same with life.
> This was demonstrated by the guys who wrote simple computer programs that
> generated fascinatingly complex screen designs.
It is great to arrange the letters in an especially skilled way. It is
wonderful how each person takes it in and digests it, redigests it, and
interacts with the system.
I think. Or at least sometimes it is.
Elizabeth Apgar Triano
amor vincit omnia
> David Bratman
> The Mythopoeic Society website http://www.mythsoc.org
> Yahoo! Groups Links
- Elizabeth Apgar Triano wrote:
> > As you say, Shakespeare's plots are rarely original. Therefore hisWhen it's being performed, absolutely it is. It's also a
> > originality, and his greatness, lie in the way he told those stories.
> > And the form he chose to tell them in was drama. That is the essence,
> > or at least part of the essence, of Shakespeare.
> Fair enough. I was thinking earlier, if the play on paper is not The
> Thing, then the playwright needs the actors. But the actors need the
> playwright too. Does that make drama a living thing?
collaboration, every single time; the actors' and director's and
set designer's and costume designer's and whoever else's creative
vision and energy working with (one hopes it's "with"!) the
playwright's to communicate the work to the audience. Who bring
whatever they bring to the performance as well, to add to the
From what we know of his history, Shakespeare knew that. For at
least part of his career he was a "working" playwright, part of a
company and probably involved in the production of his own
plays. I remember a Shakespeare prof of mine pointing out that
there must have been a period where they had two young "female"
leads (actually young men or boys): the tall blond one and the
short dark one. It's right there in the lines...