soren@reed.UUCP (Soren Petersen) (02/07/86)
As a marked change of pace from my last posting, I would like to recomend a series with a very definate self-contained beginning, middle, and ending. Pelius and Melisande is a very close translation and adaptation (in 2 issues) of a late romantic, just pre-modern, symbolist play, by on Maeterlink, drawn by P. Craig Russell. Russell has, apparently been adapting opera's for some time, although I haven't I haven't seen any others. Russell's very ornate, very static, art-nouvue(sp.) style is absolutely perfect for the subject matter. In a word it is *Beautiful.* The play itself makes rather awkward reading (it might work better on stage, I don't know) making this perhaps the only time I would actually have preferred Russell to have taken some liberties with the script, but even so the story though simple, is definately powerful. Symbolism can be appreciated or ignored as desired. Have a nice day Soren Petersen
ciaraldi@rochester.UUCP (Mike Ciaraldi) (02/13/86)
> As a marked change of pace from my last posting, I would like to > recomend a series with a very definate self-contained beginning, middle, > and ending. Pelius and Melisande is a very close translation and > adaptation (in 2 issues) of a late romantic, just pre-modern, symbolist play, > by on Maeterlink, drawn by P. Craig Russell. Russell has, apparently > been adapting opera's for some time, although I haven't I haven't > seen any others. Russell's very ornate, very static, art-nouvue(sp.) > style is absolutely perfect for the subject matter. In a word it > is *Beautiful.* > > The play itself makes rather awkward reading (it might work > better on stage, I don't know) making this perhaps the only > time I would actually have preferred Russell to have taken some > liberties with the script, but even so the story though simple, is > definately powerful. Symbolism can be appreciated or ignored as > desired. > > Have a nice day > Soren Petersen I have to take exception with this. I just read Pelleas & Mellisande yesterday, both issues back-to-back, and I felt very disappointed. The artwork was great, but the story was not so hot, especially all the loose ends, abrupt transitions, and lack of time sense. Some examples: Mellisande loses her wedding ring. Her husband finds out and says, "You don't understand! That ring is very important! You must go uot in the middle of the night and try to find it!" (paraphrased, of course). She doesnt find it (the audience knows it dropped into a bottomless well), and NOTHING more is said about it. Why was it important (beyond the obvious, which her husband never mentions)? What is his reaction when she returns empty-handed? Who knows? The young boy in the cast, toward the end of the play, spends one page walking in the woods, running into a shepherd and his flock, and being frightened by them. So what? Melissande shows up at the beginning of the play with no past at all, and avoids questions about it. That's OK, but they make a point that when she is found in the woods there is a crown in the stream next to her, and she doesn't want to retrieve it. Is she rejecting a royal heritage? Did she steal it? Did some nobleman assault her in the woods? Not only does it never come out, it has no consequences in the play. (In fact, Mel herself has so little personality that you have no inkling why she does any of the things she does.) So why did the author put it in? My favorite is the very end, where Pelleas' brother (Mel's husband) kills Pel for fooling around with his wife. He whacks him with a sword or something. This is at the end of a page, and you can clearly see that Mel is not injured in the attack. On the next page Mel is in bed recuperating. There is reference to her being slightly injured. Her husband comes in, grief-stricken over killing his brother, begging her forgiveness, and she says, "it's OK, you don't have anything to be sorry about". Then they bring out her new-born baby! What's going on here? I certainly don't know. She wasn't pregnant on the page before (at least she wasn't showing), and the whole first part of the play seems to have only taken place over a span of a few days. So when did she have time to give birth? Or is there a nine-month gap between the two pages? If so, that guy has been grief-stricken for an awfully long time. Maybe I'm just dense, but this looks like bad storytelling all around. Maybe this is what it means to be "symbolist", or "pre-modern", but it just seems like bad craftsmanship. Uh-oh, now someone will reply and explain all this stuff, and I'll look terribly low-brow. Oh well, nothing new... Mike Ciaraldi seismo!rochester!ciaraldi
soren@reed.UUCP (Soren Petersen) (02/16/86)
<15255@rochester.UUCP> ciaraldi@rochester.UUCP (Mike Ciaraldi) writes: >I have to take exception with this. I just read Pelleas & Mellisande >yesterday, both issues back-to-back, and I felt very disappointed. >The artwork was great, but the story was not so hot, especially >all the loose ends, abrupt transitions, and lack of time sense. > >Maybe I'm just dense, but this looks like bad storytelling >all around. Maybe this is what it means to be "symbolist", >or "pre-modern", but it just seems like bad craftsmanship. > >Uh-oh, now someone will reply and explain all this stuff, and >I'll look terribly low-brow. Oh well, nothing new... Firstly, I suppose I should apologize for throwing around literary terms without (1)explaining them, and (2)properly understanding them myself. As far as 'pre-modern' goes, I meant very late Romantic. The end of the nineteenth century was characterized, at least artistically, by a definite sense that something was not quite right in Denmark, but without any idea just what. P&M, (the play) was full of this. The whole kingdom is founded on rottenness, the kingdom is in the midst of a major famine and everyone is dying. The true 'story' is about how this corruption destroys the innocence represented by Pelius, Melisande and their love. The plot is not important in itself, the true 'action' is symbolic. I read the play, immediately before reading the comic, so I cannot say how much sense the comic makes on its own. I enjoyed both immensely, without really understanding exactly what was going on myself. If anyone would like to post a detailed analysis, I would be grateful. Thanks (as they say) in advance Have a Nice Day soren Petersen