I had never seen this movie, though I have always wanted to. It looked like one of those movies that the preview alone would cause me to be ill, but that the movie would actually have enough substance for me to enjoy. I did. I had to keep reminding myself that it was a movie and not to get so cynical about how unbelievable it all was, but I did find it artistically fun to watch. This is the type of movie that I am not sure I would be able to use in a high school but the interesting part is that is is based on a story that many know. It is a medieval myth that has been turned into an opera and now a feature film. It would be interesting to compare the different stories and see how the story changes or what each of them communicated differently about the same story. I thought, for example, that this movie showed the relationship between the two as an almost instantly deep love. The story was more about the aftermath, and not as much about the relationship. The main themes in this version were the effects of the aristocratic order... and sex.
Then, to see how it compared to some other versions I did a bit of research and found this picture. (a painting of Tristan and Isolde from almost 100 years ago)What does this picture say about the relationship between the two lovers? Does it capture them in a romantic moment? Is this a different relationship than the most current version of the story told? What advantages does a film maker have over an artist to convey the same story? What advantages does the artist have?
I just thought the colors were interesting, the way Tristan is presented is far more feminine than he would be for today's audiences. The picture also gave more of a sense of something artistic that perhaps the two shared, but that she, as the woman, remained lower in station than he. Interesting.
the part we'll remember...
12 years ago
No comments:
Post a Comment