The New York Times: THE Oregon Shakespeare Festival has decided that Shakespeare’s language is too difficult for today’s audiences to understand. It recently announced that over the next three years, it will commission 36 playwrights to translate all of Shakespeare’s plays into modern English.
10 comments:
So is this really happening? Are we going to resort to english Shakespeare? Are we basically going to be doing performances of No Fear Shakespeare from Spark Notes? I don't understand why we would want to do this. I remember seeing and performing Shakespeare shows. It feels incredible to be able to understand the language and true meaning behind the words. It may be hard at first but it's basically a learning experience. It also gives the designers time to be creative and how they can help the audience further understand the show. However, this will take the fun out of everything. Shakespeare will just be another understandable show. The story will be told, but it won't be unique anymore. It won't be as poetic and symbolic as Shakespeare was. I feel Shakespeare's language is beautiful and shouldn't be refined but become cherished by those who are in love with theatre and the arts. Everyone knows what Shakespeare is, so allow the legacy continue and allow people to see a show as written.
This is the third article I’ve read on this, and to be honest, I’m not sure why this is so controversial. I get people not liking the idea of a translated Shakespeare. I get that Shakespeare is about the language, and I get that elements of his work will be lost in the translation. But, all it is is a translation. No one is going to make anyone see it. No one is banning the performing of the original text. OSF is probably still going to perform mostly the original text. No one is trying to permanently alter Shakespeare. Can the original text of Shakespeare be performed well, and in such a way that the audience understands the plot? Yes. Could the people working on the translation be working on other projects? Yes. Would some people like those theoretical projects better than the modernized Shakespeare? Potentially, but I think it is up to the writers what they want to work on. I think the translations are a good idea, and in my mind the worst that can happen is that they aren’t very good. Also, I don’t think the prototype translation is a very good scale of how good the final plays will be. There is a reason rough drafts get revised. Additionally, the version of Much Ado About Nothing Shapiro mentioned was shortened, and I assume those cuts were made to make the play more accessible. We are already modify Shakespeare. We cut lines, we set it in various settings and time periods. If we typically performed Shakespeare in the original setting with modified language, but all of a sudden someone decided to perform it in the modern day with the original language, people would probably be talking about how absurd that is. Yes, this project could end up being unsuccessful, but I don’t understand why people are upset that OSF is trying.
This article does a good job of articulating why we shouldn’t need to translate Shakespeare into modern English, and why doing so can have some negative side-effects. Something very unique to theatre is that works are not supposed to be changed and we are meant to assume that everything done by a playwright was with full intention. The distance in time and language causes people to think that Shakespeare’s works are more “fudgeable” than others, even prompting complete translations (which the article is denouncing). Where the author hits the nail on the head is in explaining that for good reception of Shakespeare you must have good comprehension behind a good production. The best productions of Shakespearean works are those where the director, dramaturge (if there is one), cast, and even design team have thoroughly worked through the text – especially the actors having full comprehension of every word which they deliver, allowing them to do so in a way that communicates the proper sub-text, which an audience may glean more easily than the Shakespearean language alone.
Some argue that translating Shakespeare into modern-day English is a way to get the general public more interested in theatre. This is foolish, because you are essentially selling theatre as something it is not. You are not getting people interested in Shakespearean theatre, but rather a water-down, processed version far from the original. What’s worse is that these newly acquired “theatre fans” may become disenchanted with theatre once they encounter more serious works, setting us farther back than where we began, since now these individuals may even have negative views theatre. Basically, “selling” theatre as something that isn’t true to itself is not a productive way of increasing interest in the art.
Oh my god what kind of elitist bull**** is this? Shakespeare has become something that elitist snobs hold dear that can not be changed or besmirched in any way. "OH NO WE DONT WANT THE PUBLIC TO BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND SHAKESPEARE THAT WOULD BE HORRIBLE" scream the upper class as they watch someone try to frame Shakespeare in a way that your average person might *GASP* enjoy. This author is just wrong, claiming that the problem is that people are just sick of seeing Shakespeare portrayed wrong. It is not in English. Do how many people can actually read Beowulf. There are like 5 people right now. The rest of us settle for translations which somehow still tell a great story! Just because there are still a few thousand people that can truly understand the language does not mean we shouldn't translate it.
Shakespeare was written for the masses, not the educated elite. Making it accessible will bring in people who might otherwise never sit through one of those plays.
ABOVE ALL ELSE
IT REALLY IS NOT ENGLISH
90% of those words either do not exist anymore, or mean something else. If you have to study something to understand it, it is past its time. It is objectively not "timeless". We do not all have the time to study theater most people in fact even have other jobs.
Theater is not for you the creators, it is for the audience and somewhere along the way you forgot that.
The first sentence this article opens with is wrong. "The Oregon Shakespeare Festival has decided that Shakespeare's language is too difficult for today's audience to understand." Not quite. When I first heard about this project I was among it's critics and nay-sayers. I LOVE Shakespeare and I adore the way he plays with language and the beauty of his words. I thought this project was taking that away from the plays.
But then my friend, who got a chance to meet with someone involved in this project, explained to me the real intentions of OSF's undertaking. THIS IS IN NO WAY MEANT TO BE A REPLACEMENT FOR SHAKESPEARE PLAYS. The imagined scenario of these works replacing the originals and artists searching in vain to discover in them the depths of what was once Shakespeare is not where this work is going. They are intended as supplementary material, both as written text and any potential performances, to the plays for people who struggle understanding Shakespeare, for instance those for whom English is not their first language. Fear not, Shakespeare will still be performed in its original language and no one will force the purists to see or read the translated versions if they don't want to.
As Isaac pointed out, Shakespeare was written for the masses to enjoy and any kind of exclusionary elitism justified in his name does much more damage than projects which are intended to help his work reach more people than ever before.
I definitely understand the standpoint that believes that dumbing down Shakespeare is the death of his plays, but we also forget the fact that so many of our own modern stories are literally ripped asunder directly from Shakespeare plays. In some ways, what the Oregon Shakespeare Festival is doing is no different than writing a different story based on a Shakespeare play. "Translating" it is somewhat of an understatement. Yes, there was clear intention in Shakespeare writing in the style that he chose to write in, however, I trust that Oregon Shakespeare understands that there is some kind of demand for this rework. Not to mention the fact that I forsaw the theatre snobs at the Times rolling in their graves over this, and they did. They started the article in the most cut-throat way possible, which I see as a lack of understanding of what a modern audience wants. To blame the fact that people don't like Shakespeare because of the actors is too widespread a generalization and also feels like a far-fetched copout.
This article is a very big toss up. Part of me really loves the fact that Shakespeare continues be performed in the same language as when it was written. However, I am the kind of person that this old language always trips me up. I do not know what it is but I just get confused in something in it. If the language in the plays were modern I think I would definitely have a better understanding of what is going on. I would then be able to sit and watch the play and enjoy it without having to think too much about what I am watching on stage. That being said, I question if I would be watching the same play. Would they even be comparable? The language is such a big part of doing one of Shakespeare’s plays that taking it away would probably change everything. As you can see I am torn.
When I first saw the title of the article, my initial reaction was more leaned towards worry and concern. I do think that Shakespeare's language is a huge part of what makes his works what they are. For instance, iambic pentameters have a great influence over a performance's movement and rhythm. I can definitely see the benefits of having Shakespeare plays performed in modern english, but I'm not a big fan of the idea. Perhaps a more detailed explanation of what's going on in the play could be included in the programs. I personally think that audiences should also put in their share of effort if they want to understand a play, or else what's the difference between watching a theatre performance and a tv show at home? When theatre gets too comfortable and effortless for the audience to watch, they lose attention too. The audience will think because they understand what's going on, they now understand the play and never dig deeper. Shakespeare is Shakespeare for a reason, and I don't think his works should be modified on such a huge scale. Who is going to determine which translation is the right one? the best one? There might even be more unnecessary confusion.
Shakespeare's original writing and language are what make his plays what they are apart from the story at hand. If you don't understand Shakespeare... take a course, study more. But to have to perform Shakespeare in modern English, that just boggles my mind. All because its a little "hard to understand". I agree with what Sophie is saying, that the way Shakespeare wrote his plays, compliments the manner in which the play is performed. Yes, i do also see how it would be easier for audiences to understand, but then again you could go to Barnes and Noble and get yourself a copy of No Fear Shakespeare .
I just think that if you are going to perform Shakespeare, it should be in the original writing. Or at least make it known that the audience will be watching a dumbed down version... don't pass it off as strictly Shakespeare.
It's interesting to see the variety of opinions on this subject, especially just coming off of working on Much Ado here at CMU, which used the original language of the play with a modern setting. I think that had we performed Much Ado with modern language and still kept the modern setting, it would have felt like a much different play, and likely it would have seemed more like a modern retelling of the story rather than a "Shakespeare" production. However, I think that there is some value in having modern translations of Shakespeare's texts readily available, because I think it could easily become another aspect that directors could work with when creating their productions. In addition to choosing a certain setting, for example, directors could choose to use the original language, a modern translation, or a combination of the two to create a variety of different types of productions. I don't think a modern translation is a threat to the original language, merely an alternative to it.
Post a Comment