|
Post by shaxper on Mar 31, 2002 12:42:57 GMT -5
It seems to me that many (possibly most) productions of Shakespeare, both on the stage and at the movies, have attempted to "update" or modernize the plays, sometimes using guns as "swords" and tanks/jeeps as "horses," and sometimes simply throwing Hamlet in the Industrial age, or Titus Andronicus in a world that contains both Ancient Rome and 21st century America.
It seems that directors have moved away from the tights and codpieces that have so often intimidated and turned away Shakespeare virgins. Do you agree that this is true, and if so, how do you feel about this trend? Is Shakespeare being made more accessible, or are his works being polluted and distorted? I think of non-English speaking countries in which Shakespeare is translated into the modern dialect and, therefore, is usually updated for the current age. I personally wonder if this makes Shakespeare easier to understand and appreciate, or if they're losing far more than they gain. His usage of language, of course, is lost to them. But what else is gained or lost?
A lot of questions at once, I know. Just answer the parts that you feel like answering. I think about this often and would like to hear the opinions of others.
|
|
|
Post by litluver on May 17, 2002 20:35:57 GMT -5
Of course I can only speak for myself- (who else could I speak for??) Anyway, I have always enjoyed Shakespeare as he wrote it. I think the other more modern versions are maybe helpful for those that despise listening to the "old" language, but I think it takes away something. I just took a group of teenagers to see a performance of Macbeth. They performed it as it was written (and it was great!), and out of 15 teens- only about 1/2 really understood what was going on or even enjoyed it. Of course the all like the movie "10 things I hate about you"- which really isn't "taming of the shrew" but based on it. So, according to me- leave Shakespeare alone!
|
|
|
Post by shaxper on May 20, 2002 8:54:30 GMT -5
I think I have to agree with you.
Shakespeare recycled nearly all of his plots and characters from other plays, legends, and historical accounts. So when we see a modern day "O" in which the characters are retained but the language is changed and the story simplified, how much of that is Shakespeare? As for 10 Things About You, while I loved it, there was almost no Taming of the Shrew in it at all.
As for doing Shakespeare in modern day garb, I think that's a different story. There's nothing wrong with stretching Shakespeare's works beyond limitations that Shakespeare could not overcome in his own time. Maybe Richard III does work better in an alternate reality English Fascist Dictatorship. Shakespeare never had that option, so the fact that he didn't choose that period, himself, does not suggest that he wouldn't have if it were available to him. He probably wouldn't have, but I don't think that changing the time period of the play necessarily takes away from it (again, as long as it is tasteful). I think though that many directors do this now simply because people have become turned off to the stereotypical Renaissance garb that so many people associate with a distant, haughty-taughty Shakespeare. It is unfortunate that many directors feel they need to change the clothing of the actors to make the play more accessible.
|
|
N.N.W
Money Lender
Posts: 35
|
Post by N.N.W on Jun 16, 2002 7:02:05 GMT -5
[glow=red,2,300] I feel that 'modernising' of Shakespearean text is very much a part of the whole Shakespearean ethos - Shakey himself was wont to dabble with changing the themes and settings of many of his works to contemporise them - infact his use of anachronism throughout his works is staggering. The main thing I try to remember when translating any of his texts into performance, is that WS was ostensibly a crowd pleaser. His priority was to put entertain as many people in one sitting as possible, and to appeal to as many people as possible - WS would be equivelant today to 'Days of our lives' or 'The Simpsons'
Should always go with whatever works! [/glow]
|
|
Juliet
Denizen
There's many a man hath more hair than wit.
Posts: 53
|
Post by Juliet on Jun 24, 2002 23:04:30 GMT -5
Excellent topic! In general, my opinon is that it's fine to update Shakespeare. That's what makes him so brilliant, that his plays can be set in any time period and still make sense. So limiting the director's choices to the "codpiece era" is ridiculous. That said, if the language is not kept true to some extent (foreign languages excepted) then it isn't Shakespeare. Simplified Shakespearen is all right, I guess, in some cases; cutting is fine if risky, changing words highly doubtful. Shakespeare's plots and situations are wonderful in themselves, and I'm all in favor of modern movies (like 10 things) stealing them. Actually, I think it's a fine tradtion--Shakespeare stole most of his plots, anyway. But the bare bones plots, without the language, isn't Shakespeare. It's not necessarily bad, but it isn't Willy. It's just different. N. N. W. You are totally right. So-called "Shakespeare purists," have got it all wrong--the days of our lives comparison is right-on. I think Shakespeare would be thrilled to be still performed, and even more thrilled to be made current, rather than dragged out as a historical relic. And, on a side note, it always makes me annoyed that teenagers and children are always being held up as examples of clueless youth not understanding Shakespeare. I've loved Shakespeare since I was five years old. And for one thing, most ADULTS in America today don't really understand or care about Shakespeare at all, and those students that do love Shakespeare are every bit as perceptive and capable as Bard-loving adults. ~Juliet~
|
|
|
Post by shaxper on Jun 25, 2002 10:12:57 GMT -5
Excellent topic! And, on a side note, it always makes me annoyed that teenagers and children are always being held up as examples of clueless youth not understanding Shakespeare. I've loved Shakespeare since I was five years old. And for one thing, most ADULTS in America today don't really understand or care about Shakespeare at all, and those students that do love Shakespeare are every bit as perceptive and capable as Bard-loving adults. ~Juliet~ I thoroughly agree. Some teens love him and some teens don't (usually because public education [at least in America] is a failure when it comes to teaching literature). It's always their parents who walk around saying "Neither a borrower nor a lender be. Shakespeare said that" Unfortunately, we live in a world full of Poloniuses.
|
|