🚀 go-pugleaf

"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message 
news:bf3ef1d4mnb1ommaetivjnp3lqrl2ebt5a@4ax.com...
> "Comm" <no@spam.com> wrote:
>>Oh, you really stepped in it this time, LMAO - see in.
>>"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
>>news:5908f154gtdip5hqnr8g4kv9jhoe4875dc@4ax.com...
>>> "Comm" <no@spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>And you are telling me that NONE of his plays were dubbed or done in
>>>>French?
>>>>German?  Italian? Japanese? or other languages?
>>>
>>> When they are, they are considered inferior.
>>
>>INFERIOR?  Uh, and by whom are they branded Inferior?
>
> By people who have the language skill allowing them the
> choice to read the translation or the original.

OK, Bob.
But soft, what light by yonder window breaks.
Shshsh, what is that light in the window over there?

Wherefore art thou Romeo?
Where are you, Romeo?

There is no inferior superior here.  They are equally GOOD.  What I thought 
was NOT good was the most recent R and J I saw with his brand of English 
coming out of the mouths of people in a modern disco and modern setting - it 
was downright DUMB.  I didn't even watch the whole thing, it sucked so bad. 
Yet people made it, actors were in it - it was on cable TV, HBO or SHO.

You know - people also asked how come on Stargate Atlantis all those humans 
in that other galaxy (related to us on earth) and even the villianous Wraith 
speak English.  Well, heh, the answer was very simple.  It's a royal pain in 
the damned ass to subtitle it when people want to WATCH, not read - and it's 
just easier to cut to the chase instead of explaining that everyone has a 
translation device on them.  And it also cuts to the chase by eliminating 
the 3rd person translator.  The most tiresome shit I thought was in the Star 
Wars thing was all that bee oobbooppo eoe ooo ooo and then the subtitle as 
r2d2 made his noises.  Stupid.


>
>>By whom?  I'm not
>>really asking a question here.  I'm being 100% sarcastic.  INFERIOR, hey?
>>The fact is, his plays have never BEEN done that way  - the way I said.
>>Somehow or other, they manage to muck it all up by changing the damned 
>>plot
>>and action.
>
> Based on what you say below, there seem to be two issues here.  One is
> the claim that the plays are not translated into modern (or foreign)
> language, and the other is that the plays are not *performed* in
> modern (or foreign) language translation.

No, I'd like to see the plays done as a movie, on TV, exactly as Shakespeare 
wrote them for time/place/people/costume - but with modern English as the 
language used.  Masterpiece Theater could easily do such a thing.  People 
would watch it.
>
> http://www.kith.org/logos/words/upper3/FFFardels.html
> addresses some of the problems with producing a quality translation -
> idiom and puns and wordplay and sound quality are difficult to
> preserve in translation, and the shelf-life of a "modern" translation
> is about one generation whereas the originals are immortal.
>
> I suspect that if a writer is skilled enough to do a quality
> translation, s/he is probably too skilled to be satisfied to merely do
> so.  For the same or probably more money, and for greatly increased
> esteem from peers and society, s/he can produce a new play.  While
> quality translation is difficult, people who pay the bills don't see
> it as being as difficult as the cost/time/expertise actually required
> to do a good job turns out to be.  So they'll ask how good a
> translation they can get for $X, and the answer will be "not good
> enough to attract an audience".

Oh come on.  My HS English teacher was able to very easily READ MacBeth to 
students in modern English as she looked at the original.  It's not that 
hard.  She did it in order that she'd be sure everyone in the class clearly 
understood the play - no exceptions.
>
>>> It is possible to find Shakespeare where all the words are translated
>>> into modern English.
>>> http://www.shakespeare2000.com/
>>> http://www.nosweatshakespeare.com/
>>>
>>> and many others.
>>
>>I don't want to read it (again),  Bob.  I want to WATCH it.  Big 
>>difference
>>there.  Some people, especially innately analytical readers, have a very
>>hard time "picturing" when they read a text.  I have a hard time.  I can
>>read about 3 big (how big? compared to what?) ships going to some island.
>>Fine.  I can't SEE 3 big ships going to an island.  I can't SEE the 
>>island,
>>either.  What I am asking for is very very simple.
>
> And this is other issue - not translation, but performance.  Around
> here, professional theater productions cost $25-$100 per seat, and the
> bottom line is that the professional theater producers don't think
> that they can get an audience willing to fill the theater at those
> prices to pay for what the actors AND the producers recognize will be
> faux Shakespeare.  It doesn't suit their artistic muse, and there
> isn't enough market for professional Shakespeare in the first place,
> either on the performer side or the audience side.  Even Shakespeare
> Festival theater groups generally only put on a few of the bard's
> plays each year, adding other quality plays to the repertoire to bring
> the audience to buy season tickets, and to keep the actors satisfied
> as well.  Professional actors won't be satisfied with a mediocre
> translation, and even a good translation won't attract the audience
> that the original attracts at the same prices.

I'm not talking about a play.  I'm talking about a movie for TV.   Do the 
actors and actresses that play roles on Masterpiece Threater get a lot of 
money?  Who knows.  But they do put on some good stuff the times I caught a 
show.  Heh, if Brad Pitt did Romeo they'd fill the threater :)  What do you 
mean no market for kings and queens and such? (or did Sylvia say that?) - 
what about Conan type movies - they draw a pretty big crowd.
>
> At which point you look at amateur theater.  School dramas are going
> to focus on the originals because their purposes is more education
> than entertainment, and independent theater groups are looking to
> entertain their unpaid actors as much as their audience - and those
> unpaid actors aren't motivated to perform faux Shakespeare when they
> can do the real thing.
>
> If you think that I am wrong, and that there is a market niche for
> performing a quality (or non-quality) modern translation of
> Shakespeare, by all means go for it.

I don't have the resources for MAKING such a thing.   But many people do. 
Hell, if they could make West Side Story (they changed it to ethnic shit) - 
why not just make Romeo and Juliet in modern English with the same actors in 
it?  People WOULD have watched it.

Producers are always surprised at what becomes a big hit - btw.  They are 
also shocked when something 100% predicted to "gonna be a BIG hit" goes and 
crashes on them as a flop.
>
> lojbab
> -- 
> lojbab                                             lojbab@lojban.org
> Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
> (Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
> Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:                 http://www.lojban.org