Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
"Tiger, Tiger.." ( anyone know that poem?)
Check out the various book covers and artwork. Which is your favourite? Why?
Your participation in postings, pictures, links and your responses to other student's posts will determine your final grade. The goal of this blog is to supplement what has been discussed, read or written in class. Occasionally I will post a query or task with the expectation that you will eagerly respond. The same respect and diplomacy that is expected of you in the classroom extends to blogging space.
Helpful Links for research on background info.
"Tiger, Tiger.." ( anyone know that poem?)
Catch!
Meet Yann Martel!
Check out the various book covers and artwork. Which is your favourite? Why?
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(77)
-
▼
February
(22)
- Gentlemen, Your Verdict
- Stories
- We discussed this a bit in class today but I thoug...
- Desdemona's Death
- Movie Comparison
- Positive Or Negative Loss of Control
- Emotional Turmoil
- Evil or Good?
- Question 5: p. 170
- Question 4: p.170
- Hockey/Character card extension granted: Due Thurs...
- The hockey cards.
- Othello believing Iago over Desdemona
- For those of you working on Emilia's character:
- Why Did Shakespear Write The Way He Did?
- Characters
- Shakepeare
- Othello
- p. 86 Question 4
- Question 7 p.61
- Question 4 p. 60
- Shakespeare's Audiences
-
▼
February
(22)
17 comments:
Personnally i preffered "O", mostly because I could understand the language more and it was a bit more to the point. The traditional re-enactment of Othello uses a lot of wordy, rather boring monologues to convey it's message, and the action doesn't really go anywhere because the actors are always stopping to rant about something. I could also relate, however marginally, to "O" more than "Othello".
Although I do agree with Winnifred’s assessment of “O”, I disagree with his/her assessment of Othello. Othello has more depth then “O”. Although “O” may be easier to understand and relate to it, the director was seriously lacking on the screen play and the editors. He didn’t do the play any justice. He simply spat out a butchered version that the masses could understand and connect with.
I have to agree with "nikarmi" on this one. We are truly desensitized when it comes to language. "Othello" had that depth and a great perception of the language. I have to admit that I love Shakespeare for the language. Nobody ever describes things as acurately and beautifully as Shakespeare did. Although "O" did seem to have a lot more emotion than "Othello" did.
I agree with everyone (winnifred, nikarmi, and angel.wings) Everyone took everything I was going to say. Othello had great language and was inline witht the book but O had seemed to have a better grasped on the book, like at the end before Odin kills himself. Instead of repeating that line from the book, they summed it into what was the real reason. Plus the O movie had Roderigo had a better interpretation than Othello. One side comment; I could not compare Desedmona to much because in O, all we saw was her dying and in Othello, we heard a lot more.
Before I make anothe comment I will need to remember to read over my work :)
Not being able to understand Shakespeare's language has made it difficult to decide which movie may be better. "Othello" seemed to be well put together from taking Shakespeare's work directly, but using most of the exact lines makes it difficult to interpret. "O" is a complete modern interpretation of Othello and can put it into words we understand. This seems to have an impact on which we pick for which one we liked best. I liked "O" best because of these reasons, and also because I'm not a real fan of older movies.
I preferred "O" more because it was easier to relate to and understand because, even though it's not an everyday situation, the story was easier to comprehend. I agree with Winifred in saying that the actors didn't have much action in their part because they were constantly talking, which rendered the movie to become very boring. If i had watched "o" the whole way through, i think i would haven enjoyed it more than Othello.
I think that saying we are desensitized when it comes to language is a big step. Language is very pliable, and because we speak differently then they did 300 years ago doesn't mean we've been desensitized. In 300 years, English will probably be spoken differently than it is now. Even today, think about how the English speak, how Americans speak, and how anglophone countries speak. I really liked listening to the language in an acted Shakespeare play. Its depth is just so fascinating. But I was even more touched when it was modernized in "O". The director did an excellent job of adapting the play to modern times so we can understand the depth and how it felt for people then.
It was tough to decide between which of the two i preferred. As winifred said, it was somewhat easier to relate to the characters and situations in "O" since they are portrayed as being our age. At the same time though, having not seen the whole of either movie the decision os even harder, but i think its good to appreciate the trueness/likness in the movie othello to the actual play. plus somewhat biased comment.. but.. the guy who plays iago is one of my favourite actors... Another thing, I personnally find that in transforming a play that much you can definatly lose some of the important aspects of the play.
I basically agree with everyone on this one. Othello was well put together, but I'd might as well have been reading the script. The atmosphere was kind of dull, and watching it made me think "great, we know what happens next, can we just get on with it?" O put a different spin on it, and it was more intense because the characters' emotions were more obvious. Also, because it was set in modern times the plot almost seemed different even though the characters' motives were the same.
I prefer "Othello" more than "O" because it has this specific depth in it. This makes the movie rather more exiting than boring because you have to think about what you are watching.
In "Othello" the director uses mostly Shakespeare's original lines and I like that he tries to keep the movie traditional. This might sound boring at the beginning but it helps enormously to get into the story.
Even the story plays in the past you can easily imagine the story in the present. You don't need an extra movie for that.
I can understand why everyone so far has been liking "O" better; its far easier to understand, but as 'nikarmi' said, Othello has so much more depth. To me, Shakespeare's work was written a certain way, and should be presented that way. By modernizing it, the story lost much of its meaning. "O" seemed choppy, and the words didn't mean as much as they did it Othello.
It might just be that I hate modernized movies though, ; I didn't like Romeo and Juliet either.
Personally, I liked the movie "O" better because it was more modernized & I liked the storyline of it. I've seen the movie before and I had no idea that it was referring to a Shakespere play. So thats the only bad thing about it, I guess. But for the "Othello" movie, I could obviously tell that it was a Shakespere play because of the language. If I had not known, which I didn't, that "O" was a Shakespere play then it wouldn't mean much to me as much as it did when I watched it in class. The "Othello" movie was boring to me because it was basically words straight from the book, minus the few lines that were skipped. But there was better acting and emotion than "O".
I personally preffered "O". I felt like i had a better understanding of the plot, probably because it wasnt in old english..I agree with winnifred and pretty much everyone else. I really liked the way that O decided to interpret the plot so that a younger audience (like us, that might not have any interest in reading shakespear) would be able to understand the universal themes of betrayal, trust, honesty, love etc.
I agree with all the people who preffered "O", but this is only because it is geared more to younger generations. From a critiscs point of view I'd say that "Othello" was better purely because it followed the original text alot closer and it stuck to the original plot. That being said, I believe that both movies have their strong and weak points.
I prefered "O" over "Othello" because it was modern and I could understand the language. Also the setting of the movie was in a place that I could relate to more then trying to picture Venice back in Shakespeare's time. The movie was also more interesting because it had that drama that students could relate to. In "Othello" they followed the book and like "winnifred" said it was too wordy for me.
I thought that "O" was a waste of time. Firstly, because it had BOTH Julia Stiles and Josh Harnett in it, both actors whom I despise. But secondly, because of the ridiculous dialogue. I thought it was way overboard, and the acting was hopeless. "O" was a dissapointment.
Post a Comment