Idk, at a point it becomes its own weird marketing gimmick. Like, you can make a movie with period accurate 17th century English dialog, because, despite antiquated turns of phrase and whatnot, it is by and large the same language we speak today. Middle English (which is the more appropriate terminology for the vernacular in post-Norman Conquest Britain, not Old English), by contrast, requires significantly more effort to decipher, and I think it is unrealistic to expect any audience put up with a whole movie written in that way, and this is to say nothing of how period accurate pronounciation would further obscure the meaning of words which would otherwise be recognizable in writing.
To illustrate my point:
1600s English
To be or not to be, that is the question;
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles
And by opposing end them. To die, to sleep-
1300s English
When that Aprill with his shoures soote
The droghte of March hath perced to the roote,
And bathed every veyne in swich licour
Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
Can you piece together what Chaucer is saying there based on context clues and a decent vocabulary? Sure, it’s not impossible, but, again, I believe a modern production written in that way becomes more about the filmmakers choice to use that language to tell the story than it is about the story itself. It’s worth pointing out too that the language used in The Canterbury Tales is 100-200 years more modern than the time period of this film. Period accurate dialog would sound even further removed from modern English.
Now, with that being said, Eggers clearly has a talent for writing evocative period styled dialog so I’m happy to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I am a little wary of the marketing machine already spinning up here.
I’m confused by your argument. It’s a marketing gimmick…that won’t work because modern audiences don’t tolerate period authentic dialogue? That doesn’t sound like a marketing gimmick.
Idk, at a point it becomes its own weird marketing gimmick. Like, you can make a movie with period accurate 17th century English dialog, because, despite antiquated turns of phrase and whatnot, it is by and large the same language we speak today. Middle English (which is the more appropriate terminology for the vernacular in post-Norman Conquest Britain, not Old English), by contrast, requires significantly more effort to decipher, and I think it is unrealistic to expect any audience put up with a whole movie written in that way, and this is to say nothing of how period accurate pronounciation would further obscure the meaning of words which would otherwise be recognizable in writing.
To illustrate my point: 1600s English
1300s English
Can you piece together what Chaucer is saying there based on context clues and a decent vocabulary? Sure, it’s not impossible, but, again, I believe a modern production written in that way becomes more about the filmmakers choice to use that language to tell the story than it is about the story itself. It’s worth pointing out too that the language used in The Canterbury Tales is 100-200 years more modern than the time period of this film. Period accurate dialog would sound even further removed from modern English.
Now, with that being said, Eggers clearly has a talent for writing evocative period styled dialog so I’m happy to give him the benefit of the doubt, but I am a little wary of the marketing machine already spinning up here.
I’m confused by your argument. It’s a marketing gimmick…that won’t work because modern audiences don’t tolerate period authentic dialogue? That doesn’t sound like a marketing gimmick.