Hello Friends, in my continuing quest to understand the big Shakes, I come to you with another question:
Why adapt Shakespeare?
Shakespeare himself adapted writers like Holinshed, Ovid, Marlowe, and more; but he didn't exactly attribute them. Nowadays we adapt his work to our own modern understanding, and we still put his name on it. Why? They're good new plays or movies or songs on their own, why do we need to attribute the work to his? Marketing? Guilt? Status?
Does it help an audience if they watch Wishbone (what's the story!?!) compare his own adventures to that of Romeo, Prospero, or Prince Hal? Does it reach more people if Katarina's mommy issues are delivered up front, and Petruchio gives her a guitar at the end to some kicking ska? How is Synetic able to get across so much of the text we recognize without saying a word? How awesome are Rufus Wainwright's song renditions of sonnets? Is all of this still "Shakespeare"?
As playwrights, actors, and educators - what about Shakespeare makes him so ripe for adaptation?
My personal belief is that there are two surviving facets of Shakespeare's work: his words and his characters. And that they can be independant of each other. His words are incredible poetry, and wonderfully descriptive, creative, and moving words. But his characters are living, breathing people with human emotions and human experiences - and they're so complicated that we're still trying to figure them out and/or reimagine them today. His words, on the other hand, have been almost mutilated by pop culture. Case In Point: A fashionable shoe store at Union Station (Shoe Woo) uses a quote from Titus Andronicus to advertise their wares ("she is beautiful, and therefore to be wooed..."). A quote which, in the play, is spoken by a rapist. Context?
Not even a year ago I said this: "Shakespeare’s language is what is important in his work. It is important to see and enjoy the plays, but if you update his language all you’re left with is the plot and some jokes. The plots are unoriginal, and are adaptations themselves – and who’s to say that Shakespeare isn’t adapted ALL THE TIME! It’s done – but what is important about preserving his plays is to hear that language in use, and to understand what a true understanding of language and human existence is." And now I'm not so sure I feel that way. I don't know that the language is vital to the experience anymore. Especially after reading 'Shakespearean Afterlives' (http://www.amazon.com/Shakespearean-Afterlives-Characters-Life-Their/dp/184046643X).
Thoughts? Answers? Shakespearean Adaptation is a special passion of mine - so I'm very interested in response. Why do we adapt Shakespeare?
1 comment:
If you lose the language of Shakespeare, you lose 50%. But even 50% of Shakespeare is a hell of a lot, which is why he's popular in translation.
Even without the Elizabethan language you'd have a lot of vivid imagery. And you already mentioned the great characters. But at his best Shakespeare also put together really well-constructed plots: Julius Ceasar is a slick political thriller, A Midsummer Night's Dream cleverly weaves all the subplots together.
BTW, the Shoe Woo quote is from 1 Henry VI, though it's almost the same as the quote in Titus. Which raises the trivia question: is there any other instance of Shakespeare quote-mining himself so blatantly?
Post a Comment