Musical Mondays Off-Week 3 (Taylor Anne Photo's Choice)

[Cameron H. 23786]

 

No, you're not wrong at all about the silence. Iago absolutely wins in the end. I always liked Welles' film adaptation that showed Iago being hauled up the side of the castle in a tiny cage, presumably to starve to death for his treason. The film started that way, then flashed back to the reason he's in the cage.

 

One thing I think you're maybe a little off about is the point about presumed subtext: there's no subtext in Shakespeare. We can interpret any way we like, but ultimately the characters tell us what they'll do and why they'll do it, and anything else is guesswork. From what we can glean, Iago has an unhappy marriage, an unfulfilling military career, has been passed up by an "arithmetician" in Cassio, and has seen his boss's focus go from war to women. He's lashing out at the injustice of the world in front of him, and uses Roderigo as his agent of chaos. Because, when he is told that he will now be Othello's lieutenant after Cassio is brought down, and says "I am your own forever", if his whole deal was the promotion, he could stop there, and there's no need for Desi to die. But he carries it on to its worst conclusion, because he's the kind of man who wants to see the world burn (insert Michael Caine gif)...

 

I get what you're saying. However, from my limited perspective, when I hear one character taunt another by saying "what you know, you know" there is the automatic implication that there are things that they don't know, and by extension, things the audience doesn't know. Iago is cursing them, and us (...maybe just me), with uncertainty. Of course, there are things they will never know so why rub it in their face? What do they care? They solved a murder and caught a murderer. It sucks O and D are dead, but as far as the authorities are concerned, they got their man. They could give a damn about his motivations. He's dead regardless. If everything is as it seems, then justice has been served. And if justice has been served, doesn't that make those lines completely meaningless?

 

However, you're the expert, and I will 100% defer to you.

[Cakebug Tranch 6873]

 

I get what you're saying. However, from my limited perspective, when I hear one character taunt another by saying "what you know, you know" there is the automatic implication that there are things that they don't know, and by extension, things the audience doesn't know. Iago is cursing them, and us (...maybe just me), with uncertainty. Of course, there are things they will never know so why rub it in their face? What do they care? They solved a murder and caught a murderer. It sucks O and D are dead, but as far as the authorities are concerned, they got their man. They could give a damn about his motivations. He's dead regardless. If everything is as it seems, then justice has been served. And if justice has been served, doesn't that make those lines completely meaningless?

 

However, you're the expert, and I will 100% defer to you.

 

Well, don't forget that Roderigo's dead, Othello's dead, Desdemona's dead, Emilia's dead. Cassio's the only surviving player, and he doesn't have all the details of the conspiracy, only that Rowdy Roddy messed up in trying to kill him, and Othello's own confession. He's withholding details of why from the authorities, but of course we as the audience have more details than the arresting officers at that point. So whether 'what you know, you know' is for us, or the people on stage who don't have all the same information, that's a directorial choice. He's not about to give details about the strawberry hanky or Bianca or the scheme against Cassio. All you need to know is that the people who needed to be dead, are dead, but I'm not going to solve the mystery for you about why Othello killed her. To everyone (except the audience), they have no single clue about how Othello goes from doting husband to murderer in two days, so I think it's more directed that way.

 

He's also refusing the opportunity to repent. That's important.

[Cameron H. 23786]

 

 

Well, don't forget that Roderigo's dead, Othello's dead, Desdemona's dead, Emilia's dead. Cassio's the only surviving player, and he doesn't have all the details of the conspiracy, only that Rowdy Roddy messed up in trying to kill him, and Othello's own confession. He's withholding details of why from the authorities, but of course we as the audience have more details than the arresting officers at that point. So whether 'what you know, you know' is for us, or the people on stage who don't have all the same information, that's a directorial choice. He's not about to give details about the strawberry hanky or Bianca or the scheme against Cassio. All you need to know is that the people who needed to be dead, are dead, but I'm not going to solve the mystery for you about why Othello killed her. To everyone (except the audience), they have no single clue about how Othello goes from doting husband to murderer in two days, so I think it's more directed that way.

 

He's also refusing the opportunity to repent. That's important.

 

Well, fuck. I guess I know what I'm watching at 5AM tomorrow. Thanks a lot, Cakebug!

 

Get tupped, bro.

 

P.S. I know you're right. Blame my Literature background for trying to find five different meanings behind every comma.

 

[Cakebug Tranch 6873]

Well, fuck. I guess I know what I'm watching at 5AM tomorrow. Thanks a lot, Cakebug!

 

Get tupped, bro.

 

P.S. I know you're right. Blame my Literature background for trying to find five different meanings behind every comma.

 

Trust me, I wish my students were as exacting in their analysis as this! And if you're watching an 'Othello' tomorrow, go right for Welles (ignore the Fishburne/Branagh, it's sorta okay, which is a terribly damning thing to say) and watch as Desdemona's hairstyle changes from scene to scene, since it took Orson years of piecemeal filming and funding to get it in the can.

 

[Cinco DeNio 5290]

 

Trust me, I wish my students were as exacting in their analysis as this! And if you're watching an 'Othello' tomorrow, go right for Welles (ignore the Fishburne/Branagh, it's sorta okay, which is a terribly damning thing to say) and watch as Desdemona's hairstyle changes from scene to scene, since it took Orson years of piecemeal filming and funding to get it in the can.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09NWcKA7JKw

Serious question. The video you embedded is 90 minutes long and the first sidebar link on YouTube is almost three hours. Is the extra length worth it?

[Cakebug Tranch 6873]

Serious question. The video you embedded is 90 minutes long and the first sidebar link on YouTube is almost three hours. Is the extra length worth it?

The film exists in at least five versions - the 90 minute version I linked is the Criterion version, the American cut. The longer is (I think) the version they released after Welles' death, and from memory I think it's worth it for the story elements included. I've always been fond of the economy of storytelling in Welles' Othello and I think that was based on the 90 minute version. So, honest answer: possibly, but not sure.

[Cinco DeNio 5290]

The film exists in at least five versions - the 90 minute version I linked is the Criterion version, the American cut. The longer is (I think) the version they released after Welles' death, and from memory I think it's worth it for the story elements included. I've always been fond of the economy of storytelling in Welles' Othello and I think that was based on the 90 minute version. So, honest answer: possibly, but not sure.

Thanks! I'll watch the 90-minute first then. I appreciate economy as well. I have a DVD of Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet but at times wished he had released a 2-hour version.

[Cakebug Tranch 6873]

Thanks! I'll watch the 90-minute first then. I appreciate economy as well. I have a DVD of Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet but at times wished he had released a 2-hour version.

He did! It was a condition from Castle Rock that they would make his four hour version if he also made a 2 hour cut for smaller markets. Apparently the two hour cut was so virulently hated by all who saw it that the studio buried the short version and threw their hands up. Russell Jackson, who was the script advisor on all of Branagh's Shakespeare films, is an acquaintance of mine, and a few years ago, when I was thinking of writing something on the two-hour version, I asked him what he knew about it. He said:

 

 

I was sent a VHS of the final cut of the shorter cut, when it was first prepared, but don't have it any longer!

I do recall that in this cut, the speech in which Claudius discloses his intentions in sending Hamlet to England ('Do it, England!') was missing, and I pointed out that we needed this as a plot point!

Sorry not to be more helpful - i don't know of any DVD release of this version, but I think there was at least a VHS of the final shorter version at some point. Some people complained that they received this when they thought they were be getting the full-length version when they bought it, i think.

 

If you can find it nowadays, it's a collectors' item. I'd stick to KB's full-length version.

[Cameron H. 23786]

Here's the big question, though...

 

Keanu Reeves as Don John: good casting or the best casting?

 

[NathanGordon 1096]

Here's the big question, though...

 

Keanu Reeves as Don John: good casting or the best casting?

 

Good casting! He's supposed to be an uncharasmatic jerk. After seeing Keanu in Neon Demon (and John Wick, though that's more antihero) I think there's a villainous side to his acting that he hasn't had the opportunity to express.

[Cakebug Tranch 6873]

+1 to 24PP's comment. He was likely the weakest link in a stunningly competent cast, but he did the job he was asked to do.

 

And, dude's got Shakespearean chops...

 

 

If you have a few minutes, enjoy reading this article, 'To Thine Ownself Be Excellent' (seriously) at the Canadian Shakespeares project... http://www.canadianshakespeares.ca/essays/reeves.cfm

[Quasar Sniffer 4174]

Dudes and Dames, all this Literature Discussion in a message board that's supposed to be about bad movies but in this case is about a classic Disney animated musical is.... EXACTLY WHY I COME HERE. I love you, my internet brethren.

 

And I agree with the above sentiment from 24 Hour Party Pizza about Keanu's villainous side. I love him bunches, but I think he can be a great villain. He played a great Western Interloper Asshole in Man of Tai Chi (a great, underrated martial arts flick he directed).

[Cameron H. 23786]

Oh, I wasn't kidding about liking him in it. That is absolutely one of my favorite movies.

[Cakebug Tranch 6873]

Oh, I wasn't kidding about liking him in it. That is absolutely one of my favorite movies.

 

Oh, ABSOLUTELY. After more than half of my lifetime as an avid (and professional) Shakespearean, I can trace my passion directly to seeing Branagh's 'Much Ado' on a school field trip, aged 15.

 

 

Whedon's shitty version was so smug and tonedeaf in comparison.

 

 

 

[Cameron H. 23786]

 

 

 

Whedon's shitty version was so smug and tonedeaf in comparison.

 

 

 

 

 

Ugh! Tell me about it! We've got some real issues regarding Mr. Whedon 'round these parts...I wish I remember what thread it was where we were discussing Age of Ultron...

 

[Cameron H. 23786]

Dudes and Dames, all this Literature Discussion in a message board that's supposed to be about bad movies but in this case is about a classic Disney animated musical is.... EXACTLY WHY I COME HERE. I love you, my internet brethren.

 

Oh, this is the best! Sitting here watching Voltron with my boys (who should be asleep) while discussing the Bard with you all here (and Letterboxd)

 

Oh, and we love you too, Quasar!

 

 

[tomspanks 9039]

Oh, ABSOLUTELY. After more than half of my lifetime as an avid (and professional) Shakespearean, I can trace my passion directly to seeing Branagh's 'Much Ado' on a school field trip, aged 15.

 

 

Whedon's shitty version was so smug and tonedeaf in comparison.

 

 

 

 

[taylor anne photo 11311]

The only Buzzfeed article to ever matter

 

Personally I have way more than 19 questions.

[Quasar Sniffer 4174]

I have questions with anyone who would question Beauty and the Beast. I have mixed feelings about Disney and about a lot of their movies, but Beauty and the Beast is pure magnificence. I love animation and am fascinated by its history and development so this movie, watching it again after not seeing it for years, really struck me and holds a renewed special place in my heart. It's the first movie to incorporate CGI backgrounds and such so it prefigures the death of classic animation, as it would inevitably lose itself to CGI over the next couple decades. You still have that classic, hand-drawn Disney style which is so beautiful in how the characters move and express themselves. The hand-painted backgrounds are gorgeous as well, as they are just unabashedly painterly in their design and execution. Some imagery looks straight-up like oil paintings and they are all beautiful. That style is totally gone now.

 

Plus, this is the last big animated movie before Aladdin brought in the idea of Big Time Celebrities being a huge draw for animated movies. Sure, there were examples of people like John Huston in The Hobbit or the cast of The Last Unicorn (featuring Jeff Bridges, Mia Farrow, Angela Lansbury, Alan Arkin, and Christopher Lee), but Aladdin made it almost a requirement to get movie stars in Big Time Animated Movies. Pixar can kind of get away with not doing this, but they still have major celebrities inhabit most of their movies. Not that Tom Hanks or Robin Williams aren't perfect as Woody and the Genie respectively or that Angela Lansbury in Beauty and the Beast isn't also a celebrity, but I see this film as a sort of demarcation point; when voice actors were cast from a pool of known voice actor talent or theater backgrounds rather than movie or TV stardom.

 

Finally, from a character development standpoint, I think Beauty and the Beast is on a pinnacle all on its own. All the minor characters are interesting and engaging and Gaston is a perfect villain. In the Disney canon, he's unique in his mundanity and insecurity and he perfectly represents the Everyday Normalcy that Belle is trying to escape. It is that very insecurity and jealousy combined with his physical power that makes me dangerous. He doesn't need to be an evil witch or a curse to cause death and destruction, he's just an asshole who happens to be handsome and good at killing shit... and eager to kill shit at the slightest provocation. The perfect foil for the Beast and for Belle... and a great singing voice. The Beast himself, is fascinating and alluring, all alone in his castle. He's a gorgeous creature, sure, but also a horrifying man. Like a wolf or a lion, he's an example of the beauty in the natural world, but combined with the ferocity of a natural predator, his very existence becomes both fascinating and disconcerting. He's powerful yet weak, vulnerable yet closed off. By far the most interesting Prince in the Disney canon.

 

And then there's Belle. I think one of the problems with the Disney Princess trope over the years has been that a lot of them... just don't measure up as characters when compared to the movie's they're in. Sleeping Beauty? Snow White? Sure, they're nice, but when compared to the villains in those films, they come off like ciphers to tell the fairy tale they happen to be in. Belle, while not a literal princess, is her own character from the get-go. She has a fantastic and exciting opening musical number (a classic example of an "Hey Look, it's Me, Here's Where I am and Here's the Things I Want" musical opener) and we are with her from then on. She has her own motivations and is a fully realized character before she meets the Beast or enters the conflicts within the film. That's why we are so invested in this love story; it's two people we are ALREADY in love with and so we want them to be in love when they meet each other. We care about them so we want them to be happy. Snow White? Cinderella? Who gives a shit about those bozos and their potential spouses? Belle likes books, you guys! There are movies like Tangled, Princess and the Frog, Brave, or Moana that, while great and positive in their messages, are very self-consciously going against the Disney Princess trope. While perhaps that's needed, it comes with a certain expectation of character behaviors and plot developments. With Belle, even with the Fairy Tale nature of the story, she feels like her own person and her own character. She doesn't need outside tropes to help us engage with her, she's wonderful and beautiful all on her own, with or without or preconceptions of what animated characters should be.

 

Shit, I will shut up now. God damn.

 

But thank you, Taylor Anne Photo, for picking this movie. I would never have revisited it if it wasn't for your suggestion and for this threat. YOU WIN AT MOVIES!

[Jack Frost 252]

Jane Wiedlin, and Cabinet of Dr. Caligari; if I haven't already alienated everyone beyond giving a fuck.

[Cam Bert 8145]

Sorry guys been busy the last few days and late to the conversation.

 

I am 100% down on the whole classic movie thing. For me the biggest gaps I have of the ones mentioned are Casablanca, Treasure of the Sierra Madre, and the Maltese Falcon. Now that I think about it I'm not sure if I've ever seen a Humphrey Bogart film... Curious. As far as ones that I want to see but somehow never get around to are Some Like it Hot and His Girl Friday. Some Like it Hot is strange for me because I love The Apartment to no end so you think I would be chomping at the bit to see Some Like it Hot, but yet I always think of something else to watch for better or for worse.

 

Classics I have seen and in extremely nerdy ways would love to talk about are Hitchcock and Kurosawa films.

[Cam Bert 8145]

Also, Taylor Anne, what do you make of these new "motion posters" or whatever they're calling them for the live action Beauty and the Beast?

 

Personally, I get it that they're trying to use star power to get people excited to see the movie but it makes me worried about how much of the film is going to have Lumiere and Mrs. Potts and all of those characters running around in human form.

[Cakebug Tranch 6873]

Jane Wiedlin, and Cabinet of Dr. Caligari; if I haven't already alienated everyone beyond giving a fuck.

Not to speak for everyone or anything, but you should definitely forget about feeling like you've alienated anyone. Come back, comment often, move on.

[Cakebug Tranch 6873]

Sorry guys been busy the last few days and late to the conversation.

 

I am 100% down on the whole classic movie thing. For me the biggest gaps I have of the ones mentioned are Casablanca, Treasure of the Sierra Madre, and the Maltese Falcon. Now that I think about it I'm not sure if I've ever seen a Humphrey Bogart film... Curious. As far as ones that I want to see but somehow never get around to are Some Like it Hot and His Girl Friday. Some Like it Hot is strange for me because I love The Apartment to no end so you think I would be chomping at the bit to see Some Like it Hot, but yet I always think of something else to watch for better or for worse.

 

Classics I have seen and in extremely nerdy ways would love to talk about are Hitchcock and Kurosawa films.

 

Agreed - I went through a phase when my eldest child was a baby where we recorded everything that came on the movie channel, so we could watch them in the middle of the night while rocking him back to sleep (way to parent!). I saw Casablanca in this way, but don't have much of a memory of it so would welcome a second viewing. One 'classic' that I caught in this way (reminded by Cam Bert mentioning Some Like It Hot) was 'The Prince and the Showgirl', with Marilyn Monroe and Laurence Olivier. I was blown away by how good Marilyn was - I had always just assumed she was the Meghan Fox vapid pretty face. I couldn't have been more wrong - what an incredible comic actress! I'd love to revisit some more from that era.

 

Speaking of eras, my absolute favourite film era is the 'Easy Riders, Raging Bulls' era of 1970's Hollywood, prior to 'Jaws'. (I do LOVE Jaws, but I mean the shoestring output of the 70's that stopped happening after blockbusters started being made). I love the gritty, filthy streets of 1970's New York City in movies like 'Serpico', 'The Taking of Pelham 123', 'Dog Day Afternoon', 'Taxi Driver' and the like. I have only ever been to the Disneyfied NYC, so seeing the gritty, sleazy New York is always a huge fascination for me.

 

Of course, the 'Easy Riders, Raging Bulls' I refer to is in regards to Peter Biskind's AMAZING book on the era. Read it if you haven't already. It's one of my favourites ever.

 

I'm down with Cam Bert on Kurosawa. I have my first classic film suggestion already queued up. Can't wait to get going on it!

[tomspanks 9039]

KurosaWHO? Gimme Ozu or Mmizoguchi instead.