"Shakespeare was the Spielberg of his day"

[BrokenVisage]

Originally posted by: homercles337
This is such a silly comparison. Spielberg is not even in the same league as Shakespeare. Anyone who can even imagine such a comparison is a retard.

Your post is short, yet dripping with ignorance and arrogance about a man you only know from the plays he's written. :roll:

Spielberg is one of our generations most creative and best directors, and very well may be the best still alive. The comparison is NOT retarded when you consider the work each has put into their craft and what their craft meant to the people in each ones respected time. In Shakespeare's day, the theater was their version of going to the movies, so please tell me why it's retarded to compare two people who helped create pieces of work based on displays of story telling and acting of their time? You can say Shakespeare was BETTER at it (very debatable based on what Spielberg has done) but to say there can be no comparison is simply ignorant.

Get your 'leagues' straight before making such a moronic post next time.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: Auryg

Originally posted by: Eeezee
Shakespeare invented most of the modern English language. Keep that in mind. And if you've ever read a Shakespeare play (assuming you're able to understand some of the older terminology, like the word "nunnery"), it's not too difficult envisioning why Spielberg isn't nearly as awesome as Shakespeare.

There's a difference between making something with "mass-market appeal" and making a masterpiece. Both have can be very popular, but there's a monumental difference between E.T. and Hamlet.

Also, to my knowledge, Spielberg did not write any of the works that he directed or produced. That's a key difference that places Shakespeare in a higher category of talent.

And finally, Spielberg is no better than Lucas in the sense that he revised earlier films and fundamentally altered their artistic content. I don't believe Shakespeare ever did that; rewriting a play is not quite the same, as that is done before the release, which is exactly what Spielberg should have done if he wanted all of the guys in E.T. to hold walkie talkies instead of guns. Art is supposed to portray a message, and when E.T. was made it really wasn't a big deal to have guns in a children's movie. Frankly, that's important from a historical standpoint. It demonstrates our continued spiral toward absolute insulation of our children, but that's a debate that can wait for another thread.

Most of the English language? Hardly. A few words and sayings isn't most of the the language.

I hate how Shakepeare is beaten into us. I'm not an English major or anything - but I don't find anything all that special from his writing. The stories were cliche, even back then. Romeo and Juliet in a sentence - Hi, I love you, lets go die.

The English language, writing, and art of storytelling have advanced since then. It's an interesting look back at history, but we can't really look back and marvel at his great writing and stories.

He didn't write the plots, he adapted popular stories from the European tradition.

But still it's impossible to overestimate Shakespeare. Basically, he invented the modern man. One of the greatest 10 minds to ever live on this planet.

Most people fail to understand what is special about Shakespeare because they don't know what to look for. He wasn't a man of literature, he was a man of theater. And in that, he is still the greatest ever.

 

[HardcoreRomantic]

I really see nothing spectacular about Shakespeare (at least his plays... sonnets are another story). Shakespeare wrote form plays that appealed to a large audience during his time. Many of his plays were based on stories that had been told for hundreds of years. Take Romeo & Juliet. There have been loads of stories like this around forever. It basically ripped off a well known Roman tragedy that had been around for centuries, he just brought it into a current time. He wrote what people wanted to see. How else would he survive? Of course, we won't know if Stephen Spielberg can be put in the same category with Shakespeare until we see if his work as any lasting power. But he's basically doing the same thing Shakespeare was: creating entertainment that has mass appeal.

 

[ultimatebob]

They're kind of possible to compare, since late 16th/early 17th century theater and late 20th/early 21st century film are so different.

Who knows what Shakespeare could have written if he had the special effects and editing technology that we have now? My hunch is that his tragedies would be like "300" with harder to understand dialogue, but it's impossible to know for certain.

 

[BrownTown]

I don't necessarily think there is any real reason to assume that Shakespeare's works are so much better just because he will likely be a much more well know figure throughout history. I'm sure in his day there were many other people writing great plays just as today many people are writing great movies, which ones go down in history as classics doesn't necessarily reflect which ones are the best. Look at the writings we have from ancient days, there is a huge amount of luck simply in having the writings of a certain person found. So maybe in 2000 years all the movies of this area in the world will be destroyed except for some cr@p movie like "baseketball" and so people 2000 years from now will consider "basketball" to be the defining art form of our time.

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
I don't necessarily think there is any real reason to assume that Shakespeare's works are so much better just because he will likely be a much more well know figure throughout history. I'm sure in his day there were many other people writing great plays just as today many people are writing great movies, which ones go down in history as classics doesn't necessarily reflect which ones are the best. Look at the writings we have from ancient days, there is a huge amount of luck simply in having the writings of a certain person found. So maybe in 2000 years all the movies of this area in the world will be destroyed except for some cr@p movie like "baseketball" and so people 2000 years from now will consider "basketball" to be the defining art form of our time.

Well, it's not like we lost all the plays written by other authors in Shakespeare's times... Shakespeare stood the test of time because his work speak of man, regardless of time. He will be represented on stage 500 years from now just like Euripides or Aeschylus are represented now, 2500 years after their deaths.

Also I don't get why they are comparing Shakespeare to Spielberg... Spielberg doesn't write his films, he just directs or produces them.

Now we have a culture of consumption, Film in particular. Movies now are being created to appeal to a specific contemporary audience... so it's very unlikely that you'll have anything created now that will still be in the same league of the great ones of the past 100 years from now.

In Film, Kubrick might. Truffaut might. But in general the cultural landscape of out time its quite desolating. Even in other arts our society seems unable to create the heights of genius you had in the past.

Art is now a matter of sociology or anthropology only. We still study and enjoy Roman and Greek theater or sculpture because those authors were immense minds. Same for the painters and sculptors of the Renaissance. They simply were the best minds in their fields to ever have lived on this earth.
Now there's nobody to even compare them to. You have no Mozart, no Da Vinci, no Goethe, no Michelangelo. Our Opera houses and concert halls are filled with music at least 50 years old, and often much older. The contemporary artists selling their stuff in art galleries blush and feel ashamed to compare themselves to Raphael or Caravaggio.

Our time seems to have lost the capacity to create real art. We only create disposable art unable to be remembered after a couple of decades.

The only art form to have emerged in the last 100 years with works on par with the greats of the past is Afro-american music, where men like John Coltrane, Bill Evans or Charlie Parker explored the complexities of harmony and melody along similar paths of the great Russian composers of the beginning of the 20th century, with different results but nevertheless with that sparkle of immortality that should let their work stand the test of time centuries from now.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: homercles337
This is such a silly comparison. Spielberg is not even in the same league as Shakespeare. Anyone who can even imagine such a comparison is a retard.

Your post is short, yet dripping with ignorance and arrogance about a man you only know from the plays he's written. :roll:

Spielberg is one of our generations most creative and best directors, and very well may be the best still alive. The comparison is NOT retarded when you consider the work each has put into their craft and what their craft meant to the people in each ones respected time. In Shakespeare's day, the theater was their version of going to the movies, so please tell me why it's retarded to compare two people who helped create pieces of work based on displays of story telling and acting of their time? You can say Shakespeare was BETTER at it (very debatable based on what Spielberg has done) but to say there can be no comparison is simply ignorant.

Get your 'leagues' straight before making such a moronic post next time.

Holy shit, this has to be the most retarded post i have *ever* read here. Seriously, were you dropped on your head repetitively as a child? Its also blindingly clear that you have never read or studied Shakespeare. I knew a thread like this would bring out the retards in full force. Are you their leader?

 

[athithi]

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage
Spielberg >>>>>>>...>>> Shakespeare

Saving Private Ryan >>>[snipped teen angst]...>>> Shakespeare in Love

SPR was such a piece of crap. Except for the cinematography and the action choreography, the movie was utterly worthless - a pathetic attempt to pull at your hearstrings. SiL OTOH was a very clever comedy and its only drawback was a constantly twitching Gwyneth Paltrow.

Speilberg is one of the most talented movie-makers, no doubt. But he is also such a sell-out.

 

[Chaotic42]

There's no way to tell. If, in a few hundred years, people are studying Spielberg in college, people are analysing his works to death, and children are watching his movies in the fifth grade, then perhaps.

I still think Spielberg deserves to be flung into the ocean for that new War of the Worlds movie.

 

[Sunner]

One basic problem with making such a comparison is that you'll end up with two major camps:
The quasi intellectual who will dismiss pretty much anything that's even remotely mainstream, simply because it is mainstream(ish), not because of the qualities it has or doesn't have.
They would dismiss Spielberg's works even if by some spiritual force Shakespeare was resurrected and told the world that Spielberg's works were pure genius.

And the opposite camp are the people who can never appreciate the quality of something they don't personally enjoy, and who don't happen to enjoy Shakespeare.
So they'll call it boring crap no matter what.

And most others won't care, and will silently continue to enjoy whatever they prefer

 

[BeauJangles]

I don't understand why people balk at this comparison. Shakespeare wrote for (what he hoped was) mass appeal. His plays were ENTERTAINMENT. People didn't go to see them thinking "wow, let's go watch this because it will still be culturally relevent hundreds of years later." People watched Shakespeare because his plays were entertaining, and catered to popular desires of the day.

Spielberg is no different. His writing may not live on, forever analyzed by English classes, but I think that points to a divergence in our modern society between "academic" and "entertainment" writing. Regardless, on a basic level both sought to entertain those around them and produce entertaining plays / movies. Shakespeare's work, completely unintentionally, became famous hundreds of years later.

 

[Aikouka]

Shakespeare's the only playwright that I can actually stand to read so far and I find it hard to find a play of his that I don't like.

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage

Originally posted by: Zugzwang152

Originally posted by: BrokenVisage
Spielberg >>>>>>>...>>> Shakespeare

Saving Private Ryan >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>...>>> Shakespeare in Love

Where the hell did you get the idea that Shakespeare wrote Shakespear in Love?

Where the hell did you get the idea that I had the idea that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare in Love? I was merely stating that in my opinion Shakespeare in Love is a cheesy, overrated romance film that isn't in the same atmosphere as SPR, which was directed by Spielberg and DESERVED Best Picture of that year over an obnoxious, artsy piece of crap. That's all.

Because you f-ing said Spielberg >>>>>> Shakespeare and then said Saving Private Ryan, a movie by Spielberg, was >>>>>>>>> than Shakespeare in Love, a movie not by Shakespeare nor even a story written by Shakespeare. Usually when people compare something, they compare like things.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: Sunner
One basic problem with making such a comparison is that you'll end up with two major camps:
The quasi intellectual who will dismiss pretty much anything that's even remotely mainstream, simply because it is mainstream(ish), not because of the qualities it has or doesn't have.
They would dismiss Spielberg's works even if by some spiritual force Shakespeare was resurrected and told the world that Spielberg's works were pure genius.

And the opposite camp are the people who can never appreciate the quality of something they don't personally enjoy, and who don't happen to enjoy Shakespeare.
So they'll call it boring crap no matter what.

And most others won't care, and will silently continue to enjoy whatever they prefer

So you fall squarely in the "quasi intellectual" crowd? Shakespeare was wildly popular in his time. Yes, mainstream if you will.

FTR, i was an english lit minor in college and took multiple Shakespeare classes taught by top scholars. Google Rasmussen and Hamlet. He was one of the best instructors i had in college.

 

[GenHoth]

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: BrownTown
I don't necessarily think there is any real reason to assume that Shakespeare's works are so much better just because he will likely be a much more well know figure throughout history. I'm sure in his day there were many other people writing great plays just as today many people are writing great movies, which ones go down in history as classics doesn't necessarily reflect which ones are the best. Look at the writings we have from ancient days, there is a huge amount of luck simply in having the writings of a certain person found. So maybe in 2000 years all the movies of this area in the world will be destroyed except for some cr@p movie like "baseketball" and so people 2000 years from now will consider "basketball" to be the defining art form of our time.

Well, it's not like we lost all the plays written by other authors in Shakespeare's times... Shakespeare stood the test of time because his work speak of man, regardless of time. He will be represented on stage 500 years from now just like Euripides or Aeschylus are represented now, 2500 years after their deaths.

Also I don't get why they are comparing Shakespeare to Spielberg... Spielberg doesn't write his films, he just directs or produces them.

Now we have a culture of consumption, Film in particular. Movies now are being created to appeal to a specific contemporary audience... so it's very unlikely that you'll have anything created now that will still be in the same league of the great ones of the past 100 years from now.

In Film, Kubrick might. Truffaut might. But in general the cultural landscape of out time its quite desolating. Even in other arts our society seems unable to create the heights of genius you had in the past.

Art is now a matter of sociology or anthropology only. We still study and enjoy Roman and Greek theater or sculpture because those authors were immense minds. Same for the painters and sculptors of the Renaissance. They simply were the best minds in their fields to ever have lived on this earth.
Now there's nobody to even compare them to. You have no Mozart, no Da Vinci, no Goethe, no Michelangelo. Our Opera houses and concert halls are filled with music at least 50 years old, and often much older. The contemporary artists selling their stuff in art galleries blush and feel ashamed to compare themselves to Raphael or Caravaggio.

Our time seems to have lost the capacity to create real art. We only create disposable art unable to be remembered after a couple of decades.

The only art form to have emerged in the last 100 years with works on par with the greats of the past is Afro-american music, where men like John Coltrane, Bill Evans or Charlie Parker explored the complexities of harmony and melody along similar paths of the great Russian composers of the beginning of the 20th century, with different results but nevertheless with that sparkle of immortality that should let their work stand the test of time centuries from now.

:thumbsup:

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: Sunner
One basic problem with making such a comparison is that you'll end up with two major camps:
The quasi intellectual who will dismiss pretty much anything that's even remotely mainstream, simply because it is mainstream(ish), not because of the qualities it has or doesn't have.
They would dismiss Spielberg's works even if by some spiritual force Shakespeare was resurrected and told the world that Spielberg's works were pure genius.

And the opposite camp are the people who can never appreciate the quality of something they don't personally enjoy, and who don't happen to enjoy Shakespeare.
So they'll call it boring crap no matter what.

And most others won't care, and will silently continue to enjoy whatever they prefer

So you fall squarely in the "quasi intellectual" crowd? Shakespeare was wildly popular in his time. Yes, mainstream if you will.

FTR, i was an english lit minor in college and took multiple Shakespeare classes taught by top scholars. Google Rasmussen and Hamlet. He was one of the best instructors i had in college.

Either my English isn't too good(in which case you'll have to forgive me, it's not my native language after all), or you spent some time sleeping in your English classes.
Where did I dismiss either of them?

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
I don't understand why people balk at this comparison. Shakespeare wrote for (what he hoped was) mass appeal. His plays were ENTERTAINMENT. People didn't go to see them thinking "wow, let's go watch this because it will still be culturally relevent hundreds of years later." People watched Shakespeare because his plays were entertaining, and catered to popular desires of the day.

Spielberg is no different. His writing may not live on, forever analyzed by English classes, but I think that points to a divergence in our modern society between "academic" and "entertainment" writing. Regardless, on a basic level both sought to entertain those around them and produce entertaining plays / movies. Shakespeare's work, completely unintentionally, became famous hundreds of years later.

Again, Spielberg does not write his movies.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
I don't understand why people balk at this comparison. Shakespeare wrote for (what he hoped was) mass appeal. His plays were ENTERTAINMENT. People didn't go to see them thinking "wow, let's go watch this because it will still be culturally relevent hundreds of years later." People watched Shakespeare because his plays were entertaining, and catered to popular desires of the day.

Spielberg is no different. His writing may not live on, forever analyzed by English classes, but I think that points to a divergence in our modern society between "academic" and "entertainment" writing. Regardless, on a basic level both sought to entertain those around them and produce entertaining plays / movies. Shakespeare's work, completely unintentionally, became famous hundreds of years later.

Again, Spielberg does not write his movies.

touche.

 

[torpid]

I don't think spielberg is at the same level as shakespeare. I don't even think he's the best living american filmmaker - that has got to be martin scorsese. In order to be the equivalent of shakespeare, you'd have to have someone with films as popular as spielberg's that contributed as much to film as kurosawa, orson welles, ord kubrick. No one really comes close. Maybe John Ford?

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: torpid
I don't think spielberg is at the same level as shakespeare. I don't even think he's the best living american filmmaker - that has got to be martin scorsese. In order to be the equivalent of shakespeare, you'd have to have someone with films as popular as spielberg's that contributed as much to film as kurosawa, orson welles, ord kubrick. No one really comes close. Maybe John Ford?

At a certain point, Tarantino seemed on the right way to achieve something like that. Popular success and true artistic value of his work. Too bad he kinda fell short on this expectations lately.

Inarritu today is arguably the most shining promise of contemporary film... but yeah, Shakespeare... come on, that's basically unfair for anybody to be compared to him.

You'd need to merge Welles, Kubrick, Fellini and Kurosawa to get something close to the capacity of Shakespeare to talk to each man, every man, regardless of culture, time and knowledge.

Shakespeare had the terrific capacity of writing in layers. Peasants could follow just the plot and be entertained, erudite people could understand the references to politics, literature and culture of his time. Everybody could feel the tremendous power of his words. And on top of this there was a natural talent for playwriting, because Shakespeare was a man of theater not a man of literature. A natural sense of what works on stage forged all his plays.

Very different from Shakespeare, but similar today in his capacity to talk to a very broad audience while portraying the world he lives in might be Harold Pinter. But his carachter is in fact almost opposite of that of Shakespeare.

 

[astralusion]

shakespeare = michael bay

 

[mattpegher]

Although, Shakespear wrote plays, It was still his writing that survives not any particular production of his work. Modern day blockbuster directors/producers rarely write their own stuff. Then would they be as impressive without the visual media that presents them. If you wish to compare, you need to refer to the writers, such as George Lukas or Stephen King. Still Shakespears works have persisted purely in the power of their stories. Many modern day readers have a disconnect due to style of speach, so many of the jokes, puns and eloquences are lost in translation.
I'm not so sure that the starwars story would be so popular if it began as purely a book.
If you have to think about a writer who lived more recently to compare to I would think King, or Tolkeen, or how about Douglas Adams.