Question to RM's and Shakespeare buffs...

[thehefner]

I was speaking with Chaz, a friend from school. I like Chaz. He's a hell of a film buff for a sophmore (his DVD collection dwarfs mine, and it's all good stuff) and quite a talented actor on stage. I was telling him about my ideas for KING LEAR, ideas I have yet to tell anyone here in the group. As I was speaking about these ideas for the first time, I started to feel the same rush of excitement that zipduda seemed to have when telling me his ideas for T&C. When I hit him with the twist I have plotted at the end, his response was less than impressed.

"I dunno," he said, "I don't really like it in Shakespeare when people... well, the words are the most important thing and I don't really like it when directors, like, try to add twists or modernize it and to give these ideas precesence over the words," or something to that effect. I asked him if I was doing that, and he replied, "Yeah, a bit, I think," which, of course, means yes, absolutely.

Well, I was understandably deflated. Still am, it's only been five minutes since he said this to me. But as I think about it, I wonder if my ideas are really taking precesence? I mean, by that law, the Area 54 12th Nite, the four-Hamlets Hamlet, and the black-white-reversal Othello should all be wrong and distracting over the words. Are they? Of course, the words are the focal point. But what about the ideas? I mean, I love the RMs for the fun we have with these plays, but do we do disservice to them with some of the choices we make? Normally I'd say no, of course not. But right now, my faith is shaken.

I look forward to telling my ideas to someone in the group and letting them decide. You know, I seriously doubt anyone would think what I have planned could distract from the words. Far more prestigious troupes have done far riskier things than I. I heard that the four-Hamlet version of Hamlet was actually very good, and my Lear is kind of a notch below that. But yeah, normally I'd just ask Tazira and tomperdue on this, but I'd like all your opinions on this. I don't think having fun with Shakespeare is wrong, I just don't know how to defend it.

Comments

[frumple.livejournal.com]

I hate to say it, but your friend's attitude towards Shakespeare sounds much like the one of the Evil Smiling Wibbe. Frankly, I find the attidue to your friend elitist and snobish and well, wrong. It reaks of sophmore pretension. The kind of crap that makes me want to take out a chainsaw and make a flesh scuplture. (ewww!) Hell, look at what I am planning to do for MacBeth, and what I have planed for Merchant of Venice is also going to be interesting.

Shakespeare is meant to be performed. Part of the reason the plays have lasted so long is that they are very adaptable to different times. That is what makes it fun. Lets me truthful, many of the ideas (and jokes) in Shakespeare are very dated (and not that funny). To make it interesting you need to translate it for modern sesnabilities. I am not talking about rewriting the playes. The language is powerful, but just reading the plays for their language is like, well, drinking a flat egg cream (chocloate soada for those non NYers). It still tastes good, but lacks the fizz that makes it great.

Okay. Nevermind then.

[jayel4192.livejournal.com]

"Frankly, I find the attidue to your friend elitist and snobish and well, wrong. It reaks of sophmore pretension. The kind of crap that makes me want to take out a chainsaw and make a flesh scuplture. (ewww!)"

The above statement makes it next to impossible for me to post my point of view, lest you call me "snobbish" and "wrong" and decide to use my flesh for artwork. That's too bad, because I find this topic very interesting.

Keep in mind this is a slippery conversation in RM history.

[jayel4192.livejournal.com]

Most RMs will seriously consider any adaptation based on its merits, that's one of the troupe's biggest strengths.

Though I'm in a minority, I strongly believe that a production should remain faithful to the story Shakespeare has given us. While that's a flexible idea, I oftentimes find directors trying to stretch a script to tell the story they want to tell, regardless of what was originally written.

So it's usually a question of personal taste. To me, the real question is "How much can you change without changing the story?" but the answer to that is going to be different for everyone.

I think the RMs have gotten on a streak of doing "faithful" productions instead of "adaptations". I'd consider "Tempest", "As You Like It", and "Othello" to all be faithful to the words and story The Bard laid down for us.

I think "Othello" is the most interesting example of the three. We tweaked the setting a little, and the time period a lot, but I don't think that we lost the essence of what Shakespeare is trying to do. So I think it's very possible, in fact encouraged, to change some things and still do a faithful show. Though some purists would disagree with me.

I think the black-and-white-reversal was still faithful, because it still keeps Othello ostracized because of race. The other productions you listed I don't know much about, but your descriptions make them sound far less faithful.

The words are the big thing. Other than that, I'm afraid it's very case-by-case. Wish I could be more empirical than that.

I'm such a Libra...

[reazik.livejournal.com]

This IS an interesting topic.

I can see both sides have merits, but what I would ask myself is - can I find the balance between keeping this show "true to its roots" and making it palatable for the masses?

After all, uneducated "groundlings" comprised a large part of Shakespeare's audience. They probably did not understand every word Shakespeare wrote, but they did come to see the plays, often enduring extreme discomfort (standing up for hours - in inclement weather - no intermisssions, etc.), to do it. There must have been something besides his amazing poetry to keep them there.

I just read a comment made by a representative of the Utah Shakespeare Festival, who believes,

"As a man of the theatre writing for a company, [Shakespeare] knew what would work on stage and what would not and was able to make his plays practical as well as brilliant. And perhaps more importantly, his theatrical experience must have taught him much about the human experience, about everyday lives and roles, just as his plays show us that “All the world’s a stage, / And all the men and women merely players” (As You Like It, 2.7.149-50).

We could infer from that comment that Shakespeare himself relied on more than the beautiful language of his plays.

Cats-n-Crying, just keep in mind that you have your own vision and want to share that vision with others. If keeping Shakespeare's original meaning (if we truly understand what that is) is important to you, make sure your ideas don't overshadow that. But I wouldn't worry too much about individual opinions. Listen, but follow your own heart. It won't steer you wrong!

Re: Okay. Nevermind then.

[frumple.livejournal.com]

Damn I came across as more obnoxious and intolerant than I meant. :/ That is what I get for posting at the wee hours of the morning. :) Hope I didn't offend.

Re: Okay. Nevermind then.

[jayel4192.livejournal.com]

No worries. Ghosts of Wibbes Past, perhaps. But I doubt anyone was offended.

Hmmm...

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Well, according to my drama teacher in London, she seemed to infer that the language WAS what the groundlings loved. By that, people were far more used to listening that watching (no TVs and whatnot). After learning that Richard II was one of the most popular plays ever during that era, it kind of makes sense (there is NO action in the play whatsoever until the very end... it's all beautiful, powerful, heartbreaking poetry). But then again, I also heard that Titus was the most popular, and whoop, we're back at the other end of the spectrum.

But thankee, I appreciate the support and shall strive to stick to my course until more opinions go against me and I eventually capitulate, kicking and screaming, whereupon I shall post my whining rants right here on LJ. Huzzah! No, wait... I mean, FIRE BAD!

Bring it on!

[chickenhat.livejournal.com]

I love looking for whatever ideas can make the plays more interesting. You WILL be interogated... :-)

Then again, as far as Shakespeare goes, I'm pure as the driven snow (driven in front of a snowplow that is).

Interesting Question

[tazira.livejournal.com]

Honestly, I'd tend to agree with Jayel4192 in much of what he said. I love these works. Often, I love taking them out of their historical context and giving them a new setting that highlights certain issues or themes I'm choosing to work with. But I'm always remarkably faithful to the original text and what I believe to be the original intention. I think the Rudes tend to agree on that, and I love what we do. We might have minor disagreements on how to get there, but we seem to be going in the same very strong direction.

In Romeo, TheBlackOtter and I took some really intense chances. We knew that a ton of people would love it, and a few would walk away hating it, and we wanted that. Romeo is *about* controversy, about all the wild uncontrolled passion and confusion and anger of youth, and it blazed with it. God, I was proud of that show.

We took liberties with that show of a kind I would take again; we made Benvolio the POV character, combining Benvolio, Balthazar and the Prince's end speech and telling the story through his survivor's eyes. I think it was a stronger choice, honestly, than losing Benvolio halfway through the play and introducing this servant character who hasn't been there before and has meant nothing until he's called upon to assist in Romeo's death. Making that choice in no way altered the text or the themes we were working with; if anything, it allowed for a stronger focus on the theme of emotional destruction by pulling into specific relief the effects of the lovers' actions on the world they left behind. Those glorious final words, instead of being spoken by the Prince, are given by someone who truly loved Romeo enough to let him go, and that ending always moved me.

I don't love a choice that fundamentally changes Lear, but if you've made a choice that enhances or highlights the themes of the play rather than working against its language or intentions, groovy. If you're turning Lear into a goat at the end of the play and having him be assfucked by Kent, problem. Shakespeare didn't write that.

But if you're altering the time-honored interpretation of a character in a way that the text supports, mazeltov, you go, do it up. I think those can be the strongest reimaginings of all. I turned Polonius into a cold, controlled, vicious power-hungry bitch, a radical reinterpretation of a character usually played as a senile buffoon. And the text supported me every step of the way. I helped Disc_Sophist find a strong, honorable Desdemona, a natural warrior and a fit mate for Othello, and again, the text supported that reinterpretation a lot more strongly than it supports the 'milksop' portrayal we've been seeing for 400 years.

I think Shakespeare has picked up a lot of barnacles along the way. I think 400 years of other actors' and directors' interpretations has left a certain amount of detritus and weight of unthinking tradition on the works that begs for reexamination and the occasional spring cleaning. If your idea re: Lear is a reexamination supported by the text, go, keep going, and damn the conservatives.

Hope this helped at least somewhat.