To be honest, I only understand roughly 10-15% of the movie's entire dialoge. Which says a lot, considering that I've included the 'AAAAARRGGHHH', 'YAAAARRHHH', 'AAAAAAAHHHH', and of course 'UUGGGHHH' and 'HNGGHHH'. While the rest of the dialogues are basically mumblings and grunts to my ears.
Fortunately though, it seems that everyone could understand the movie even without listening to any of the dialogue - just like porn really.
In truth, I simply appreciate the story because I know it well. I learned it in school, so the general gist of the soliloquises/monologues make sense. A part from that I'd be lost! Try the '71 Polankski version. Same dialogue of course, but less background noise.
Think its a visceral film anyway, you can appreciate the 'feeling' of the film regardless of the dialogue.
"You see, I'm not a Monster.... I'm just ahead of the curve".
Try reading the actual play. You can read it online side by side in plain English
shareIf one has to read something before a movie is comprehensible, then that movie is *beep*
shareShakespeare isn't as easily accessible to everyone. Even those who have done the play have needed to look up the meanings behind the lines. And these weren't stupid people I worked with (tho some were super obnoxious).
I'm not finding the sound all that bad on this.
I was disappointed with te sound quality in regards to speech or dialogue. I wish I could have had sub titiles as it was really clear and muffled. Looked stunning though, just a shame I couldn't follow the dialogue.
shareYou couldn't understand it because the delivery of every actor was delivered in a pretentious, monotone whisper.
The joy of Shakespeare is in the language. He didn't write for Method actors. His plays are supposed to be over the top and theatrical. They took all of that out and hoped the beautiful film work would suffice. It didn't.
Since when is speaking lines to sound natural pretensious?
share^This!
shareI recall reading that the version by Orson Wells had he same problem, and much of the dialog had to be redone in modern English instead of a 12th century dialect.
shareSame. I have subtitles on but 30 minutes into the movie, I still only understand about 30% of the plot. I think I'll just watch something else... :(
shareShakespearian works - on stage or screen - will only be rewarding for the modern viewer when prior effort has gone into reading the play itself (with necessary explanations of each passage). The plot lines are not similar to your average movie you can just watch and understand while knowing little about it beforehand.
Of course, that is not to everybody's liking and may seem like 'hard work' to most casual movie fans. For those who have studied Shakespeare though, it is most rewarding. To each his own.
Please click on 'reply' at the post you're responding to. Thanks.share
Not necessarily.
I have seen several Shakespeare plays, on stage and screen, without any previous knowledge of them and enjoyed most of them. Shakespeare's stories are multi layered and there are many subtleties that are easily missed, but that does not mean that the basic story is fundamentally difficult. He was the most popular story teller of the time and appealed to the masses. They enjoyed the show, even if they missed the deeper message.
I has seen Philip Casson's 'A Performance of Macbeth' about 15 years earlier and enjoyed that very much. However, I could not remember enough of the story to be able to follow Kurzel's film. It was visually stunning and many scenes were enjoyable to watch, but I could not understand the whispered conversations, so I did not know why the various people got killed.
That bugged me until I got hold of Polanski's version and all became clear.
I can't be bothered with a signature
You are right, I can't generalise in any sense, and every viewer's visual perceptions and interpretive skills function on levels unique to that person. I fully accept your point that it is quite possible to walk "fresh" into a Shakespeare performance and to be clued in to the narrative development all the way.
Speaking on my own behalf then, I find it helps me knowing the written plays well, to understand every character's motivation. Especially in the case of this production, where the stage language was delivered in regular-speak style, which made it harder to follow. Even though I knew some of the passages and soliloquies well, it felt like much of it got lost as my ears were just not "tuned in". Perhaps if I see it a second time, knowing exactly what to expect, I would enjoy it as I expected to.
I'm pretty sure that if I wasn't acquainted with the plot at all, I'd have struggled to make much sense of it, trying to work out where each character fits in. Then again, others may not have a problem, as you rightfully said.
Please click on 'reply' at the post you're responding to. Thanks.share
Same here, I had to to really concentrate to understand what they were saying, but I knew the story very well, because I was a theater student.
share