tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7581099872724683650.post8850398536696790343..comments2024-01-20T05:36:17.500-06:00Comments on Bardfilm: Hamlet and A Game of Chesskjhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14863005904313974654noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7581099872724683650.post-17108484561384877582009-09-18T12:10:05.730-05:002009-09-18T12:10:05.730-05:00A new post addresses the issues more completely.
...A <a href="http://bardfilm.blogspot.com/2009/09/revisiting-shakespeare-in-bush.html" rel="nofollow">new post</a> addresses the issues more completely.<br /><br />Thanks!<br /><br />kjkjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14863005904313974654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7581099872724683650.post-56606023761692172142009-07-06T06:19:14.351-05:002009-07-06T06:19:14.351-05:00Thank you very much, Christopher, for the stellar ...Thank you very much, Christopher, for the stellar questions!<br /><br />I find that, like a bad player of chess, I was trying to think three moves ahead and have neglected the game immediately before me. In thinking about addressing cultural transmigrations of Shakespeare, I didn't articulate my analogy as clearly as I should have.<br /><br />I also find that I need more space (and more time) to comment fully on your good comments.<br /><br />Briefly, the analogy can break down. But the thing to avoid is slavish devotion to the text—saying Olivier's <i>Hamlet</i> isn't <i>Hamlet</i> because it has neither Rosencrantz nor Guildenstern.<br /><br />Would a game of chess still be chess if one player agreed to be handicapped by starting without a queen? The game would still be recognizable as chess—but would it <i>be</i> chess or would it just be <i>like</i> chess?<br /><br />Along similar lines, is a derivative version of a Shakespeare play still that Shakespeare play? And how much of the play can you change or abandon before it becomes something else?<br /><br />Perhaps the rigidity I mention needs to be more flexible. Or perhaps I put it that way because I object to the implications of "Shakespeare in the Bush" (about which I'll be posting at some point this week) are that non-western cultures can't understand Shakespeare—or that what they understand isn't Shakespeare any more.<br /><br />Again, thanks for the good, thoughtful, valid comments! I'll try to address them more fully in my next post!<br /><br />kjkjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14863005904313974654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7581099872724683650.post-56414861891695627802009-07-04T14:34:38.471-05:002009-07-04T14:34:38.471-05:00"Some would argue that these incremental chan..."Some would argue that these incremental changes eventually become large enough that Hamlet is no longer what is being portrayed. Instead (they argue), the Shakespeare has been lost. I disagree..."<br /><br />But doesn't that break down your analogy? I mean, if the way you portray Gertrude is analogous to how you prefer to use your queen in a game of chess (does she sit in the corner exerting pressure or is she gobbling up pawns in the center), naturally as you point out that affects the role the other pieces must play, but you're still playing chess. Certainly, if you choose yellow and blue for the board colors the game looks different, but is still chess. <br /><br />But if you allow the queen to move as the knight does, or add a few extra squares to the board, then is it still the same game? If the plot is analogous to the rules of the game, then you can't change it much and still call it the same play.<br /><br />You say "The virtually-unlimited possibilities—within (and this is most vital) a rigid structure—ensures continual fascination.", but then in your last paragraph imply that you aren't actually interested in maintaining that rigid structure. To me, chess variants like Chess 960 and Fischer Random Chess are interesting, but they are not chess; They represent their own abstraction, no matter how closely related to the original game.<br /><br />So I think it's perfectly fair to say that exploring the possibilities and choices within the rigid structure of the play is fascinating, but it's the director's responsibility to respect and play by the rules. <br /><br />If I were to go see a Kasparov chess exhibition match and he started playing a game with the same pieces but different rules, I'd be the first to stand up and say "That's not Chess!"CRShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00155972391697013367noreply@blogger.com