Print

Print


Peter Latham wonders if there is a difference in the "poetic license" granted
to Shakespeare in HENRY V and Oliver Stone's in NIXON.
 
 
In the larger scheme of things, I'd say no.  But (of course) there are
signficant differences.  WS wrote his play to support the Tudor claim to
the throne and crafted a villain of nearly pure evil which continues to
fascinate people as a literary character (and I, for one, can't wait for
Ian McKellen's version to hit the screen).
 
On the other hand, Stone speculates on a few things (the Cuba connection,
pillow talk with Pat) but doesn't stray *too* far from the public facts
(at least as they've been authorized by several books and the tapes themselves).
And Hopkins, I think, does a great job in a demanding part--all the more
demanding in that he looks and sounds very little like RMN.  But I also think
NIXON is the biggest mess of a film that Stone has yet produced.
 
There was actually an Op-ed piece in the Minneapolis STAR TRIBUNE the other
day offering a "review" of HENRY V as though Stone had created it.  It was
humorous enough, but I 've read Shakespeare, I've seen Shakespeare.  Oliver
Stone is no Shakespeare!
 
Don Larsson, Mankato State U (MN)
 
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]