Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 09:46:36 +0930
Dear Mark -
Hello from Australia - yes, I have seen the recent film version of Romeo
and Juliet (is there anyone left on the planet who hasn't?) And it is a
beaut film - Luhrmann is one of my favourites - I particularly liked the
whole gang warfare thing, but why do you call it a postmodern reading of
Shakespeare? I'd be interested to know - help me get a grip on this whole
Regards, Brigid Venables.
On Thu, 22 May 1997, Mark Holloway wrote:
> I think you have to subscribe to a bit of romanticism to read such things
> as "victories". And few of us are romantic these days...anyone seen the
> recent film version of Romeo and Juliet? I think its quite a clever film;
> my favourite postmodern reading of Shakespeare so far! And its possible
> to read the film as a deromanticising of something that has become a
> cliche. Actually its a really interesting film to talk about but thats
> not why I'm writing...it would be pointless for me to continue if nobody
> else had seen it...
> Yes, well...the point I was going to make was this...the examples of
> Thelma & Louise, Princess de Cleves, Romeo and Juliet, Antony & Cleopatra
> etc. (the list could just go on and on) show that notions of "victory"
> and "defeat" are never concrete, and never mutually exclusive.
> Thanks for all your comments/suggestions so far. I think it was Colin who
> mentioned Spivak? I'm quite familiar with The Rani of Sirmur and,
> spookily enough, the figure of the Rani provides another ambiguity.
> Self-immolation offers her an act of subversion/defiance in relation to
> the colonisers, yet it is also an act (a silent act at that) of
> compliance with a phallocentric culture which subordinates her as a
> woman. As you say yourself, Colin, its a matter of interpretation. The
> ethical framework we place around her constructs her as rebel or victim.
> And always she is both.