MovieChat Forums > Coriolanus (2012) Discussion > thou yonder maketh ay !!!

thou yonder maketh ay !!!


the english of Shakespearean time, like all archaic languages, is sweet. but it only gives that taste when read !!! not when u go out to see a war action movie in a modern setup. it was just foolish. i couldn't bear 20 minutes of it even with subtitles.

Why couldn't you put the bunny back in the box?

reply

I can't imagine why someone with such a strong command of contemporary English would find it a struggle to listen to poetry.

reply

Because Shakespeare had poor grammar? For example, "Know you me yet?" should've been written as "Do you know me yet?" Although I speak English as a second language with an accent most English speakers do understand what I have to say.

...
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritu Sancti.

reply

Shakespeare was writing poetry. And I really don't understand how your ability to speak English (with or without an accent) has any bearing on the OP's inability to understand Shakespearean verse.

reply

I am not sure what your primary language is, or may be - but you may have heard of the usage of something called "Iambic Pentameter".

Every line in all of Shakespeare's work was written in that form. Line to line, verse to verse, scene to scene, and Act to Act. This suggests that at times he may have had to compromise his usage of good grammar simply to stay consistent with the use of this poetic style of writing. After all - to write an entire play in which every line of text falls into that style is not easy - especially when you are alternating between various speakers.

Further - it is especially foolish to suggest that Shakespeare compromises the usage of grammar. His plays were written before grammar was properly codified and defined. Indeed - there are copies of English "Grammar" books of style that appear over 200 years after him that insist that good writers spell words such as "color" as "Colour" - of course, this is still accepted in the British spelling, as well as most of the world that uses English; but it is incorrect in terms of what is "good grammar" in America.

Even today the world can't seem to decide what is "Correct Grammar" and spelling - and less then 20 years ago "email" was not a correct word, nor did it exist in a dictionary.

So you know, Iambic Pentameter is not a very easy form to master as a writer - and while it may not flow well with the current "correct definition" of our grammar usage - it was written at a time when such bold definitions were not properly codified very well, and - as stated in any case - his chief concern was with the poetry, not the trivium of writing in a style that is comfortable with the necessities of our current styles - fickle and changing as they are.


I took the liberty of copying and pasting the definition of Iambic Pentameter here, in case someone reading this was curious to know what it meant.

To make things easy I avoided the Oxford English Dictionary and went straight to "Wikipedia" so everyone can be happy with the information.

Iambic pentameter (from Greek: ἰαμβικός πεντάμετρος meaning to have five iambs) is a commonly used metrical line in traditional verse and verse drama. The term describes the particular rhythm that the words establish in that line. That rhythm is measured in small groups of syllables; these small groups of syllables are called "feet". The word "iambic" describes the type of foot that is used (in English, an unstressed syllable followed by a stressed syllable). The word "pentameter" indicates that a line has five of these "feet."

These terms originally applied to the quantitative meter of classical poetry. They were adopted to describe the equivalent meters in English accentual-syllabic verse. Different languages express rhythm in different ways. In Ancient Greek and Latin, the rhythm is created through the alternation of short and long syllables. In English, the rhythm is created through the use of stress, alternating between unstressed and stressed syllables. An English unstressed syllable is equivalent to a classical short syllable, while an English stressed syllable is equivalent to a classical long syllable. When a pair of syllables is arranged as a short followed by a long, or an unstressed followed by a stressed, pattern, that foot is said to be "iambic". The English word "trapeze" is an example of an iambic pair of syllables, since the word is made up of two syllables ("tra—peze") and is pronounced with the stress on the second syllable ("tra—PEZE", rather than "TRA—peze"). Iambic pentameter is a line made up of five such pairs of short/long, or unstressed/stressed, syllables.

Iambic rhythms come relatively naturally in English. Iambic pentameter is the most common meter in English poetry; it is used in many of the major English poetic forms, including blank verse, the heroic couplet, and some of the traditional rhymed stanza forms. William Shakespeare used iambic pentameter in his plays and sonnets.

reply

I thought it was foolish also. I didn't know what I was in for when I started watching. Seeing men in modern military fatigues and body armor with automatic weapons speak like that made me laugh like I was seeing someone put lipstick on a pig. I only made 20 minutes of it.

reply

You have to realize that not everybody has a taste for poetry. Changing the dialogue (without losing the meaning of course) would have helped the film getting a wider recognition.



-------------------------------------
June 29th. I gotta get i shape now...

reply

yeah...thats what i am trying to say and this cavALier1138 guy totally misunderstood me !!!

Why couldn't you put the bunny back in the box?

reply

Well by all means.

Let's also convert every book ever written into text-speak, because kids these days, right?

And let's take every piece of music and update it so it's got a sweet drum beat behind it. We'll let Kanye re-mix the 1812 overture and rap over it.

And while we're at it, let's just get rid of opera altogether.

Yes, I think that this sounds perfectly reasonable. It makes complete sense that we should "update" everything that's old, because it only survived this long so that it could be rewritten to please a bunch of lazy teenagers.

reply

I don't think "every book ever written" is written in poetry. It may be a shock to You, but film and written text are not the same. Since the setting has been updated so could have been the dialogue. They don't call it "an adaptation" for nothing.



-------------------------------------
June 29th. I gotta get i shape now...

reply

Got it.

We should just update all poetry to more modernized speech. Let me give it a whirl:

i have a party jst 4 me, n imma sing it
n u dont no me, but u do
bcuz we r all da same.

I finally understand Whitman.

Edit (because I finally grasped the complete idiocy of one of your "points"): Film starts as written text. And Shakespeare's poetry is intended to be performed. He wrote plays.

reply

This topic has been debated for some time now and is a double edged sword. When a movie that takes place in renaissance times is released and the actors speak in a modern tongue, some people get upset about it. However if a movie is set in a modernized time and the actors are given an archaic dialogue it gets an opposite reaction from the same people. ????

I think this film would have done better had Coriolanus(character) been written to speak in a modern tongue, however had an affinity for quoting Shakespeare. That way key lines could be delivered and the original meaning could be preserved.

I'd like to add that I enjoyed this film but I think it was mostly because I was familiar with the original content and could enjoy the film instead of trying to decipher it.

reply

I think what people are failing to understand is that this is a film of a Shakespearean play. All they did was update the setting. Theatrical directors have been doing this pretty much since Shakespeare died.

This is not a "modernization" or an "adaptation". It's the play.

reply

Now that I think about it, I see a point in that it's still the original play, somethings have just been changed. Granted the changes would mean it's been modernized to an extent. I have an excellent solution to this however. Just like with Trainspotting, subtitles. Of course the subtitles would be special in that they work as a translation from archaic to modern English.

reply

It is modern English. It's just in verse.

If you want to hear "archaic" English try Chaucer or try Beowulf in Old English. Those are languages that require some translation.

reply

I was too liberal with my expressions. I didn't mean the actual term "Modern English", seeing as "Archaic English" would not fit with that category. I was referring to the differences in dialect from then to now and what is considered acceptable dialogue in a modern piece. That way fans of 'backwards speak' ,such as myself, and everyone else could enjoy the film.

reply

I haven't seen this film yet, but I'm glad I've been forewarned. At least I can brace myself for the language difference. You can complain about modernizing the dialogue all you want, but I think it's a fair request. Many people aren't into poetry and might not have any experience with Shakespeare or similar work at all. So reading or hearing something like "One that loves a cup of hot wine with not a drop of allaying Tiber in't." might be a bit confusing.

The point of the movie should have been to tell the story not have the characters regurgitate ancient dialogue.




"I have spread my dreams under your feet. Tread softly because you tread on my dreams."

reply

If you "aren't into Shakespeare," then why would you want to see a Shakespearean play in the first place?

If all you want is for someone to tell you a story with no regard for how they tell it, just read Joseph Campbell's work. Then you'll know every story ever already.

Also, the irony of someone who's quoting Yeats in their signature complaining about how some people can't handle difficult language is just delicious.

reply

I'm not going to argue for nor against the film, though I personally enjoyed it very much.
However, I find that the use of Shakespearean language works to the benefit of the film.
Firstly it leads me to believe that the Rome spoken of in the film is more closely related to the ancient Roman Empire than the city of Rome we know. I like the idea that Rome was never overrun, and that it still flourishes as an empire; thus the references to the Volscians - which could possibly explain the social segregation we see in the movie. (Just my interpretation - take it or leave it. :) )
Another thing is that Shakespeare used different language to differentiate between the importance of characters and the social class of the characters. The important characters spoke in verse, as well as the upper-class characters. The 'commoners' or 'plebs' would talk in prose. I imagine you understood everything the towns people said quite easily, right? (Honestly, no insult intended!)
I do agree that the market for a movie such as this will never be as high as the great action films such as Black Hawk Down or Saving Private Ryan, but I hope there are enough fans to keep them worth the time and money.
I just hope I've explained at least these few pros of the language well enough. :)

reply

I'm not commenting on the movie, but cavalier can you stop equalizing film with theater? It's not a Shakespearean play, it's an adaptation of one. The two art forms are very different, so don't hold the same criteria.

reply

It's an "adaptation" in the sense that it re-stages the action in a new setting. Which really isn't all that much of an adaptation, since Shakespeare never wrote stage directions calling for naturalistic sets.

This is not a live theatrical performance, but the script is the script of the play. The title is the title of the play. No one going to this should have expected a "10 Things I Hate About You" version of Shakespeare.

But yes, films are different from plays. 10 points for that astute observation.

reply

[deleted]

This would have been great, I wish they would have gone with your idea. Like the original poster, I could only watch about 15 min of the film before giving up on the dialogue.

reply

I do like a lot of the films that have been based on his plays, like ...

Forbidden Planet
Throne of Blood
West Side Story
Ran
A Thousand Acres
She's The Man
Yellow Sky
The Lion King

Many more...

What we have here is failure to communicate!

reply

OK, I am confused by all but Cavilier

This is exactly the same as the late 90's film Romeo and Juliet with Leo DC. But none of you have bothered to mention it.

R+J also kept to the script, but updated the setting. And it was great because of that very reason.



No matter what you say 'Pulp Fiction' is best film in the world.

reply

I didn't like R&J.

What we have here is failure to communicate!

reply

I like to watch movies with modern background in a Shakespeare story.
It feels so contrary at first, weird and unnatural. Alien.
But I quickly get drawn into that and enjoy it. The combination is fascinating. I just didnt like the story much.

I dont want to read a book in that manner. I need sth visual too. Stage play or movie.

---
Lincoln Lee: I lost a partner.
Peter Bishop: I lost a universe!

reply

Agreed, that took me out of the movie as well.

reply