Such stuff as dreams are made on … Trailer: The Tempest

WHOA. DUDE.

My reservations about gender-bending (and Russell Brand) aside, I’ve got to say, this looks utterly tremendous. The visual, as I understand it, is what Julie Taymor is all about. I wish there was a little bit more substance to the trailer, though. It’s not that I doubt Helen Mirren and the rest of her pedigreed cast, it’s just … I dunno. It’s Shakespeare. I’m touchy about it. I will, of course, be seeing this as soon as possible, though. Will you?

Advertisements

7 responses to “Such stuff as dreams are made on … Trailer: The Tempest

  1. Yes. Indubitably, yes.

  2. I’ll see this once I got a bit of break from work today. I had reservations about Brand too, but hopefully Mirren will make up for his casting.

  3. NIIIIICE. I’m especially excited because Mirren is presented as actually ANGRY – which, you know, she should be since she’s playing an angry character. But it’s so rare to see a woman being angry without being horrible or bitchy or overly-emotional or or or or. In this, at least, she appears to be angry in exactly the right kind of way.

    The Tempest is one of my least favorite WS plays, in no small part because Miranda is such a weak character. I’m curious to see if they do anything about that.

    • Mine too, and for the same reason! I was so excited to read it, and then completely disappointed when I did. Clearly, Taymor a. likes the obscure stuff (Titus) and b. is going for this one because of the opportunities effects/visuals-wise. Which is fine. As much as I love Dame Helen and am sure she will be fabulous, I don’t like the gender change here. I find it inappropriate within the context of the story, and just in general, somehow. Never mind all the theories about how Prospero represents Shax himself, “announcing his own retirement”…

      But it looks really cool. 🙂

      • What do you mean by inappropriate in the context of the story? Because my reaction – and I realize I’m pretty favorable toward gender-bending in general despite my own heavily feminine presentation – is that it’s kind of awesome. I can’t remember anything about the backstory that makes it seem off.

        Aaaand now I’m going to go read the link about your reservations, so maybe that will explain and I’ll shortly post a slightly embarrassed “oh yeah, sure” sort of comment.

      • Mainly, I mean the notion of a woman striking out on her own like that during Shakespeare’s time. If they had adapted it to more modern times I miiiight be on board with it, but I really hate it when they do that and then keep it vaguely Elizabethan. It just makes the whole thing absurd for me. Additionally, someone on another site brought up the fact that part of the backstory/characterization for Miranda is that she has never had any feminine influence. It’s a big part of who she is, that she was raised in such an isolated state by a father. Not that she’s a great character anyway, but by making it Prospera (ugh, so silly sounding) that gets completely thrown out the window. And yeah, seriously. Christopher Plummer is playing Prospero up in Toronto right this second, Derek Jacobi is still kicking … WHY??

      • Okay, sure, throw a stick and hit a great British actor of the right age. But still. In fact, I think it’s even better in some ways because of a. the protective mama factor, which is different than the protective papa factor and b. going back to the awesome presentation of an angry woman. Please, god, let it actually be an awesome presentation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s