Tuesday, January 12, 2010
The Real Shakespearean Tragedy
Theatre Communications Group - American Theatre: "It's a Thursday evening and you've gotten home early to eat a quick dinner with your spouse before driving downtown for a night of theatre. A friend has given you tickets for King Lear. Freshly showered and nicely dressed, you slip on your coats, have a nice twilight drive, park, glide into the theatre and take your seats. The lights dim, the audience quiets down, you squeeze your partner's hand, and up goes the curtain."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
The author brings up a lot of really interesting points about Shakespearean plays and how they're not exactly effortless shows to watch. I agree with her that Shakespearean comedies are definitely more enjoyable and seamlessly performed although clearly English today has become such an increasingly different type of language than it was then. I think the author kind of exaggerates how tedious Shakespeare actually is because I feel that not only do we still live in an era where Shakespeare is regularly taught as curriculum in schools but an era where appreciation for his work is still much alive. Furthermore, most people who frequent Shakespearean plays are knowledgeable in its linguistic style and appreciate it which is why I think translating it into modern vernacular would lost a lot of not only its appeal to audiences but its beauty. It may not be the most effortless play to watch and understand, but Shakespeare is as much appreciated for his storyline as well as language and much would be lost in translation.
“Translated Shakespeare wouldn’t be Shakespeare!” This argument is of course correct. And as the author says, “without translation, we would not have access to… at all”, this is true.
Translated version might be needed for regular audience (here it means non-theatre and non-literature people) to enjoy the stories and become fun of Shakespearean work. However, those audience will need to be reminded that, “to appreciate ‘real’ Shakespeare’s world, you have to come back to the original text." If even a few of them become interested in and start digging to Shakespearean plays, that’s a beginning of the journey for them to their own artistic world. I believe one of essential purposes of arts is to stimulate audience into pursuing their own.
Shakespeare’s plays sounds poetic. But what makes “poetic”? Is it because the structure itself, the way of describing surroundings, or wording form poem? Yes and because, on top of those, I think the nature of poem lies in its character, which leaves to the audience limitless imaginary world behind few words, but melody and rhythm.
--This is from my personal experience in second language learning; the language which is not “everyday language” is perceived as something mythical, some kinds of art, attracting me by its rhythm, accent and melodic tone.
I would "appreciate” shakespearean work in the same way, which is, firstly examine meanings of each word and enjoy listening the tone and rhythm of original texts.
I agree that the author brings up some great points. When i think about Shakespeare i agree that the language can be tedious, but you need to really think about how much influence Shakespeare has had on todays culture. Almost everything we see was based on a Shakespearian play. Almost all Disney movies were based off one of his plays (although the endings changed to something more pleasant in some cases).
I hate this article. It is awful. I do not think that the author brings up good points at all. The article goes on and on and he even quotes from King Lear at the beginning, which there was no need for because it has nothing to do with his point. I also agree with the argument, "Translating Shakespeare wouldn't be Shakespeare!" I myself love Shakespearian plays. I could work with a Shakespeare company and be happy my whole life. I just think that this person writing the article is an idiot and if people would spend more time on education instead of playing video games and watching tv, this wouldn't even be a problem.
I have to say that I did agree with this article. Shakespearean language is the English language from 500 years ago. Is it understandable after research and knowledge in the literature, yes. The language itself is also poetic and beautiful. However, this is not poetry -it's plays. You shouldn't have to have read a play already or understand a 500 year old dialect to appreciate and understand a play.
It is unfair to call someone an idiot or uncultured for not appreciating Shakespeare in its original text. This would be the same as telling any person who has ever seen a Chekhov play in English, or a translated foreign film, or ever read a single translated novel as being "uncultured" and idiotic for not reading the text or seeing the play in its original language.
No doubt that the original language of a play holds greater meaning for its intended message, and unfortunately some things are lost in translation. However, this does not prevent us from translating foreign texts and stories.
The Elizabethan English language may use some of the same words the modern english language uses, but it is not the same language. There is beauty in the original text and poetry, but the most important part of a play is its story - not the prettiness of the language. If an audience is more concerned with hearing flowery language than a good, developed story there's a problem.
If translating Shakespeare into Modern English retains the original story faithfully, which is completely possible and has been done for hundreds of years, then why not do it? Audiences would definitely enjoy the story more. I myself care more about the story when seeing a play than patting myself on the back for being intellectual and well taught in plays.
And just a thought for those against modernizing Shakespeare - this has already occurred in countries around the world! When Shakespeare is translated into various languages, the Elizabethan text is of course lost.
As Shakespeare would say "the Play's the thing." Audiences not only understanding, but also appreciating and enjoying the story is far more important that preserving poetry on stage. I do not believe that the original text should just be thrown away, but i see no sin in modernizing Shakespeare's plays.
Post a Comment