[Mid] Shakespeare In Love and Highlights

I greatly enjoyed the movie, "Shakespeare in Love". I thought it was
well written and acted, and had a great time watching it.

However, I heard a commentary on NPR today that got me to thinking.
The commentary was by Frank DeFord. He is a sports writer, and
although I really despise professional sports (ever since I discovered
that such sports broadcasts would always preempt my favorite science
fiction shows), I have found that I enjoyed Mr. DeFord's insightful
commentaries.

Today's talk was about how sports highlights are ruining the sports
profession because, since everyone is used to seeing highlights on
television news and the like, actually watching the game has become,
well, boring. Slam dunks are exciting, but free throws are boring.
Especially practicing free throws is boring. [I realize that not
everyone would agree with these statements, but DeFord was referring
to the many comments he has heard lately.] On news, they mainly show
the hockey fights, the home runs or amazing catches, the long pass
touchdown and the like. But watch an entire game? Boring.

He equated this to politics. Politics is boring. Politicians are
boring. Well, except for Clinton and his scandals, and that is what
makes the news. But listen in on a debate about taxes? Most people
don't do that. Boring.

Then he discussed "Shakespeare in Love", which like a network news
sports report, is a collection of *highlights* of Shakespeare. He
postulates that the movie is the worst thing that could happen to
Shakespeare. Why go see "A Midsummer's Night Dream" when you can get
all the good quotes in "Shakespeare in Love", including a sword fight,
death, and a partially nude sex scene. Shakespeare never had a
partially nude sex scene - boring.

Well, while I personally don't find Shakespeare boring, I get the
point that DeFord was trying to make. "Shakespeare in Love" really is
a highlights movie, when I think about it.

Or is it?

It kind of reminds me about some debates I'm seeing about Pennsic and
the war points. Some people say that watching Archery Shoots is
boring, when compared to a massed field battle of 2000 people, and
this explains why we don't have nearly as many people watching
Archery. But should we change Archery so it is more exciting for
spectators? Could the heavy combat battles be changed so they are
more fun for the participants even if that makes it more boring for
the spectators, and if so, should we?

Comments are appreciated. Even though I strayed into war points, I
really would like people's opinions on "Shakespeare in Love" and the
idea that people, in general, might only care about looking at the
exciting small-time-span highlights.

- Midair

From: "Charles J. Cohen" <charles@eecs.umich.edu>
+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+--+ to unsubscribe, send a message to
`~-, ,-~`~-, ,-~`~-, ,-~`~-, ,-~` majordomo@midrealm.org with
. | | | | | | | | 'unsubscribe sca-middle' as its body.
Received on Wed Jun 2 10:46:02 1999