|
He also punched up Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. “We are pilgrims in an unholy land,” is a line that is WAY too good for the rest of the movie. They play was hard to read, I didn’t make it through. Is there a decent recording of a performance?
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2018 16:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 17:54 |
|
|
Last Crusade is actually classic Stoppard, once you're looking for it. Somebody could :zizek: the way its themes cut across multiple levels and make some real hay. This really feels like a play that needs to be seen, much like R&G are Dead
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2018 22:21
|
|
|
With apologies to the guys who trawl the board looking for genre fiction to insult, this link explains how Stoppard was able to turn a mediocre screenplay into quality entertainment. https://creativescreenwriting.com/indiana-jones-and-the-last-crusade-learning-from-stoppard/ Tying together the father and son, and their reconciliation, with the quest for the physical Grail, which itself represents illumination/enlightenment, was smart. But it’s the snappy dialogue and pacing, which the super smart Lit people dismiss as workman’s craft, that shows Stoppard really gets story. R&G is a good example of his dialogue. Hell, the 90s film Maverick, written by the late W Goldman, has the same level of quality, character-based banter that makes visual media pop so well.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2018 18:29
|
|
|
Read the link or don’t I don’t care
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2018 18:48
|
|
|
Are Oscar Wilde plays “literary”? Is Double Indemnity, or Raymond Chandler? Is Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, or All the apresidents Men? Why or why not? What parts of their craft are good, and which are just entertaining? Is there a difference? The NY Times Obit of William Goldman said that, if he hadn’t been a screenwriter with an ear for dialogue, he’d have been remembered as an also-ran second tier novelist. Do you agree?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 20, 2018 19:00
|
|
|
cebrail posted:Even the main emotion vs. academia debate seemed a bit trite to me. I guess that's more a problem with the piece itself than with the format. I had the same reaction, and I'd much rather watch than read a play that relies so heavily on the mise en scene as a core component of the message. I also agree on the emotion vs. intellectual knowledge debate being cliche, and wonder if the experience of the play would be better than just reading it, maybe making it strike a better chord. Also Indiana Jones jumps from a horse onto a tank and it kicks rear end
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2018 23:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 17:54 |
|
|
It just isn't postmodernism if it doesn't misexplain and then draw the wrong conclusions from basic 20th C. science. Fake edit: To be less pithy, R&G is awesome but I can't imagine trying to read it, or seeing it without a decent memory of Hamlet. I had the same thought here: Who is this play for? People who know who Byron is, and have a casual interest in science but don't really understand math, who will see a play about academics in the '90s instead of a movie... is the intended audience liberal arts PhDs?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2018 01:19
|
|