[Prudence]

I don't understand the consternation here.

Okay, so I get nervous anytime anyone remakes anything because lately remakes haven't been Hollywood's strongpoint.

However, in any retelling of a classic story the director can adjust various elements to highlight particular themes. They might change the time period, the place, genders and ethnicities, combine character or introduce new ones, etc... I'd rather see the director take a familiar story somewhere else than see Yet Another "Faithful Interpretation." (If it's going to be the same, why bother?)

In recent years I've enjoyed:

-Baz Lurhman's "Romeo + Juliet" (after some analysis)
-Kenneth "I can't keep it in my pants" Branagh's "Much Ado about Nothing"
-The 1995 Richard III with Ian McKellan
-Julie Taymor's "Titus" (which I *loved* more than I can express in words)

And heck, I even liked "Clueless" and "10 Things I Hate about You," specifically because they played them as contemporary, light-hearted comedies, which is (IMNSHO) more consistent with the original Shakespeare than today's high-falutin' theatre accent Shakespeare.

In a few weeks, I hope to enjoy "Bride and Prejudice" at the Fremont Outdoor Cinema. Who knows? I might hate it. But I might like it, too.

And maybe "Snow White" with the crouching tiger treatment would be fabulous. Disney certainly took his angle on the classic story. Why shouldn't someone else?