Is there a better Shakespeare adaptation than Throne of Blood? If so, what is it?
Is there a better Shakespeare adaptation than Throne of Blood? If so, what is it?
No. It certainly is the GOAT Macbeth.
Richard III?
I dunno, what exactly we're talking about but,
Romeo + Juliet
I am shocked that someone on Sup Forums has seen Throne of Blood. All this fake kino posting but you never see serious posts.
>tfw want to see those Kurosawa samurai flicks
>they're not on Amazon Prime
They're on Hulu, though. Or you could wait until one of Criterion's sales come around.
Yeah, once in awhile there is actual discussion on here, it just rarely happens, so you'd be lucky if you'd ever stumble upon such a thing on Sup Forums.
On topic:
>
What's your pick, then? Ran? Or Olivier's Richard III? The Chimes at Midnight?
oh fuck off there's plenty of people that have seen throne of blood, which is entry level kurosawa
>entry level kurosawa
No such thing, and even if there were, it certainly wouldn't be one of his Shakespeare adaptations.
Ran is better. Just because it's in colour doesn't make it pleb-tier.
how is this?
all of his shakespeare adaptations are inherently entry level because they're fucking shakespeare
Prospero's Books
All the others mentioned in this thread are just filmed plays
No one said or even thought that. Never in history. You can make a substantial argument for either film being better than the other.
Pretty great but they cut down on Lady Macbeth a lot for some reason.
>>entry level kurosawa
>No such thing,
This is the state of Sup Forums
>I am shocked that someone on Sup Forums has seen Throne of Blood.
Sorry, but it's quite common. There has been quality Kurasowa discussion even just the past couple days in /film/ generals, and this film's always lauded in Shakespeare threads. There are, amongst the dredges of society, real fans of the medium here, welcome.
>The greatest writer in history is entry level
It's fantastic. Granted, I haven't seen Polanski's MacBeth yet, but I'd say it's almost as good as Throne of Blood. Certainly one of the best that I've seen using most of the original text. They give the Weird Sisters a story, which is something I've never seen before.
Not as good as Kurosawa's. Not as good as Polanski's version either.
It's okay, but mostly just exists to showcase the actors abilities without doing anything interesting with the source.
was it because they wanted to focus on macbeth himself more?
Sorry but the best Macbeth was Jonathan Pryce.
>They give the Weird Sisters a story
that's awesome! that's the kind of thing i've been waiting for!
>>The greatest writer in history is entry level
People started reading Shakespeare in high school.
I don't know what else could be more entry-level.
>probably 11$ max on ebay
The Lion King
Kozintsev's Hamlet and King Lear
Just because you read something in high school doesn't mean you can gain a deep understanding and appreciation of it. You read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in high school too, does that make either of them entry level legal texts?
>does that make either of them entry level legal texts?
Yes. What do you think entry-level means?
>The greatest writer in history is entry level
... because we all studied him in high school
Easily understood by beginners.
Broken Arrow.
Reading is not the same thing as studying.
Isn't that why Shakespeare is taught in high school?
yes you're prescribed his texts to read in high school because you study his works in the following classes
Pretty good. Top notch visual direction.
>we will never see Tarkovsky's Hamlet
Ninety percent of students that read Shakespeare in high school don't understand a single line of it. Most of them think that Romeo and Juliet is a love story. There are entire acts in his plays that take numerous readings to even begin to understand them.
Yes, you can 'get' the basic plot, character motivations and story, but to actually gain a deeper understanding takes a lot of time. There's nothing 'entry level' about them. High school students used to read the Republic, too, does that make Plato entry level?
>Ninety percent of students that read Shakespeare in high school don't understand a single line of it.
Ninety percent of students who study anything don't understand a thing.
>High school students used to read the Republic, too, does that make Plato entry level?
Again, yes. The Greeks are always where you begin if you want to study philosophy.
*anything in high school
>does that make Plato entry level?
he is though
that's why you begin with his works when you study philsophy
>We will never see Branaugh's Leer or Tempest
It just keeps getting worse
Never say never until they put him in the ground.
Branagh makes capeshit now
I fucking hate people like you who use "entry level" as some kind of insult because you don't understand what it means.
Plato is entry level, dumb cunt.
Bela Tarr's Macbeth
He made one cape movie. Joss Whedon went from the Avengers to Much Ado About Nothing, and did a pretty good job with it. Not as good as Branagh's, but at least it didn't have Keanu Reeves in it.
Keanu honestly wasn't that bad
>Plato isn't entry level
What philosopher would you consider entry level then?
I think you're treating the phrase "entry level" from the point of view of the general public. Of course, Shakespeare and Plato would be difficult for most people to grasp. But that's not what entry level means. It refers to those works that are encountered when first specializing in a field. Thus Plato is entry level for someone studying philosophy, just like Shakespeare is for an English literature student or Kurosawa is for a film student.
>ran
This is probably my pic for best non-western adaptation of Shakespeare
Yes, he really was.
I'm not one of those people that says that he's one of the worst actors in the business, because he honestly tries. He puts a lot of effort into everything that he does. He put a lot of effort into Much Ado. But effort isn't all that you bring to Shakespeare.
Hell, even experienced, noteworthy and capable actors aren't guaranteed to do a good job with Shakespeare. It takes training and dedication to really bring his words to life.
Keanu just wasn't the man for that role, and something tells me that Branagh knew that, which is why he gave him such a small part, and why he trimmed that part down as much as possible.
>I am a man of few words.
GOOD.
...
I know I'm inviting mega >shitpost on this by saying but the proverbs out of the old testament is probably what I would describe as 'entry level' philosophy
It literally shows at my local theatre its not obscure
The Proverbs are entry level in the derogatory sense. A child could understand them.
Old Testament more so than stuff in the New Testament? Not saying I disagree, just wondering what your thoughts are.
Even then you have to take in to account all of the other actors that have done shakrspeare and judge him on that, he wasn't as bad as John Leguizamo
Oh yes. No doubt of that. There are much better actors who have done far worse with Shakespeare. Leonardo di Caprio, for example. Though, I don't know who to really blame for that, him or the director.
...
That's not a philosopher
pretty sure the best shakespeare adaptation would be one that actually uses Shakespeare's words. you know, what made his work special.
Come the fuck on, Gerard Butler was horseshit in that.
I liked it, couldnt love it. Didnt like Gerard Butler because I couldnt fucking understand what he was saying sometimes, and you really need to enunciate words when doing Shakespeare or it doesnt work very well.
Tommy Boy is a great version of Hamlet
Surprised Titus hasn't been mentioned yet.
I am from Glasgow sounds fine for me senpai
Saw the play last night and had watched the movie prior, but I did not really get the idea that Lady Macbeth was cut out a lot. Am I just dense?
High schoolers honestly aren't even equipped to understand Shakespeare.
I get that you're attempting to appear "patrician" by criticizing Shakespeare, but he's legit the best writer ever, probably, and one of the smartest people who ever lived. The fact that high schools teach him doesn't mean casuals or average-IQ people are capable of appreciating it.
That's the real definition of entry level. Any idiot can get all that's worth getting from a Tarantino or Nolan movie. Therefore, they are entry-level. You can't say the same for Shakespeare. There's actual human insight underneath the surface level of his stories that takes thinking to put together.
High schools insist on teaching Shakespeare because he is so important, not because he is appropriate for high schoolers to study or "entry level."
It's as good as a Titus Andronicus adaptation can be. Aaron the Moor was fantastic, and Hopkins was at his batshit best. The final scene has been seared into my memory and will probably be my last thought as I shuffle off this mortal coil.
>I get that you're attempting to appear "patrician" by criticizing Shakespeare,
No one's criticizing him.
You retards still seem to think entry-level is an insult.
who /branagh/ here?
>kurosawa's entry-level samurai flicks
>genreshit
>kino
Try again pleb
Till the day I die, his version of Hamlet is by far the best adaptation of any if Shakespeare's works bar none
Severely underrated post
>dismissing some of the finest movies ever made as genreshit
And people say that Sup Forums isn't filled with hipster scum.
Not an insult, but it seems more functional if it means "easily understood by a beginner/average person/lay person."
There's no strict definition of the term, but Merriam Webster reads "at the lowest level; at the level of someone who is just starting a job or career." This wouldn't really apply to Shakespeare. His works aren't "at the lowest level" in any way, and you couldn't really describe them as "at the level of someone who is just starting" to appreciate literature. There's a great deal of lit that's more appropriate for some who's "just starting."
Being taught in high school doesn't mean it's "at the level" of a high schooler. I think entry level is thus a poor way to describe Shakespeare.
>and you couldn't really describe them as "at the level of someone who is just starting" to appreciate literature
But that's completely true.
Literally who has called Ran pleb for being in color
If anything, the vibrant colors make it even better. Ran would not be as good in black and white
It is really, really good genreshit, but still genreshit. Nowhere near the peaks his more serious efforts reach.
Yep. It's one of the most gorgeous movies ever made, and makes me wish I could send color film equipment back in time so that all of Kurosawa's movies could look as good as Ran does.
Okay, fair enough, but Kagemusha, Ran, the Seven Samurai, Rashomon...none of these movies deserve to be lumped into a homogeneous genre.
yeah but he barely had any significant screen time which lessened the damage, and Ralph Fiennes was GoAT
>he watches foreign flicks
pfff, look at this faggot
Yes.
is this the one where the centurions are armed with machine guns but wear otherwise traditional Roman armor?
This.
This hipster is you, Kurosawa boi
Post scenes women will NEVER understand:
A showcase for acting talent and visual beauty. A bit shallow and not as enjoyable as it should have been though. Really is amazingly beautiful at points and the acting is top tier tho.
Throne of Blood is great, but this was also quite good.
Ran
>tfw a Japanese director made the best film adaptations of English plays
Waitu Piggus BTFO.
There are people on this board who haven't seen Throne of Blood?
Also
>favorite Shakespeare play is A Midsummer Night's Dream
>no adaptation exists that makes me feel the kind of magic I felt when I used to read the play as a kid
Then again I've only seen like 3 of them.
fucking maggot. your mother never loved you
Amen on all points. I can't say it's the best ever, but I have had the strongest emotional response to this adaptation of all I've seen. Plus, Taymor's visuals are amazing. Remind me of the final scene?
I can't recall that detail, but the film takes place in an alternate universe that is part fascist Italy, part ancient Rome, so probably.
There is no good film adaptation of A Midsummer Night's Dream
Olivier's Richard III as a performance is superb, the film itself is sub-par
I sure hope not cause Throne of Blood fucking sucked.
I've seen almost all of them but didn't watch Throne for some reason.
Hidden Fortress is best.