NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/rec/music/christia/8636

Text File | 1992-11-19 | 3.7 KB | 71 lines

Newsgroups: rec.music.christian
Path: sparky!uunet!news.gtech.com!caw
From: [e-mail] (Christopher A. White)
Subject: Re: What is art?  (was: What do you do when your child thinks Metallica is cool?)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET Administrator)
Organization: GTECH Corporation, West Greenwich, RI
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:59:22 GMT
Lines: 59

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (andrew.j.whitman) writes:
>>Romeo and Juliett is a story of such basic tragedy that it is universally
>>embraced. In Shakespere's or without, the story looses little of it's
>>force. Presented on stage, read, or simply related in it's outline form,
>>we see the intended purpose, and we understand and feel the sadness.
>
>I disagree.  Reading Cliff Notes (the outline form of the play) or watching
>"Valley Girl" (which simply updates the R&J plot) can't even *begin* to
>convey the sadness and pathos of Shakespeare's story.  The sadness and
>pathos are communicated through the language that Shakespeare used.

Again, I'd disagree, but only slightly. I do not think that Romeo and
Juliett is dependent on the exact language that Shakespear used. However,
any work which is reuced to a simple sequence of events (Cliff Notes),
or poor production values ("Valley Girl") cannot begin to measure up.
"West Side Story", however, did measure up (not equal, but in the ballpark)
for whole new generations. I have seen other variations on R&J (though
none are jumping directly into my mind) which, without the exact
language that he used, carried off the passion and tragedy brilliantly.

I think where we differ is in the concept of "plot" vs. "story." To me,
they are different. There is essential foreshadowing, specific descriptions,
and even certain phrases which are part of the story, but not part of
the plot.

Another way to look at it is this - can we change the setting, the
medium, the language, etc. and still carry off the end? Or, more
correctly, how much can we change and still carry it off? I've seen
several productions of shakespere with setting changes (most recently
a production of MacBeth set in modern Africa) which not only kept
the tragedy, but further magnified it because we could more readily
identify and thus more quickly and powerfully understand the extent of
the tragedy. (Unfortunately, the production suffered from very bad
accoustics. BTW, Kevin Klein (believe it or not) did a wonderful
production of Hamlet set in the modern day.)

Strictly speaking, a Shakespeare play cannot be taken off stage (into,
say, a movie) and not lose some portion of it's appeal. But in so
doing, we see more and understand more and can more readily visualize
certain aspects. Take Hamlet, most recently starring Mel Gibson and
Glenn Close, as an example. Some portions of the play were always
confusing to me (but would not be to the original audience) due to
the subtlties of castle design. The movie made them clear. Further,
their handling of Rosencrantz and Gildenstern was a complete
departure from the text of the play, but it used cinnematic tools to
a *much greater advantage* than the way it was originally written
(IMHO).

To relate to music, a great metal song may not make a great accoustic
song; but a song that is great in both styles is a much greater piece
of work in general (thanks to MTV unplugged for bringing this out).


Topher
--
 Christopher A. White                    |
 [e-mail]                           | Free will is largely overrated.
 GTech Corporation, West Greenwich, RI   |
 The opinions expressed are mine alone   |           - Topher