Monday, April 12, 2010
"Midsummer' Blog Post #1
In class on Thursday (4/8), we watched two versions of Bottom's transformation in 3.1 (the 1999 Film version and Sir Peter Hall's version from 1981). What were the major differences in how each scene is interpreted? What was the tone of each? How did line reading and direction shape meaning? You can focus on a particular character or moment, comparing those in detail. Which version, to you, felt like the more effective interpretation? Why?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
34 comments:
The film that was filmed in 1981 had a bunch of technological differences compared to the one filmed in 1999. Also, the characters in the film interpreted the lines differently. For example, Titania. When she was at first seeing Bottom, in the 1981 film she made her very soft and almost as if she was a delicate creature, but then in the 1999 version, the character's voice seemed more normal. I felt that the 1999 version had a better interpretation because, the technology was better but also the characters seemed the same way as they did in my head as in the movie. It almost bothered me how in the 1981 version Titania's voice made her seem so delicate and light when even though she is a woman and in those times women were considered weaker, she is supposed to be this strong figure who is Queen of the fairies and I wouldn't imagine someone like that to be so dainty and not strong.
I agree with Summer Grace. Apart from some technology differences, the emotion behind the characters, and especially Bottom and Tatania, are different in the two films. In the 1981 version, Tatania seems more suttle and not so much demanding, but in the 1999 version of the play, we even see her force Bottom into her bed (I guess that is what it is) and makes him sit down in royal chairs. Overall, the edge goes to the 1981 version. Despite some technology and camera dilemas, the 1981 version is both more realistic to the time, and filled with more emotion and dedication to the words. As disecting these two scenes, i see that the 1999 actors take their roles a little more lightly. This may be because they feel they are "high-top" with nice special effects. The thing is that the way the 1981 Bottom expresses his role is overall I good job. Tatania is not that good in either versions though.
the 1981 version was truer to the script, but less technologicaly advanced. scene changes took place uncerimoniously, the camera was not in order, as the light kepts switching, and there were no special effects other than pucks random apperinces which made no real sence and were obviously spliced in. for some reason, the faries were green. this did however portray the donkey's head on bottom more acurately. in the 1999 version, the actors are better, and the special effects are spectacular (that is, excluding puck's makeup). the movie is not so true to the script. in it, we see bottom's tranformation, and he only grows donkeys ears and grows a bit more hair. all in all, the 1981 film was a better rendition.
I feel that the 1999 film version was interpreted as a thriller, whereas the 1981 version was interpreted as a comedy or a climax. When looking at the tone of the 1999 film, one automatically see's how the people working on the play's tones are more stern and bottom is not feared but he is thought to have smart ideas, almost like a boss. In the 1981 version, it is more comedic and bottom and peter quince have more of a stressed out relationship. Because the 1999 one seemed to have more of a thriller-tone, the lines were read to be somewhat scary. This is not quite so in the 1981 version. Titania literally captures bottom when he wants to leave the forrest. Her tone is very threatening and somewhat angry. In the 1981 version you can tell that she wants to come, but the comedy remains because bottom seems to be more surprised than fearful. The interpretation that is more accurate and effective is the 1981 version because it potrayed how Midsummer Night's Dream is supposed to be a comedy rather than a thriller.
I felt that the one that was filmed in 1981 was more true to the actual written play. That being said, i think that the 1999 film was way less confusing in the sense that in the play, Bottom's change into an ass happens off stage as represented in the 1981 film. But, in the 1999 film, the change is shown on screen, which is alot easier to digest for people who have not read or seen the play. In the 1999 film, they cuto out many more lines than in the 1981 film. I agree with Summer Grace that in the 1999 film Titania was a more powerful figure as in the written play than in the 1981 film where she seems to be an extremely gentle figure. Both films had parts of the written play would represent on the silver screen in a perfect world, but as we all know, nobody's perfect.
In both movies the story is the same, but the acting, filming, and special-effects are much different. For example in the 1991 film, the actors speak in a slower and clearer tone, whereas in the in the 1981 film, the actors have more passion and feeling, but are not as clear or slow. In a way, the 1981 film is more realistic, because people don’t always speak in a way that’s clear and or easy to understand. The tone in the modern film seems more modern, but the play was supposed to be set in an older tone. The way that the actors read their lines in the 1991 film seems boring. They make the lines less significant than the position that their body is in or their facial expression. The actors in the 1981 film portray much better emotion within the reading of their lines. Personally, I would rather watch the 1981 film, because it’s more realistic and the actors act with more passion even though the filming is mediocre. Also the special effects were much different in the two movies. Of course in the modern version, the special effects were much better than in the 1981 film, but once again the acting was much better in the 1981 version.
-Kai
I liked the 1999 version better. Like SG the 1999 version was more how i had pictured the book as a movie. I like that the film had better effects it made it easier to understand. In the 1981 version you not only have to think about what the characters are saying and doing you have to try to figure out where they are and what is going on with the set. I like that the 1999 version makes everything clearer.
In the 1981 version i felt the scene was taken more lightly and more as a joke. In the 1999 version i thought everything was a little bit more formal and serious. One of the major differences was Puck. In the 1981 version he is a silly character who runs around naked. In the 1999 version he is slightly more serious ( and fully clothed) but you can still tell he is a trouble maker. I think that the way the lines were read also contributed to the silliness factor. I thought that in the 1999 version the lines that were supposed to be read in a silly way were. In the 1981 version i thought all the lines were read in a silly tone of voice.
One of the major differences in how the two scenes were interpreted was that the 1981 version was more true to what mid summer nights dream would have been like around the time of Shakespeare. The 1981 version looks more like a play for example the 1981 version did not show how bottom changed into the donkey but the 1999 version showed bottom changing into the donkey. Another difference is that the 1999 version does not say all the original lines and the 1999 version is updated and it takes place in a different time period. Some of the characters were different too for example peter quince was a lot more expressive in the 1999 version and bottom seem less stupid in the 1999. I think that the 1999 version tried to make mid summer nights dream somewhat dramatic and the characters did not seem as into the your parts as the characters in the 1981 version. this made the 1999 version seem more about the special effect and less about emotion.
The more effective interpretation to me was the 1999 film version. In the 1999 version, the effects and pace make it easier to understand. When I am watching something I understand it more clearly when there are actions included. When Bottom transforms into a donkey I am clear at what is going on as opposed to in the 1981 version where Bottom just shows up having a donkey head. Though this is what actually happens in the book, it is harder to comprehend. When I actually see something I understand it in more depth.
Each movie is interpreted differently. In the 1981 version I feel like the characters were going too fast, yet they were speaking with great force when they felt they should and how anybody today would express their words. In the 1999 version the pace is slower and easier to understand.
The fairies, Robin, Oberon and Titania were painted green in the 1981 movie while in the 1999 movie, they looked normal, human like. Just like what Summer Grace said, Titania acted different when meeting Bottom. The 1981 movie showed her as a gentle thing, watching Bottom from a distance. 1999 movie showed her as just coming out from where she was and being out there.Most characters in the 1981 movie, including Robin, talked really fast, so fast that you couldnt tell what he was saying. In the other movie, he didnt say much, all he did was transform Bottom into a donkey.
When Bottom turned into a donkey in the 1999 movie, i got confused on what was going to happen because Bottom had a hat on and not a face of a donkey. which made it unclear when he would turn into the donkey. In the 1981 movie, Bottom had a big donkey head when he came out of the trees.
The tone in the 1981 movie has a lot of passion and feeelings in the lines that they say while in the 1999 movie, it seems more calm and settle.
-Brianna♥♥
I felt that the 1981 movie portrayed more of a Classical Interpretation. For instance
traditionally the mad king that give the longest rant is the boss and the one with reason is ignored. Bottom like
Oberon, demands power and seems to be a great deal stronger than the other characters. While
Peter Quince merely wants peace and to have the play commence. When Quince illustrates the
problem of scenery in the play, everyone is thinking together as equals. But when Bottom starts
talking he dominates the conversation, no one dares to speak out. Also, The 1981 move
added more scenes and flashbacks. This confused me quite a bit for I did not know what was
happening. In the 1999 version the characters were more placid and rather comical (such as
when Snout runs into a tree.)
i thought that a few of the major differences were how the dialogue was made. obviously the characters in the 1981 film were cold hearted shakespearians while in the 1999 film the language was much less of the original dialogue. this made it seem as though there was a difference in tone. the effects of the movie also played a role in the interpretation, it made things easier to understand. i thought the 1999 version was much easier to interpret because it went into more detail. this is probably because it had much more visual effects then the first one.
Personally, I think the 1999 version was better to understand because the quality and effects were better than the 1981 version; But I feel that the acting was more believable in the 1981 version. For example, when Bottom is singing and wakes Titiania up. In the 1999 version she seems more 'half asleep' when she sees him and falls in love with him, but in the 1981 version she seems more awake and shows more adoration when she sees him.
I think the interpretation for the part when bottom turns into a donkey was better in the 1999 version. I feel like it showed the transformation better than in the 1981 version because in that version, Botton just came out of the trees without really any sense of how he got on a donkey's head. In the 1999 version it showed Bottom looking at himself wearing the hat while Puck blew some kind of dust which then explains how bottom got the donkey head.
Overall, I feel that the 1981 version was better. Even though the effects wasn't the best or the technology wasn't effective; I feel that the acting was great. It seemed to me like they got across the emotions behind what they were saying or acting.
I think the major differences was the way the actors acted and the way everything was looked and how they gave different feeling about the movie. I think Bottom acted really different, in the 2nd verison he acted much more friendly and didn't expect the others to judt do what he wanted to, he asked them. In the first one he acted like the boss and did whatever he wanted too. i also think that Peter Quince is a lot different. He seems a lot more intense in the 2nd version. When Flute is playing Thisbe, Quince gets mad a shakes him. In the 1st version he just screams stop and corrects Flute. I also think they made Titania a lot more fairy in the 2nd movie, she looked much more like a fairy I would dream about when I was younger.
Hanna
I think the 1981 film was a more effective interpretation to people that enjoyed reading Shakesphere. I think the 1999 version was more enjoyable to those who did not read Midsummer's Night's Dream because the pace was faster, and most of the sentences were not in Shakespherian form. A really big difference between the two films was that everyone was wearing clothes in the newer one. But the biggest difference was that the newer version showed you Bottoms transformation "behind the scenes" where in the book and the older version the "behind the scenes" never happened.
I think in the older version they made a better interpretation of Puck, (and the fairies), because in the book it did not state that the fairies or Puck wore clothing, and they roamed the forest naked.
The newer version of the movie, gave Puck a bike, and there is no where in the book where it says that he rides a bike. The newer version is a bit too modern for this play, and I think they put a little too much work into the modernness of the newer film.
I think that the 1981 version of a "Midsummer Night's Dream" was more true to the book than the 1999 version that explored different ways to interpret the book more. The 1981 version seemed slower and more emotional since every line was said with a lot of enunciation and tone. Which made this version seem more paced scene by scene unlike the 1999 version which was faster. This made the sentences read out, seem more modern. The 1999 version worked more on being able to understand the content better rather than following the book scene by scene. For example in the 1999 version they made sure we understood that Pyramus (Bottom) was changed into the head of an ass. Rather than the 1981 version where he just appeared already with the transformation. The 1999 version also skipped on a few speeches or lines from the book but tried to get the main meaning across better.
In the the 1999 version of a Midsummer's night dream, Bottom dissapeared in the first and came out with a donkey cane and a top hat. When he dissappeared into the bushes the actor that was speaking, his voice faded out. When bottom appeared in front of the other actors, he had donkey ears and a hairy face. When the actors spoke, it was more slowly and some lines were skipped. The fairies and magical creatures were almost human like, but more flawless. This version of the movie seemed like a disney made movie. In the 1981 version, Bottom dissappears into the bushes and when he gets his que he comes back, with a donkey head, a mask basically. When he goes into the woods you still hear the other actor speaking. In this version they speak faster. In this version the fairies were painted green and popped out randomly like Puck. This version of the movie seemed like it was from the 60's, but with color. I think the the 1981 version made a more effective interpretation because it was spoken faster as it is supposed to be read and as opposed to having lines skipped it had all the lines from the book. With the timing it was earlier, the 1999 version took place in the 1800's. I feel like the 1981 version was a better version for the book.
I feel that the 1981 version was a better version in terms of being in the true role and character compared to the 1999 version. I think this because in the 1999 version, it was much more dramatic in the way they spoke and the way that they were in their other character, practicing for the play. I feel that the 1981 version had more of a comedic vibe in the way that the actors represented each character.
In terms of Bottom's transformation, I feel that the 1999 version gave a better sense of how the transformation really happened compared to the 1981 version when Bottom just came from the side of the screen with a head of an ass.
I think that the 1999 version had better transition from one scene to the other, only because they had better and much more advanced technology compared to the 1981 version. I don't think I should really compare the two versions in terms of the quality of the film because it speaks for itself that the 1999 version was better because of more high tech cameras compared to the ones they had in 1981.
-Emma Francesca Zita ♥
The film from 1981 took the lines from the book and interpreted it the exact way they thought the characters would feel. The 1999 version mixed it up and put a more modern twist to it instead of speaking exactly how shakespeare wrote the book. Both movies were focusing on the same plot, but the 1981 made the characters that were suppose to be sneaky and evil, like Puck, very conniving and Oberon very mean. And in the 1999 version they turned the story to more of a comedy and made the characters that were suppose to be the bad people in the book, like Puck and Oberon to a more of a humorous and kinder person. I liked the 1999 version because the image was better, and it was easier to understand because it was a more modern version. The tone changed a lot from the older version and it gave the a viewer a different perspective on some of the characters and situations in the book
The movement of the actors was one of the main differences other than the obvious technical differences between the two films. In the older version the actors move very quickly, often confusingly fast and catch you off guard. The quickness of the film brings a more comical part to the film but takes away from the importance of the lines.
Because of the speed of both the actors lines and their actions, combined with the lack difficult sight, the 1981 version was less effective in the understanding of the story. It is true that the acting is very passionate and great but the story is harder to get because of the strange moves quick cuts. The acting is mostly clear, but many other aspects of the movie in the older version are not.
I think the version of the play where you follow Bottom and see the transformation occur was the most effective interpretation. I know that it was not exactly what happened in the book, but I think that the watcher gets a better knowledge if what happened to Bottom and gets a better general sense of what happens in the scene. the older movie was a lot more true to the play and everything happened exactly the way it did in the book. Even though it stayed more true to the play the movie was a bit confusing, especially when Bottom just come out of the bushes with the donkey head. It was also more confusing when puck was supposed to be invisible even though he was right in front of the actors. Because the more modern version of “a midsummer night dream” was more clear the the older version I enjoyed it more.
It is very true that there are numerous differences in the two movies. The 1999 version was more modernly interpreted and set up almost as if it was intended to be a nominee for an award or something of that sort. The 1981 version was strictly orthodox to the script and hence almost stern. The effects and graphics were obviously better and clearer in the 1999 version, but I think that the creators of this version relied on this quality too much and it therefore took away from a lot of the feeling. The 1999 version was written and interpreted strictly for a movie, whereas the 1981 version has more of a sense of a theatrical performance than a movie, for example, in the 1999 version Titania is more forceful and has an overtone of her ego, whereas in the 1981 version Titania is lighter and gentler, almost as if she were beseeching Bottom to stay and for her fairies to serve him. It sounds more like she’s in love in the 1981 version, whereas in the 1999 version the acting isn’t as heavy or sentimental, but still gives the impression of more imagination and creativity of the forest and spells and pictures. In the 1999 version, the emotions are just straight forward and direct, whereas in the 1981 version the emotions, passion, and diction of the dialogue are more exaggerated and show the picture that the script gives off and the way that Shakespeare intended. This is demonstrated once again by the actions and interpretations of the four fairies in the scene. In the 1999 version, the fairies are directly shown as Titania’s train and servants, whereas in the 1981 version, the fairies have more freedom and are more a part of the script.
In the end though, A Midsummer Night’s Dream was written by Shakespeare as a theatrical performance which the 1981 version follows in a strictly orthodox way, whereas the 1999 version is more changed around and better suited as a movie. The 1981 version is truer to the original writing of the script. And the exaggerated emotion puts the acting in a better position of interpretation. Because of this, I feel that the 1981 version may not be as much of a movie as the other one, but is an overall better version and closer to my own imagination and also Shakespeare’s expressions.
The difference between the way the 1981 and the 1999 version was interpreted is very different in my opinion. In the 1981 version the characters are very dramatic and speak very fast. Puck is very hyper, Titania is very powerful and seems mean, and the men doing the play are mad to look poor, rude, they speak loud, their clothes are not good quality. In the 1999 version the characers are more realistic, less dramatic, speak slower and skip some of the line. Puck is clamer and speaks in a softer tone an ryhtm as if he was reading a poem, Titania talks more as if she is in love, and the men doing the play seem more upper class or a higher class then they are in the 1981 version. The more effective interpretstion i thought was the 1999 versison because, it was easier to understand, seemed more realistic and is kind of what I imagined while I was reading that scence.
Both versions of the play were interpreted and understood differently for the viewer. I agree with everyone in saying that there were many technical and film making differences, but I also felt that some of the characters expressed their emotion differently. I noticed that the actors who played Titania and Puck expressed their character;s emotion differently. Puck seems much more easygoing in the 99 version and less hyper. Puck hardly says anything in the 99 version and it is vvery hard to understand what he is saying in the 81 version because he speaks so quickly and unnaturally. Titania also seems much stronger and demanding in the 99 version like the queen that she is.
I understood the 99 version better because what was displayed, was close to the images that I pictured while reading the book. The characters also seemed more normal in the way they spoke and presented themselves, which made it more relate-able.
Even thought both films were based upon the same play, they both interpreted the script in unique ways which each shone light on the tale in different forms. The first version was made earlier while technology was still developing, but personally, the grainy film and old-fashioned camera it made the movie more credible, as the play was set in olden times. On the other hand, having the advantage of more funding and newer technology, the film is easier to see and understand.
In the fist version we viewed, it was harder to comprehend what the actors are saying, and the ability to understand what is being said is needed, as Shakespeare composed in a language within english, weaving metaphors and meanings within words. But in the second picture, a significant amount of the original text was removed or dropped which took away from of the authenticity i crave. Regardless, it was much easier to understand what was happening due to better lighting, and generally, the actors accentuated important lines better than the first movie.
In the older film, the actors spoke faster, which is a feat to admire as the monologues are complicated, but also a tad harder to understand what is happening. Contrastingly, in the second movie, they spoke slower, always allowing you to keep up with what was happening. However, it is important to keep in mind that whilst one is enraged, one would generally speak hotly and rapidly rather than slowly.
Authenticity is an important thing to consider when discussing thing such as which was 'better.' I believe that it depends on the individual, on what they prefer and their tastes. There are certain advantages and disadvantages to each film, but for me, i felt as thought the first film was more authentic and true to Shakespeare's vision while the second one took more liberties and adapted it, which while helped me understand it better, but i disliked that they cut dialogue.
i felt that the 1999 version had many superior aspects reaguarding the choices that they made in directing the piece, I felt like the later one was easier to follow and gave me a better picture of everything that was occuring throughout the piece. in the earlier version i liked how they stuck more to the original play and i felt like the actors for the working men played their parts more to how they appeared in my mind and how they apppeared in the book. but i liked how the newer play gave you a better feeling while modifiying it to their needs. also i definetly saw the use of more graphic effects in the later one which i rather enjoyed. and given the freedom they had in graphics they gave more of a comical edge to it. in differing opinions this could either enhance or worsen it. i think that i personally enjoyed the comical edge but i do acknowledge that it had some change on the feeling of the scene
In the 1981 film, the focus was more on the acting than on the technology of film-making. The director tried to create a film based more on how the characters are formed and developed, because he did not have the technology to focus on the techniques of filming. By contrast, the 1999 film did not have quite as good acting, but focused on showing the woods as mystical.
The 1981 film focused on the reaction of the other mechanicals when Bottom came back into the scene with an ass’ head. Emphasizing the other’s reaction created a tone of fear, because they were terrified. Also, that film showed Bottom desperately trying to find the other mechanicals.
The 1999 film focused on the astonishment of the other mechanicals when Bottom came back. At first Bottom looked normal but when he took off his hat he looked like an ass. In this play, the mechanicals waited to say their lines and then ran away in fear.
In 1981 film, Puck was very wild and jumpy, while, in the 1999 film, he seemed very subtle and relaxed as he performed his work for Oberon. In the first film, Puck seemed to think Oberon was more like a father figure, but in the second one it seemed more like Puck thought that Oberon was just his master.
I prefer the 1981 film since it emphasizes acting over technology; however, I think whether the director focuses on fear rather than astonishment or portrays Oberon as a father figure or a master is really the director's choice.
In the film from 1981 the film is definitely more dramatic. The actors talk a lot faster and are way more excited and freaked out in some parts.
The similarities are that they are both conveying the same feelings in both films. When Bottom meets Tatania in the first film he is kind of wierded out and does not know what to do, but in the second film bottom does kind of know that his head has been transformed into a donkey head.
the tones are different in the way that I think in the second film is more laid back and i though the first film was more accurate.
The major differences between the new version and the old version had to do with they actions of the characters, tone of the characters, amount of the text was used from the actual book and the different technology for each version. In the two versions of the movie i noticed the play director acted different in each movie. In the old movie he was acting less enthusiastic and was just sitting and listening. In the new version the play director is standing up, being so enthusiastic and encouraging but at the same time taking control of his play. Thee play directors tone was also different. In the first movie his tone was more scarred and was not taking control of his play but in the new version he sounded much more demanding and truely sounded like he was the director of the play. In the new version of the movie they hardly used actual shakespearian language it. there was a little mixed in but not much. In the old version it was all shakespearian. Finally, the visual effects of the new movie were much more advanced then the old movie.
-James
I think that Titania was meant to be indipendant and was not meant to
be some gooey character that was soft. Why would she not yeild to her
husband and give him the indian boy if she was so? So i think the 1999
version was much better then the 1981 version. The graphics and
special effects was much better which is also a plus. In the 1981
version evrything seemed too flashy and the actors overthought their
charcters. for instance Titania: Yes Titania did recieve the love
potion and she did fall in love but she is still he stubborn Titania
that was in the book before. She loves Oberon yet you do not see her
being all mushy, instead you see her taking a stand for what she
wants. So when she falls in love with bottom it seems to make sense
that she would be more commanding and take charge in he same wasy she
does with Oberon. The actor in the 1891 version must have thought 'Oh,
my character is in love so i must act lovestruck.' but they did not
think through what Titania would act like and they did not make the
connection between her love life with Oberon and the love potion with
bottom. 1999 Titania did an amazing job if you ask for my opinion.
the version from 1981 stayed more true to the book in that every line was said and that special effects were low key as they would have been in Shakespearian times. but the version in 1999 had more visible emotions and more life like people, the way the thought and process was more easy to connect with this time period of time.the 1981 version had more of a Shakespearian feel. from the way actors spoke very directly and had strict emotions. because of the variations in emotion the tone varied from movie to movie. in the 1999 version the tone seemed to be more natural. Whereas the 1981 version seemed to be very exact.
The two movies are very different.
Late Blog Post:
IN the 1981 version we have bottom off screen - as on the play - in the bushes. He then comes in with a head of a donkey. This is unclear to the movie viewer. In the 1999 version the special effects catch viewers. It takes place in a different period of time however. This is a major difference.
In the 1999 version the main tone is either more serious or more comical in some places and has a free feeling to the lines. The other version's tone is more book based and strict.
I think that the 1999 version interprets the book better. It is more free and the script is sometimes moved around. Shakespeare's Midsummer might have merely been a well reviewed draft. This movie can replace the book as if it were a visual book. This movie feels as if it is the edited and final play that is portable.
I think the main difference in the two films besides the obvious quality differences is the acting. The older version seems to be set up as more of a play or somebody performing a show and the second one was more of a movie production and a lot of the lines were changed around so that the audience would be more drawn in and have more of a vivid idea of what was going on. I think also the newer version was interpreted with more of a structure whereas the older one was sort of less so. I think also in the newer version the lines were read in a more clear fashion. Especially when people are mad at eachother. Like when Titania was upset with Bottom for trying to leave the forrest. That was less clear in the older version.
Pablo
I think the technical differences here are are only a minor detail. The acting and how it is interpreted is the difference here. The language and body-language is easier to understand in the 1999 version. In 1981, the lines are read quickly and much of the scene is a close-up of Titania face while she talks. While Titania speaks, her voice has much emotion but her expression remains the same. In 1999, the actress give Titania an overwhelming prescense that shows she is the queen. I believe that the 1999 version is the better interpretation of the play.
Post a Comment