I really do not agree on the points Welles makes about Hamlet being a villain.
"He wants to kill his uncle without his soul being saved."
Did Welles not read the play? It is the fact that his uncle has not made peace with his Maker that keeps Hamlet from doing the deed!
"Think of the relish with which he describes the murder of Rosencrantz: he's a villain".
Again, Welles needs to re-read the play. Rosencrantz, who along with Guildenstern, was leading Hamlet to his death at the hands of the English King (with not shriving time allowed) was the villain, not Hamlet.
Is Welles suggesting that Hamlet should have gone like a lamb to the slaughter, so that his "friends" could live?
Just because Welles was a genius who made the greatest film(s) of all time and did some great Shakespeare doesn't mean he knew squat about Hamlet.
Falstaff
45 posts
• Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
by Welles Fan » Sun Aug 03, 2003 8:42 pm
-
Welles Fan - Wellesnet Veteran
- Posts: 235
- Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2001 10:27 pm
- Location: Texas USA
by Lance Morrison » Mon Aug 04, 2003 11:12 am
While I do not believe Hamlet is as bad as Orson makes him out to be, I do think Welles Fan that he is right on both of those points...
Now might I do it pat, now a is a-praying,
And now I'll do't. And so a goes to heaven,
And so I am revenged. That would be scanned.
A villain kills my father, and for that
I, his sole son, do this same villain send
To heaven.
Why, this is not revenge,
A took my father grossly, full of bread,
With all his crimes broad blown, as flush as May;
And how this audit stands, who knows save heaven?
But in our circumstance and course of thought,
'Tis heavy with him; and am I then revenged,
To take him in the purging of his soul,
When he is fit and seasoned for his passage?
No.
Up, sword, and know thou a more horrid hent.
When he is drunk asleep, or in his rage,
Or in the' incestuous pleasure of his bed,
At game a-swearing, or about some act
That has no salvation in in't ---
Then trip him, that his heels may kick at heaven,
And that his soul may be as damned and black
As hell, whereto it goes. My mother stays.
This physic but prolongs thy sickly days.
Hamlet has the belief that if he kills his uncle while he is praying, the king is primed to go to heaven...but if Hamlet kills him while he(his uncle the king) is engaging in a sinful act, he(his uncle the king) is more likely to go to hell
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern aren't villains...they loved Hamlet and knew nothing of the King's evil deeds; they thought by obeying his orders and taking Hamlet to England that they were just helping the situation. They knew not that he was to be murdered. Hamlet has no proof that they are part of the King's plot and that they know that he is to be killed upon their arrival to England (and really should know better than to think that, if he in fact does)....If he can change the King's request so easily, why doesn't he change it to something non-violent??? If he believes they are knowing of their luring him to death then he is foolish, and if he just needs to put someone in his place to die instead he is a jerk---no one needed to die at all, much less two of his good friends
Now might I do it pat, now a is a-praying,
And now I'll do't. And so a goes to heaven,
And so I am revenged. That would be scanned.
A villain kills my father, and for that
I, his sole son, do this same villain send
To heaven.
Why, this is not revenge,
A took my father grossly, full of bread,
With all his crimes broad blown, as flush as May;
And how this audit stands, who knows save heaven?
But in our circumstance and course of thought,
'Tis heavy with him; and am I then revenged,
To take him in the purging of his soul,
When he is fit and seasoned for his passage?
No.
Up, sword, and know thou a more horrid hent.
When he is drunk asleep, or in his rage,
Or in the' incestuous pleasure of his bed,
At game a-swearing, or about some act
That has no salvation in in't ---
Then trip him, that his heels may kick at heaven,
And that his soul may be as damned and black
As hell, whereto it goes. My mother stays.
This physic but prolongs thy sickly days.
Hamlet has the belief that if he kills his uncle while he is praying, the king is primed to go to heaven...but if Hamlet kills him while he(his uncle the king) is engaging in a sinful act, he(his uncle the king) is more likely to go to hell
Rosencrantz and Guildenstern aren't villains...they loved Hamlet and knew nothing of the King's evil deeds; they thought by obeying his orders and taking Hamlet to England that they were just helping the situation. They knew not that he was to be murdered. Hamlet has no proof that they are part of the King's plot and that they know that he is to be killed upon their arrival to England (and really should know better than to think that, if he in fact does)....If he can change the King's request so easily, why doesn't he change it to something non-violent??? If he believes they are knowing of their luring him to death then he is foolish, and if he just needs to put someone in his place to die instead he is a jerk---no one needed to die at all, much less two of his good friends
-
Lance Morrison - Member
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 5:51 pm
by Glenn Anders » Mon Aug 04, 2003 2:10 pm
Dear Lance: Your observation suggests the dilemma of the paranoid personality.
Glenn
Glenn
-
Glenn Anders - Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1911
- Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 12:50 pm
- Location: San Francisco
by Lance Morrison » Mon Aug 04, 2003 2:15 pm
Yes, Hamlet does seem to become VERY paranoid after he talks to the ghost...If Horatio and company hadn't discovered the ghost, I'm sure Hamlet would have suspected their involvement too 
and honestly, I think Hamlet pissed me off the most because of how he just shrugged off Polonius's death...I mean he was just like "yep he's dead---now mother, about your involvment with my father's murder..." yet this was the father of a girl he cared about much and Laertes whom he seemed to have an admiration for...but perhaps he suspected Polonius to be a part of Claudius's plot too...and of course, I know he was an eccentric character anyways, but how he started treating innocent and naive Ophelia seemed cruel, I mean I can understand putting on this act of "madness" (at least I perceived it as a type of act) for the king and such, but her? she's just a pure and sweet and emotional girl...
and honestly, I think Hamlet pissed me off the most because of how he just shrugged off Polonius's death...I mean he was just like "yep he's dead---now mother, about your involvment with my father's murder..." yet this was the father of a girl he cared about much and Laertes whom he seemed to have an admiration for...but perhaps he suspected Polonius to be a part of Claudius's plot too...and of course, I know he was an eccentric character anyways, but how he started treating innocent and naive Ophelia seemed cruel, I mean I can understand putting on this act of "madness" (at least I perceived it as a type of act) for the king and such, but her? she's just a pure and sweet and emotional girl...
-
Lance Morrison - Member
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 5:51 pm
by Welles Fan » Mon Aug 04, 2003 2:31 pm
Yep, he did want to wait til the king was not praying to kill him. I was meaning to say that he offered him the chance to pray, but neglected to remember that that was why he didn't kill him! So, yes, you're right, he wants to (or says he wants to) kill the king when he is unrepentant. (I honestly think Hamlet is lying in the speech you quoted. I think Hamlet lacks the cojones to kill the king, and the speech about not killing the king when he is repenting is the lie he invents to justify his cowardice to himself. I believe Jacobi played it this way. You can see when Jacobi does that speech that he's only kidding himself.)
Hamlet tests Rosencrantz and Guildenstern early on and decides they were sent for. Whether they know what they are doing or no, they do in effect, spy on him on the orders of the King. Hamlet tells the Queen he trusts them as he trusts "adders, fanged". So, I can hardly hold it against Hamlet that he did not blithely trust people who had been sent for expressly to spy on him and report to the King.
Maybe a better way to think of Hamlet's situation: Think of a dictatorship in which enemies of the ruler are swiftly executed (like Stalin's Russia). If you were the next in line for the throne (the last of the Romanovs, as it were), and someone usurped the throne, and everyone seemed to go along with it, who would you trust, and how harshly would you deal with people you knew you could not trust, and had, in fact, betrrayed your trust? And this in a situation which usually finds legitimate heirs murdered by this time. Certainly, St Francis would have behaved differently than Hamlet, but who ever said the play was about a saint? Remember too, that the Hamlet who send Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to their deaths and returns to Denmark is a more purposeful man than the one who talked incessantly about doing it and did not earlier on.
The "problem" with Hamlet through the ages has always been "why does he not act?". Welles seems to think the "problem" is why does Hamlet do such terrible things to duplicitous and murderous people?
Hamlet tests Rosencrantz and Guildenstern early on and decides they were sent for. Whether they know what they are doing or no, they do in effect, spy on him on the orders of the King. Hamlet tells the Queen he trusts them as he trusts "adders, fanged". So, I can hardly hold it against Hamlet that he did not blithely trust people who had been sent for expressly to spy on him and report to the King.
Maybe a better way to think of Hamlet's situation: Think of a dictatorship in which enemies of the ruler are swiftly executed (like Stalin's Russia). If you were the next in line for the throne (the last of the Romanovs, as it were), and someone usurped the throne, and everyone seemed to go along with it, who would you trust, and how harshly would you deal with people you knew you could not trust, and had, in fact, betrrayed your trust? And this in a situation which usually finds legitimate heirs murdered by this time. Certainly, St Francis would have behaved differently than Hamlet, but who ever said the play was about a saint? Remember too, that the Hamlet who send Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to their deaths and returns to Denmark is a more purposeful man than the one who talked incessantly about doing it and did not earlier on.
The "problem" with Hamlet through the ages has always been "why does he not act?". Welles seems to think the "problem" is why does Hamlet do such terrible things to duplicitous and murderous people?
-
Welles Fan - Wellesnet Veteran
- Posts: 235
- Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2001 10:27 pm
- Location: Texas USA
by Lance Morrison » Mon Aug 04, 2003 8:04 pm
Interesting thoughts...with those great explanations, I guess you could very well be right too! Hamlet is a very ambiguous character who is open to many interpretations, and I think that was the reason I liked Jacobi so much, because he brought out a lot of ambiguity in his performance instead of just saying "Okay, Hamlet is evil, so I'm going to play him like that"...if that makes any sense...
I cant think of much else to say right now
I cant think of much else to say right now
-
Lance Morrison - Member
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 5:51 pm
by Michael » Tue Aug 05, 2003 2:26 am
I LOVE the fact that this wonderful play brings out the interp. cannons! Everyone I've ever met who loves the play has very strong opinions about it.
>I was meaning to say that he offered him the chance to >pray, but neglected to remember that that was why he >didn't kill him!
I may be forgetting missing a line or two (it’s been a year and a half since I did it), but where does he offer Claudius a chance to pray before his death? But my recollection is his mother dies then off he goes and slays Claudius very quickly.
>I think Hamlet lacks the cojones to kill the king, and the >speech about not killing the king when he is repenting is the >lie he invents to justify his cowardice to himself.
Interesting interp on that speech! Though I wouldn’t play it that way because I feel that weakens him as a character. My choice was that his moral and intellectual convictions made it difficult for him too kill. Though, like all human beings, he is riddled with contradictions.
>but who ever said the play was about a saint?
Excellent point. It is about a man who desperately wants to be a good moral man, but allows his passions to get the better of him—granted in the worst of circumstances. But still he makes base and immoral decisions. IMO.
>Welles seems to think the "problem" is why does Hamlet do >such terrible things to duplicitous and murderous people?
Ah, but IMO, this is an excellent and valid question! Isn’t Hamlet sinking to their level by doing so? Especially with altering the letter for Ros. & Guil. and shrugging off the death of Polonius? True heroes rise above the baser emotions and actions, even if it seems “justified”.
> returns to Denmark is a more purposeful man than the one >who talked incessantly about doing it and did not earlier on
He still does quite a bit of talking upon arrival in Denmark, though there’s only one more act to go. Again, he is talking the talk, but does not take action until his mother dies.
Thanks! A really fun discussion.
Michael
>I was meaning to say that he offered him the chance to >pray, but neglected to remember that that was why he >didn't kill him!
I may be forgetting missing a line or two (it’s been a year and a half since I did it), but where does he offer Claudius a chance to pray before his death? But my recollection is his mother dies then off he goes and slays Claudius very quickly.
>I think Hamlet lacks the cojones to kill the king, and the >speech about not killing the king when he is repenting is the >lie he invents to justify his cowardice to himself.
Interesting interp on that speech! Though I wouldn’t play it that way because I feel that weakens him as a character. My choice was that his moral and intellectual convictions made it difficult for him too kill. Though, like all human beings, he is riddled with contradictions.
>but who ever said the play was about a saint?
Excellent point. It is about a man who desperately wants to be a good moral man, but allows his passions to get the better of him—granted in the worst of circumstances. But still he makes base and immoral decisions. IMO.
>Welles seems to think the "problem" is why does Hamlet do >such terrible things to duplicitous and murderous people?
Ah, but IMO, this is an excellent and valid question! Isn’t Hamlet sinking to their level by doing so? Especially with altering the letter for Ros. & Guil. and shrugging off the death of Polonius? True heroes rise above the baser emotions and actions, even if it seems “justified”.
> returns to Denmark is a more purposeful man than the one >who talked incessantly about doing it and did not earlier on
He still does quite a bit of talking upon arrival in Denmark, though there’s only one more act to go. Again, he is talking the talk, but does not take action until his mother dies.
Thanks! A really fun discussion.
Michael
Michael
-
Michael - Member
- Posts: 53
- Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 1:30 am
- Location: Portland, Oregon
by Lance Morrison » Tue Aug 05, 2003 4:31 am
Michael, I definately agree that Hamlet in trying to do his dead father's bidding is compromising himself (of course I dont believe in revenge...), and his other wrongdoings compromise him even more! I truley feel he wants to do what's right, he just is confused about what that is, and indeed he makes some irrational decisions...
Hamlet does seem to bring out a lot in readers, viewers, and actors....you know I have been starting to learn more about painting, and I saw that the Pre-Raphaelites were very fond of Ophelia. Their images are very striking...
Hamlet does seem to bring out a lot in readers, viewers, and actors....you know I have been starting to learn more about painting, and I saw that the Pre-Raphaelites were very fond of Ophelia. Their images are very striking...
-
Lance Morrison - Member
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 5:51 pm
by Noel Shane » Tue Aug 05, 2003 6:15 am
I wasn't going to mention it, but since Lance has brought the topic round to it directly I'm powerless. In the Guardian's Saturday Review this week, there's an article by -- zounds! -- Simon Callow on the occasion of a new UK exhibit of Shakespeare in British art:
http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,1010424,00.html
The only other thing I would add is that when Hamlet balks at killing the king when the latter is on his knees, he's also recalling what the ghost of his father told him -- i.e. that the elder Hamlet was:
Cut off even in the blossoms of my sin,
Unhouseled, disappointed, unaneled,
No reck'ning made, but sent to my account
With all my imperfections on my head. (I.v.76-79)
When we hear of all the fire and brimstone with which the ghost was met and has yet to meet, it seems only proper that young Hamlet would demand an eye for an eye.
It further occurs to the careful reader, that if Hamlet fails to fail to act -- that is, if he kills the king in Act III -- the play is over. And somewhat abruptly. I suppose that's an impertinent suggestion, though. On with the discussion.
http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,1010424,00.html
The only other thing I would add is that when Hamlet balks at killing the king when the latter is on his knees, he's also recalling what the ghost of his father told him -- i.e. that the elder Hamlet was:
Cut off even in the blossoms of my sin,
Unhouseled, disappointed, unaneled,
No reck'ning made, but sent to my account
With all my imperfections on my head. (I.v.76-79)
When we hear of all the fire and brimstone with which the ghost was met and has yet to meet, it seems only proper that young Hamlet would demand an eye for an eye.
It further occurs to the careful reader, that if Hamlet fails to fail to act -- that is, if he kills the king in Act III -- the play is over. And somewhat abruptly. I suppose that's an impertinent suggestion, though. On with the discussion.
-
Noel Shane - Member
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 5:49 pm
by Lance Morrison » Tue Aug 05, 2003 7:40 pm
interesting article....I think all artforms should use each other for inspiration, I mean look at one of my favourites Claude Debussy---sure he had affinities of varying importance for previous composers like Chopin, Wagner, Rameau, Mugoursky...and he also loved gypsy music, gamelan and perhaps other types of asian music....but what made him distinctive was how he was just as influenced by e.a. poe, the symbolist poets, the symbolist painters, the pre-raphaelist painters, james whistler, and japanese art like that of housaki. (the impressionist painters influenced him much less than the previously mentioned, contrary to popular opinion)...this all combined with his innate individualism to compose some beautiful music...
anyways...I know there was a point in there somewhere...I dont know what it is yet so I'll ramble some more...Personally I'm very wary of directors who claim to be influenced by painting...I mean like I love Martin Scorsese, but I wasnt convinced that paintings made the slightest difference in certain shots of Last Temptation of Christ, even though he claimed they did.... F.W. Murnau, he was an art person who really was into the kind of dark romantics, and I think you can see that in some of the more still shots in his films; I think it's most notable in Nosferatu and the few bits of Sunrise that I've seen...I think I may have read about Barry Lyndon having the look of paintings, and of course there could be a point there...but jeez I still have a hard tyme comparing camera angles to paintings and also calling them 'compositions'. Welles' musical analogy is I think much more accurate, but films are definately more like pop records with all the editing and stuff than classical music, which sort of upsets me. I don't know, I'm just going through a minor crises, I'm having a hard tyme because there hasnt ever been a movie that has just killed me and has made me think yep this is way better than anything else I've seen. and the only reason that disturbs me is that I spend so much tyme learning about different art forms, when at the same tyme my mind is collapsing into thinking the vary art I think is great is no better than that which is most popular. I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I'm breaking into where I don't know what is beautiful and what isnt. Am I just a snob who needs to study so-called "great" art to help poor self esteem and a starving ego? I am an idiot.
I apologize for that. Anyways, forget anything I say. I guess the point was the artform need to cross-pollenate constantly to perservere, but I'm not even sure about that. peace.
This fever called 'Living' that burns in my brain
anyways...I know there was a point in there somewhere...I dont know what it is yet so I'll ramble some more...Personally I'm very wary of directors who claim to be influenced by painting...I mean like I love Martin Scorsese, but I wasnt convinced that paintings made the slightest difference in certain shots of Last Temptation of Christ, even though he claimed they did.... F.W. Murnau, he was an art person who really was into the kind of dark romantics, and I think you can see that in some of the more still shots in his films; I think it's most notable in Nosferatu and the few bits of Sunrise that I've seen...I think I may have read about Barry Lyndon having the look of paintings, and of course there could be a point there...but jeez I still have a hard tyme comparing camera angles to paintings and also calling them 'compositions'. Welles' musical analogy is I think much more accurate, but films are definately more like pop records with all the editing and stuff than classical music, which sort of upsets me. I don't know, I'm just going through a minor crises, I'm having a hard tyme because there hasnt ever been a movie that has just killed me and has made me think yep this is way better than anything else I've seen. and the only reason that disturbs me is that I spend so much tyme learning about different art forms, when at the same tyme my mind is collapsing into thinking the vary art I think is great is no better than that which is most popular. I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I'm breaking into where I don't know what is beautiful and what isnt. Am I just a snob who needs to study so-called "great" art to help poor self esteem and a starving ego? I am an idiot.
I apologize for that. Anyways, forget anything I say. I guess the point was the artform need to cross-pollenate constantly to perservere, but I'm not even sure about that. peace.
This fever called 'Living' that burns in my brain
-
Lance Morrison - Member
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 5:51 pm
by Michael » Wed Aug 06, 2003 12:12 am
Wow Lance. That was the most surreal posting I've ever read. But interesting thoughts, however. Since I'm not visually inclined (more aural and empathic) I have little to contribute. I wish I appreciated great paintings and sculptures more, but it just doesn't move me much. Though there have been some exceptions. And all the talk about directors and their visual styles tend to leave me bleary eyed. While I appreciate the talent to create great visuals in the film world, if the story and script are weak (particularly the dialogue) then the movie loses me. Even bad acting wont ruin a film for me (unless it's really atrocious, i.e. Sophia in Godfather III), if the script and direction are really sound. Again, my love of Welles is that he tells a wonderful story, his characters are fascinating, the scripts are well written, and on top of all that, they look marvelous. So many directors get such high praise for their visual style that I just can't stand--because they either have consistently bad writing, or take more interest in the look of the movie than the human beings who act it. That's why (oh here it comes) I'm very so-so about Hitchcock. Sorry you fans out there--remember it's just my opinion! There are some I love, but most of his works seem so pre-occupied with the camera and the plot that the movies seem dispassionate. I do love Lifeboat, Rear Window, and a couple others.
Now, back to Shakespeare.... Love the Ophelia paintings. Ophelia is one of the most difficult roles to play. And sadly, I've never really seen one I like. Though I can't remember now the one in Jacobi's. Even my Ophelia, who was quite competent in her portrayal didn't do it for me. Because, in my view, Ophelia has to be a bit unstable to begin with, or I just don't by the madness. She didn’t want to play it that way. There, now I've opened up for more theatrical cannons!
>It further occurs to the careful reader, that if Hamlet fails to fail to act -- that is, if >he kills the king in Act III -- the play is over. And somewhat abruptly. I suppose >that's an impertinent suggestion, though.
Not at all Noel Shane! A good point and one that too much analysis of the text can make one forget. But, an actor has to find a reason and a desire for everything he does on stage—whether Shakespeare wrote it so he could have a madness scene, or a bit of comedy, or whatever he needed to please the crowds. I mean the seduction scene in Richard III is one of the most difficult of all to make real!
OK, now, I’m done……
Thanks! Michael
Now, back to Shakespeare.... Love the Ophelia paintings. Ophelia is one of the most difficult roles to play. And sadly, I've never really seen one I like. Though I can't remember now the one in Jacobi's. Even my Ophelia, who was quite competent in her portrayal didn't do it for me. Because, in my view, Ophelia has to be a bit unstable to begin with, or I just don't by the madness. She didn’t want to play it that way. There, now I've opened up for more theatrical cannons!
>It further occurs to the careful reader, that if Hamlet fails to fail to act -- that is, if >he kills the king in Act III -- the play is over. And somewhat abruptly. I suppose >that's an impertinent suggestion, though.
Not at all Noel Shane! A good point and one that too much analysis of the text can make one forget. But, an actor has to find a reason and a desire for everything he does on stage—whether Shakespeare wrote it so he could have a madness scene, or a bit of comedy, or whatever he needed to please the crowds. I mean the seduction scene in Richard III is one of the most difficult of all to make real!
OK, now, I’m done……
Thanks! Michael
Michael
-
Michael - Member
- Posts: 53
- Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 1:30 am
- Location: Portland, Oregon
by Glenn Anders » Wed Aug 06, 2003 12:52 pm
Dear Michael: I agree with you about Hitchcock: TOO much angst over his frustrated desires, a little too superior in his attitudes. And as far as I know, though Selznick admitted how much he borrowed from Welles, Hitchcock never did. Sophia's performance in GODFATHER III, on the other hand, in 50 years time, will simply seem like that of an actress playing an awkwardly beautiful teenage daughter with a prominent nose. The film (the Director's Cut) will be accepted as the masterful denoument of a superb Film trilogy.
That thought leads me to advise Lance to relax, and consider what is by now a cliche observation, that Shakespeare was a studio "screenwriter" of his day. Further, that "Grand Opera" was popular entertainment in late 19th Century Italy, that Dickens was a popular writer among many for those who had newly been taught to read, thanks to the Great Reform Act of 1836, etc. Only time reveals what is lasting Art.
Regards.
Glenn
That thought leads me to advise Lance to relax, and consider what is by now a cliche observation, that Shakespeare was a studio "screenwriter" of his day. Further, that "Grand Opera" was popular entertainment in late 19th Century Italy, that Dickens was a popular writer among many for those who had newly been taught to read, thanks to the Great Reform Act of 1836, etc. Only time reveals what is lasting Art.
Regards.
Glenn
-
Glenn Anders - Wellesnet Legend
- Posts: 1911
- Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 12:50 pm
- Location: San Francisco
by Lance Morrison » Wed Aug 06, 2003 2:47 pm
I've relaxed, Glenn, LOL, I just am emotionally and mentally instable once in a while, and I get awfully sad and everything seems pointless in life, so then I go off on things like that and why art sucks when at the same time I go and spend all my money online on the same movies and music and literature that I was questioning as if it will make me feel better....anyways, apologies for the post. And Glenn your points about acceptance as great art is definately true. I think J.S. Bach's time is a good example, because his music wasnt really that popular, he was only popular for his organ playing, while Telemann and Handel were considered some of the best composers....yet now Bach overshadows them both.
I want to talk about Hamlet more, but I need a break from that character...
I want to talk about Hamlet more, but I need a break from that character...
-
Lance Morrison - Member
- Posts: 72
- Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2003 5:51 pm
by Harvey Chartrand » Wed Aug 06, 2003 3:11 pm
I dig where Lance is coming from... I find that once I've listened to say, Wagner, I can no longer enjoy other, lesser forms of music. Once I've seen a few snippets of an unfinished Welles masterpiece, which demonstrates ever so fleetingly what this art form is capable of, I can't settle for anything less. Once I've visited a gorgeous city like Valleta in Malta, I can no longer remain unaware of the banal architecture of my home town and of most North American cities.
I am obsessed with the steady decline of our once great culture. I obsess over the fact that, in every art form and walk of life, pygmies are following in the footsteps of giants. I can relate to Welles always looking back to a vanished Eden, tantalizingly out of reach, which he felt he just missed out on, which may have existed 15 or 20 years before his birth.
I am obsessed with the steady decline of our once great culture. I obsess over the fact that, in every art form and walk of life, pygmies are following in the footsteps of giants. I can relate to Welles always looking back to a vanished Eden, tantalizingly out of reach, which he felt he just missed out on, which may have existed 15 or 20 years before his birth.
- Harvey Chartrand
- Wellesnet Advanced
- Posts: 527
- Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Ottawa, Canada
by Noel Shane » Wed Aug 06, 2003 5:28 pm
re: Hitchcock...
most of his works seem so pre-occupied with the camera and the plot that the movies seem dispassionate. I do love Lifeboat, Rear Window, and a couple others.
"Seem" (the second one) is the word I would underline in the above -- though my own experiences disagree with the statement, one NOTORIOUS being worth ten of a lesser man's passionate movies. Also, an active camera and a lack of humanity should not be presumed to follow one another (nor, particularly, in an Orson Welles forum). But I follow your shorthand.
though Selznick admitted how much he borrowed from Welles, Hitchcock never did
Hitchcock started directing at the age of twenty-three when motion pictures, as we know them, were roughly half as old as when Welles got his hands on them (exactly half if you begin with THE GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY). Difficult to defer to anyone, particular one's juniors, after establishing such eminence in the medium from this launching point. Assuming he weren't guiltless to begin with, that is...
Selznick is a non sequitor.
most of his works seem so pre-occupied with the camera and the plot that the movies seem dispassionate. I do love Lifeboat, Rear Window, and a couple others.
"Seem" (the second one) is the word I would underline in the above -- though my own experiences disagree with the statement, one NOTORIOUS being worth ten of a lesser man's passionate movies. Also, an active camera and a lack of humanity should not be presumed to follow one another (nor, particularly, in an Orson Welles forum). But I follow your shorthand.
though Selznick admitted how much he borrowed from Welles, Hitchcock never did
Hitchcock started directing at the age of twenty-three when motion pictures, as we know them, were roughly half as old as when Welles got his hands on them (exactly half if you begin with THE GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY). Difficult to defer to anyone, particular one's juniors, after establishing such eminence in the medium from this launching point. Assuming he weren't guiltless to begin with, that is...
Selznick is a non sequitor.
-
Noel Shane - Member
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 5:49 pm
45 posts
• Page 2 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
Return to Macbeth, Othello, Falstaff (Chimes at Midnight)
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest