Friday, January 22, 2010
Most stagings of Shakespeare don't go far enough
guardian.co.uk: "When a high-profile Shakespeare production gets inventive with the Bard, critics sometimes grumble. But occasionally the shock approach can help us appreciate how radical the playwright really was"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I agree completely with what this author is saying; I am not a Shakespeare "purist". Perhaps his strongest point is that Shakespeare wrote political things! They were brilliant in their day because they were political. Why can't we continue this theme of his writing, and apply that to our current situation. However, the author makes a good point that not every production should be done in this way. Interpretations are good, but until you've seen a classical version and understood the play, that interpretation cannot be fully understood.
I agree with this critic. The points made in this article address many of the issues occurring with pieces of work, not only shakespeare. More producers, directors, and designers are trying to modernize plays. However, its very risky trying to come up with a good adaptation of older works. To make something as recognizable as Shakespeare fit into a new time frame while still acceptable and relatable to the modern audience is difficult. Often things are not pushed far enough, or they are forced in the wrong direction, causing confusion about the text or meaning. There is a fine line between genius and extreme ridiculousness.
In my opinion, why do Shakespeare that we've all seen before? If I'm going to see a performance of Hamlet, or Romeo and Juliet, I don't want to see the same thing I've seen so many times before. What is the point in doing a production that has done the same way before? No one learns anything. That doesn't mean one should go out and try to throw a Shakespearean play into the most bizarre location possible, but make an educated decision about what this adaption will say to the audience. A new take is what keeps plays interesting.
I think that just because Shakespeare can be adapted a million different ways doesn't mean that it should be. Although the ideas he wrote about still apply today, they may not always line up with the original agenda. I have no issues with more classic interpretations of Shakespeare, as a total domination by conceptual performances might cause the historical side to be lost over time. As far as one example the article mentions (gay Nazi Hamlet) I feel that is far too much of a stretch, and I highly doubt that would enrich the original work for current audiences. As far as the recent Broadway version, I did not see it, but I don't think there's anything wrong with an "ahistorical" version, if it allows the original text to shine.
I love Shakespeare's works as they are written, but I think I love them more as stories that can be interpreted extremely differently depending on a director or designer and can be molded to fit any time period or social occurrence. As a designer, I would jump at the chance to design a very different approach to a Shakespeare play. The plots of his plays are hundreds of years old but still have meaning to people living today. However, the language of the play can prevent people from seeing the timelessness quality of Shakespeare's work. In order to keep his works alive, I think it is definitely ok to update the plays to remind people why Shakespeare's worth keeping around for another couple hundred years.
I agree with Ariel. Why see the same thing over and over agin. I do think one needs to understand the play and everything that goes on to fully appreciate the new interpretation. I don't think people need to see a classic interpretation of Shakespeare to appreciate it just as long as you know the overall plot.
It feels like I've made this same comment 80 times on this blog already. Ariel, I like the points you and Devrie made about not repeating the same thing over and over again. Everything would get boring if we did. But I for one don't see any problem in redoing a traditional Shakespeare production, partially because I want to design some, and I have yet to come across the opportunity. But besides me, I don't think Shakespeare is any different from other productions. I definitely paid to see Spamalot twice, and Wicked at least 4 times, and I would be crushed if no one ever did those two productions again. My views on Shakespeare specifically are pretty simple. I think it's up for grabs. Modify it, change it, adapt it, or just have it stay as it is. The worst thing that could possibly happen is that the production will suck. Life will move on, and along the road there will be a good production. I have seen brilliant adaptations, and awful traditional revivals, and vice versa. One of Shakespeare's gifts is that his plays ARE so versatile, which makes them such good stories. No wonder society is taking advantage of the groundwork he's already set, and adapting and modifying. I just love Shakespeare, and as long as the story stays, feel free to change or keep the rest.
I agree that it is possible for people to belittle the original intent of the playwright but, at the same time, others involved in the production more often than not aid the playwrights intent; I guess that's just the trade off. Also, things should be made for a more modern audience. Sure, you would be being true to what it was originally written as but, it will be more difficult to reach people that way.
Post a Comment