MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W138755695

Classic Demolition: Why Shakespeare is Not Exactly 'Our Contemporary' or, 'Dude, Where's My Hankie?'

2002· article· en· W138755695 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
James M. Welsh

Notice bibliographique

RevueLiterature film quarterly · 2002
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary Criticism
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSermonLustPassionLiteratureArtDialecticPsychoanalysisPhilosophyArt historyTheologyPsychology
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Like Peter Shaffer's Mozart, I may be a vulgar man, but I do not lust after vulgar entertainments. Though my thesis here is not centrally about Nathaniel Hawthorne and Ronald Joffe, the adaptation of Scarlet Letter Joffe directed is a convenient paradigm for what Hollywood has done to a classic text, beautifully photographed, ornamented with splendid art direction, and, as the credits announce, loosely adapted. You may recall, it stars Gary Oldman as a hunky Reverend Mr. Dimmesdale, Robert Duvall (who has seen far better roles) as a psychotic Chillingworth who has gone native and is given to scalping lustful Puritans. and Demi Moore as a strangely liberated Hester Prynne. This is not a retelling of the story Hawthorne would recognize. movie would have more accurately been titled The Harlot Letter, or, Hester Fucked, for that is what Joffe's soft pornographic treatment is really about; that is its true content. What happens to Hester also happens to Hawthorne. Later on Hester is nearly raped by a randy Puritan named Brewster, but Hawthorne has been utterly raped. I mention Scarlet Letter of 1995 only because it is so campy and outrageous. It is not at all about language and literature, as will be clear when one revisits the scene in which Hester is so moved by the passion of Mr. Dimmesdale's sermon, which is fragmented and incoherent, no doubt because screenwriter Douglas Day Stewart would not have a clue about how to write a passionate sermon, particularly if it touched upon religion and morality: the fil in is primarily about infidelity (in more than one sense), revenge, and humping, and secondarily about witchcraft. intolerance, and colonial abuse. Stanley Kauffmann, a critic of taste far too ratified for the movies, really, even though he has reviewed them for decades for New Republic, has often protested the absurdity of attempting to adapt classic novels or plays to the cinema. If a literary or dramatic work has achieved a high level of near perfection in one medium, the best a film could hope to achieve is merely an approximate parallel statement that would be bound to fall short of the original achievement. Hollywood would do better to fix its sights on lesser works, such as the novels of Margaret Mitchell, Stephen King, or Mickey Spillane, or, a few notches better, Dashiell Hammett, Raymond Chandler, or James M. Cain. Hollywood should have the decency to let Nathaniel Hawthorne rest in peace. My thesis concerns not Hawthorne, however. so much as Shakespeare, whose plays were obviously written to be performed. In fact, the dialogue and poetry should work just as well on either stage or screen, if the actors are sufficiently gifted, and, in fact, Shakespeare has not fared too badly through the first century of cinema, despite the extravagant treatments of Derek Jarman, Baz Luhrmann. and Julie Taymor. All of these directors took liberties with the text, but all of them remained relatively faithful to Shakespeare's language. more recent trend, however, has been to update Shakespeare in such a way that the original language has been thoroughly changed, corrupted, and dismissed, which brings me back to my theme: cinematic rape and pillaging. Jan Kott entitled his groundbreaking book Shakespeare Our Contemporary, but in many ways the Bard is not really our contemporary. Two examples may suffice: Othello (2002) Directed by Geoffrey Sax, adapted by Andrew Davies for LTW and WGBH Boston, in association with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Cast: Eamonn Walker (John Othello), Keeley Hawes (Dessie Brabent), Ben Jago (Christopher Eccleston), Christopher Fox (PC Adey), Allan Cutts (PC Stiller), Patrick Myers (PC Gaunt), Del Synnott (PC Alan Roderick), Andrew Charleson (Tommy Rogers), Bill Paterson (Sinclair Carver), Nicholas Gecks (Home Secretary), Richard Coyle (Michael Cass), Carl McCrystal (Geoffrey), Tim Faraday (Chief Superintendent), Michelle Newell (Alma Carver), Rachael Stirling (Lulu), John Harding (Prime Minister), Gerrard McArthur (Jim Gordon), Joss Ackland (James Brabant), Anna Niland (Estelle). …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Communication savante, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,690
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0030,002
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0210,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,051
Tête enseignante GPT0,238
Écart entre enseignants0,187 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations4
Publié2002
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueLiterature film quarterlyMême sujetShakespeare, Adaptation, and Literary CriticismTravaux en français237 207