Modern reworkings of classic plays?

[kelby_lake]

Shakespeare, in particular.

I've updated one of his plays to the 20th century. What should I do about the language? Much of it won't fit as there's a twist which will probably shock/annoy you.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I'm not too keen of Shakespeare reworked, I can't really see the point if I'm honest. Why alter something that is so damn good as it is?

I'm not convinced that Shakespeare needs reworking even for those new to his language, in such cases all it takes is a little time and perseverance and the rewards are huge.

[Desolation]

Well, most of Shakespeare's plays were actually reworking of previously existing stories. He just put his own twist and wit into them.

So, reworking Shakespeare would just be following in the tradition that he himself worked from.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Well, most of Shakespeare's plays were actually reworking of previously existing stories. He just put his own twist and wit into them.


So, reworking Shakespeare would just be following in the tradition that he himself worked from.

No, I don't really buy that.

I know that Shakespeare reworked all but two of his plays The Tempest and Love Labour's Lost (I think) but he vastly improved and almost totally rewrote a great amount of them, often with sublime language and feeling to boot.

We live in a different time anyway from Shakespeare's age whereby stories, plays, ideas were there to be improved and altered, it's not quite the same today.

Shakespeare has created these momentous works, although some are far better than others, but I see little point in reworking Shakespeare, unless you want to selfishly gain from using his name.

I've seen lots of updated productions of Shakespeare both on stage and screen and I am not convinced by most of them really. Some are quite good, but I tend to think "so what?" after seeing them. I would have preferred to see the original.

Macbeth walking around in a dinner jacket doesn't really do it for me to be honest, I just don't think it's necessary and can't bring anything to the play. If it can't make the play better then what's the point?

I bought the recent BBC adaptations of Shakespeare, the three witches are bin men (refuge collectors) and so on. It's an OK collection, but I still think "so what?" I would have preferred to have seen the original.

So I have nothing against reworking Shakespeare as long as they can improve upon the play. Don't think so somehow do you?

[stlukesguild]

I see no point in "modernizing" Shakespeare... but I would have no problem in a writer using his work as a jumping off point. Isn't this essentially what Shakespeare did? He did not merely "modernize" his source materials: update the language and setting a bit. Rather he created something entirely new... just as Marlowe, Goethe, and Thomas Mann all produce something entirely new from essentially the same source material. Certainly the Bible... perhaps one of the only texts to rival Shakespeare has inspired endless new works of art which are far more than "modernizations." The same might be said of the Homeric texts. Do we dismiss Virgil's Aeneid or Kleist's Penthesilea as no more than pointless "modernizations". If we are talking the sort of "modernization" that resulted in the film Romeo+Juliet or the sort of staging of Shakespeare or Wagnerian operas in which the actors all appear as something out of the film Alien... well then surely count me out... but if an artist is willing to take on Shakespeare as a source material... well more power to them.

[Desolation]

So I have nothing against reworking Shakespeare as long as they can improve upon the play. Don't think so somehow do you?Well, personally, I hate Shakespeare. So, it would take very little effort for someone to improve upon him in my book. Conversely, there are lots of people who absolutely adore him, and no matter how good of a job someone does reworking Shakespeare, that group will think that it is vastly inferior. To take on an unbiased view, I would say that if someone sincerely believes that they can do a really good job on the project, then they should go for it.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I see no point in "modernizing" Shakespeare... but I would have no problem in a writer using his work as a jumping off point. Isn't this essentially what Shakespeare did? He did not merely "modernize" his source materials: update the language and setting a bit. Rather he created something entirely new... just as Marlowe, Goethe, and Thomas Mann all produce something entirely new from essentially the same source material. Certainly the Bible... perhaps one of the only texts to rival Shakespeare has inspired endless new works of art which are far more than "modernizations." The same might be said of the Homeric texts. Do we dismiss Virgil's Aeneid or Kleist's Penthesilea as no more than pointless "modernizations". If we are talking the sort of "modernization" that resulted in the film Romeo+Juliet or the sort of staging of Shakespeare or Wagnerian operas in which the actors all appear as something out of the film Alien... well then surely count me out... but if an artist is willing to take on Shakespeare as a source material... well more power to them.

Yes, then your really talking about being inspired by such works as opposed to reworking them. There is nothing wrong with that, it is only natural that people are going to inspired by great literature.

What I can't support is the idea that Shakespeare (or any other writer for that matter) has to be "brought up to date" or "reworked to apply to our time" because I only see this as a complete cop out. An excuse for the idle who can't be bothered to read or a ploy to try and put more bums on seats.

Shakespeare doesn't need reworking, we don't need to see Macbeth walking around in a tracksuit. We don't have to dumb down Shakespeare or modernise it unnecessarily, there is no point.


Well, personally, I hate Shakespeare. So, it would take very little effort for someone to improve upon him in my book. Conversely, there are lots of people who absolutely adore him, and no matter how good of a job someone does reworking Shakespeare, that group will think that it is vastly inferior. To take on an unbiased view, I would say that if someone sincerely believes that they can do a really good job on the project, then they should go for it.

I find it strange when people say they hate/dislike Shakespeare if they are avid readers, I simply don't understand it.

Fine, all students naturally seem to hate Shakespeare, as it seems the fashionable thing to do, but to someone more developed than that then I simply can't add it up. You might as well say Lance Armstrong is a crap cyclist, doesn't really make sense to me, but then everyone is entitled to their own opinions and tastes, and I've got no problems with that, I respect that (in a sense).:D

I would like to meet the writer or group of writers who think that they can seriously improve Shakespeare. What's next Paradise Lost reworked into an Australian soap? G'day.

[stlukesguild]

I find it strange when people say they hate/dislike Shakespeare if they are avid readers, I simply don't understand it. \

Certainly I can understand someone who prefers Tolstoy or the Greeks or perhaps has a predilection for modern literature... but to state a hatred of Shakespeare?... It rather calls the reading abilities into question, does it not? Perhaps its understandable of the grade-school student... but an avid reader? :confused:

[stlukesguild]

What I can't support is the idea that Shakespeare (or any other writer for that matter) has to be "brought up to date" or "reworked to apply to our time" because I only see this as a complete cop out. An excuse for the idle who can't be bothered to read or a ploy to try and put more bums on seats.

Shakespeare doesn't need reworking, we don't need to see Macbeth walking around in a tracksuit. We don't have to dumb down Shakespeare or modernise it unnecessarily, there is no point.

I agree completely. I've long held with Ezra Pound who argued that any English language reader who couldn't make the effort to learn the few words necessary to read Chaucer in the original deserved to never read anything of any worth again.:lol: I wonder what he would have thought should be done with those who cry out for the modernization of Shakespeare.

[Desolation]

I find it strange when people say they hate/dislike Shakespeare if they are avid readers, I simply don't understand it.

Fine, all students naturally seem to hate Shakespeare, as it seems the fashionable thing to do, but to someone more developed than that then I simply can't add it up. You might as well say Lance Armstrong is a crap cyclist, doesn't really make sense to me, but then everyone is entitled to their own opinions and tastes, and I've got no problems with that, I respect that (in a sense).:D

I would like to meet the writer or group of writers who think that they can seriously improve Shakespeare. What's next Paradise Lost reworked into an Australian soap? G'day.Well, first of all, Shakespeare is best appreciated in a theatrical sense rather than a literary sense. I'm really generally not fond of reading plays. I can even appreciate his historical impact, in much the same way that I can appreciate that of Adolf Hitler. But, when it comes right down to it, I can't stand the man, his writings, the time period that he comes from, and least of all, his acclaim.

Don't knock it until you see the result, eh?


Certainly I can understand someone who prefers Tolstoy or the Greeks or perhaps has a predilection for modern literature... but to state a hatred of Shakespeare?... It rather calls the reading abilities into question, does it not? Perhaps its understandable of the grade-school student... but an avid reader?What, someone criticizes our precious golden cow, Shakespeare? How dare they think that they can have their own opinion :flare:

That an artist calls for conformity of thought and opinion truly boggles my mind.

[stlukesguild]

How dare they think that they can have their own opinion

As always... some opinions are better than others.:D

[Desolation]

How dare they think that they can have their own opinion

As always... some opinions are better than others.:DSo, tell me, in your opinion, does not enjoying(or hating) Shakespeare's works make a person's opinion void?

[stlukesguild]

Well, first of all, Shakespeare is best appreciated in a theatrical sense rather than a literary sense.

That is absolute nonsense. Certainly theatrical productions may help to give a greater understanding of certain aspects of the work, but his language is far too rich and quite often far to multi-layered to be grasped as theater.

I'm really generally not fond of reading plays. I can even appreciate his historical impact, in much the same way that I can appreciate that of Adolf Hitler. But, when it comes right down to it, I can't stand the man, his writings, the time period that he comes from...

I generally prefer poetry over the novel. I'm not overly fond of the the century. Still it would seem extreme to suggest that I HATE Fielding or DeFoe... which would suggest that not merely don't they do anything for me but they absolute repulse me... they seemingly have nothing whatsoever to offer. Again... to hate Shakespeare (or Homer, Milton, the Bible, Tolstoy) is pretty much akin to hating literature.

What, someone criticizes our precious golden cow, Shakespeare? How dare they...

Where is the criticism? "I hate Shakespeare." There's no criticism there. That's like the ignorant grade school student who proclaims "Mozart sucks!" Criticism assumes some rational thought and logical presentation of examples by way of argument.

[JBI]

What I can't support is the idea that Shakespeare (or any other writer for that matter) has to be "brought up to date" or "reworked to apply to our time" because I only see this as a complete cop out. An excuse for the idle who can't be bothered to read or a ploy to try and put more bums on seats.

Shakespeare doesn't need reworking, we don't need to see Macbeth walking around in a tracksuit. We don't have to dumb down Shakespeare or modernise it unnecessarily, there is no point.

I agree completely. I've long held with Ezra Pound who argued that any English language reader who couldn't make the effort to learn the few words necessary to read Chaucer in the original deserved to never read anything of any worth again.:lol: I wonder what he would have thought should be done with those who cry out for the modernization of Shakespeare.

In honesty though, it isn't Shakespeare's "dated" language that makes him difficult - the spellings are almost always brought to the present anyway. Quite simply, he just was a difficult writer - the modern workings of him generally seem to be dumbed down versions - he wasn't Spenser keep in mind - the English literary idiom had already solidified somewhat by then, and he was, very much, writing in our language, not Chaucer's.

Of course, he did have a knack for playing with vernaculars and puns of his time - but even then, most of his audience wouldn't have gotten them anyway, and the few footnotes on the side more than make up for that (and in truth, you can't translate them or modernize them).

I do know, for instance, of a teacher of mine in high school who once brought Ibsen's Hedda Gabler into a modern 45 minute production, with much shaved and changed - to me that seems sacrilege, but she claims it was well received by people who saw it.

[stlukesguild]

So, tell me, in your opinion, does not enjoying(or hating) Shakespeare's works make a person's opinion void?

It pretty much calls it into serious question. I wouldn't think that an art critic who declared that Michelangelo sucked or a music critic who dismissed Bach with a wave of the hand would hold much weight in their prospective fields.

[Desolation]

So, tell me, in your opinion, does not enjoying(or hating) Shakespeare's works make a person's opinion void?

It pretty much calls it into serious question. I wouldn't think that an art critic who declared that Michelangelo sucked or a music critic who dismissed Bach with a wave of the hand would hold much weight in their prospective fields.I hope that for how intelligent you think that you are, you can understand the difference between dismissal and dislike. Shakespeare was incredibly important and influential. To acknowledge such does not mean that I have to like him, or even that I can't hate him (by the way, the reason that I hate him instead of just not enjoying his works is because people like you hold him to such high regard that you'll insult and talk down to someone just for not liking him, it's the exact same reason that me and most other atheists hate Christians - it's purely iconoclastic).

[stlukesguild]

Ah... a marvelous reason to dislike an artist. Because he is too popular. It makes one feel superior to imagine that all those people are wrong while I love those shamefully ignored outsiders like Celine, Sartre, Genet, and Camus. Of course, does popularity really have anything to do with artistic merit? I don't recall that your beloved Rimbaud was all that well respected until after his death and Verlaine's publication of his collected poems. Certainly his biography could lead one to an even more negative opinion of him... unless you are seeking out the romantic ideal of the artist as rebel/iconoclast/outlaw. Nevertheless... the poetry itself is damn good. The artist and the art are not one and the same... in spite of our modern Freudian obsession with biography.

One serious question... having admitted a dislike of the entire era and reputation of Shakespeare... how much of Shakespeare have you actually read... and read with an open mind?

[Desolation]

Ah... a marvelous reason to dislike an artist. Because he is too popular. It makes one feel superior to imagine that all those people are wrong while I love those shamefully ignored outsiders like Celine, Sartre, Genet, and Camus. Of course, does popularity really have anything to do with artistic merit? I don't recall that your beloved Rimbaud was all that well respected until after his death and Verlaine's publication of his collected poems. Certainly his biography could lead one to an even more negative opinion of him... unless you are seeking out the romantic ideal of the artist as rebel/iconoclast/outlaw. Nevertheless... the poetry itself is damn good. The artist and the art are not one and the same... in spite of our modern Freudian obsession with biography.

One serious question... having admitted a dislike of the entire era and reputation of Shakespeare... how much of Shakespeare have you actually read... and read with an open mind?No no no, "popular" is absolutely the wrong word. Bob Dylan is popular, and he's my favorite artist that there is. Nietzsche and Proust are two literary figures that I hold in the highest regard, and they're both pretty popular(in the literature world anyway, and there are many people that I despise that say they love Nietzsche). It's Shakespeare's status as a golden icon that I hate. It's the common thought that he's unquestionable, that he's the be-all end-all, that to be a lover of literature you MUST be a lover of Shakespeare. I think that it's ridiculous to hold anyone universally on such a high pedestal.
Other than that, you're spot on. I do have a romanticized notion of outsiders in literature(even though a lot of them are kind of pseudo-outsiders, as they're generally still in the "Classics" section at bookstores), I can relate to them much better.

Honestly, I've only actually read 3-4 of his works, none of which I've particularly disliked. I even want to read 'King Lear' eventually, when I'm done with the stuff that I'm more interested in. I really just like twisting people's wigs over him. Childish? Perhaps, but I have fun with it.

[JBI]

Well, first of all, Shakespeare is best appreciated in a theatrical sense rather than a literary sense.

That is absolute nonsense. Certainly theatrical productions may help to give a greater understanding of certain aspects of the work, but his language is far too rich and quite often far to multi-layered to be grasped as theater.

I'm really generally not fond of reading plays. I can even appreciate his historical impact, in much the same way that I can appreciate that of Adolf Hitler. But, when it comes right down to it, I can't stand the man, his writings, the time period that he comes from...

I generally prefer poetry over the novel. I'm not overly fond of the the century. Still it would seem extreme to suggest that I HATE Fielding or DeFoe... which would suggest that not merely don't they do anything for me but they absolute repulse me... they seemingly have nothing whatsoever to offer. Again... to hate Shakespeare (or Homer, Milton, the Bible, Tolstoy) is pretty much akin to hating literature.

What, someone criticizes our precious golden cow, Shakespeare? How dare they...

Where is the criticism? "I hate Shakespeare." There's no criticism there. That's like the ignorant grade school student who proclaims "Mozart sucks!" Criticism assumes some rational thought and logical presentation of examples by way of argument.

Not even the most pompous of critics have come out and said "Shakespeare Sucks". In truth, the most convincing cases seem to argue not that his place were bad, but that there was and is other great literature outside of Shakespeare, a view which is somewhat understandable, and I somewhat agree with (though I read a fair bit of Shakespeare, especially the sonnets).

Hitler and Shakespeare have nothing in common. You judge Hitler based on biography and history, not based on his written output, or his artistry. You essentially cannot judge Shakespeare on biography, as we know essentially nothing of importance about him. There is no biography to judge, and quite simply, you are left with just the work, which takes more than a couple of sophomoric lines to really criticize.

Of course, our culture seems to emphasize the lives of the artists a fair bit. That goes back a long time, and really picked up in the Renaissance, and later in English with the emergence of Enlightenment scholarship, which was obsessed with such notions (though, the bulk of Johnson's literary men have since gone into oblivion).

As for performances of Shakespeare, I encourage them, assuming they are good. Movies generally suck, with very few exceptions (and that terrible Romeo and Juliet with Leonardo DiCaprio was just so damn 90s). A Nice classic Shakespeare though, with someone like Christopher Plumber as Lear or something is always worth while though.

[JBI]

Ah... a marvelous reason to dislike an artist. Because he is too popular. It makes one feel superior to imagine that all those people are wrong while I love those shamefully ignored outsiders like Celine, Sartre, Genet, and Camus. Of course, does popularity really have anything to do with artistic merit? I don't recall that your beloved Rimbaud was all that well respected until after his death and Verlaine's publication of his collected poems. Certainly his biography could lead one to an even more negative opinion of him... unless you are seeking out the romantic ideal of the artist as rebel/iconoclast/outlaw. Nevertheless... the poetry itself is damn good. The artist and the art are not one and the same... in spite of our modern Freudian obsession with biography.

One serious question... having admitted a dislike of the entire era and reputation of Shakespeare... how much of Shakespeare have you actually read... and read with an open mind?
Better to ask how much of the era. Certainly, it can be described (the period from mid 16th century up until 1660) as probably the Golden Age of English literature, if we would be so bold as to go there. Certainly all our conceptions of English (as in England) lit seem to start with Wyatt and really culminate in
Milton. Perhaps Fletcher feels a bit dated, and I personally don't particularly like Ben Jonson, but still, Spenser, Shakespeare, Marlowe, Milton, Crashaw Herrick, Donne, Lovelace, Sidney, Raleigh, Bacon, Marvell, Kyd, Lyly, Herbert etc. When it comes down to it, the amount of powerful verse and to a lesser extent prose is staggering.

The language isn't particularly difficult, when compared to other languages, in the sense that if you have a good command of English, and a decent command of any romance language, or not even, but understand some sense of latinate loanwords, you can pretty much get the meaning of everything. Dickens' language, for instance, can be described as just as difficult, simply because people have no clue how to read. Shakespeare just seems the only writer who, in the US, is automatically studied, and happens to not write in a late 19th or 20th century American prosaic idiom. Milton is far more difficult, in terms of rhetoric, as are, I would argue, Pope and Dryden (the former being wittier, whereas the latter having a sharper imagination and introducing what can be described as "Delphic" language to English). I don't see Alexander Pope for dummies yet. Perhaps it is because people who read Pope generally are knowledgeable, and know how to read (why else would they read Pope, who, ultimately requires a vast knowledge of footnotes or knowledge to understand completely?).

As for popularity, all the artists you named are popular. George Herbert, for instance, could be considered an unpopular poet, as could, for instance, Jay MacPherson. Sarte is hardly unpopular, and Rimbaud most certainly isn't.

[stlukesguild]

Bob Dylan is popular, and he's my favorite artist that there is.

Well... at least we can agree there. Perhaps he's not my absolute favorite artist... but Blonde on Blonde, Highway 61 Revisited, and John Wesley Harding are never far from my CD player.

Nietzsche and Proust are two literary figures that I hold in the highest regard, and they're both pretty popular(in the literature world anyway...

And yet Proust (along with Joyce) may certainly be among the most "Shakespearean" writers of the century. Joyce challenges Shakespeare's love of wordplay while Proust in perhaps the creator of the fullest and richest characters of the past 100+ years.

It's Shakespeare's status as a golden icon that I hate. It's the common thought that he's unquestionable, that he's the be-all end-all, that to be a lover of literature you MUST be a lover of Shakespeare.

Personally, I don't think that any artist is above criticism. Certainly this is not true of Shakespeare. I can't think of a single author whose works have resulted in such a wealth of critical discussion... and you don't honestly think that all those books on Shakespeare are unadulterated adulation, do you?

I think that it's ridiculous to hold anyone universally on such a high pedestal.

Certainly it may be absurd to expect that everyone should upon the status of an artist up as the single "greatest" within his or her field. I don't know that such is true of Shakespeare. Certainly there are those who would counter (with good reason) with Homer, Dante, Milton, Goethe, Firdowsi, Cervantes, Tolstoy, the Bible, etc... I personally would hold Michelangelo as the greatest artist of all time... but I could certainly understand counter arguments for Rembrandt, Titian, Leonardo... even Picasso.

Other than that, you're spot on. I do have a romanticized notion of outsiders in literature (even though a lot of them are kind of pseudo-outsiders, as they're generally still in the "Classics" section at bookstores), I can relate to them much better.

Of course there are those artist bios that are far more interesting than others: Van Gogh, Caravaggio, Rimbaud, Baudelaire, Mozart, Wagner... but then the art and the bio are two different things. The notion that the art is the unique voice of the artist... "self-expression"... is a notion really rooted in Romanticism and ignores the fact that some of the most audacious and innovative art came from some of the most bourgeois artists, while in other instances the reputation or the artist's persona is far larger than the work merits. Then again... I love Wagner, Baudelaire, Rimbaud, Verlaine (as my postings over at the French Symbolist thread should make clear), Francis Bacon, Van Gogh, and any number of other "outsiders".

[Desolation]

Well... at least we can agree there.
Actually, it seems to me that we're currently more in agreement than not.

[kelby_lake]

Yes, then your really talking about being inspired by such works as opposed to reworking them. There is nothing wrong with that, it is only natural that people are going to inspired by great literature.

What I can't support is the idea that Shakespeare (or any other writer for that matter) has to be "brought up to date" or "reworked to apply to our time" because I only see this as a complete cop out. An excuse for the idle who can't be bothered to read or a ploy to try and put more bums on seats.

Shakespeare doesn't need reworking, we don't need to see Macbeth walking around in a tracksuit. We don't have to dumb down Shakespeare or modernise it unnecessarily, there is no point.


This is generally how I feel about modern adaptations. The biggest problem with them is that they tend to trivialise the play (like setting Othello in a pub) because they don't find the dramatic equivalent.

When I consider updating Shakespeare, I transfer it to another society (after all, Eugene O'Neill pointed out that we can't write about the present as we can't look critically on it)- Romeo and Juliet is now set in the early 80's.

Obviously I have to continue researching the play, as a director's job is to pick out the themes of the play- if they can do that better in, say, 1920's, why not let them?

George Bernard Shaw seems to hate Shakespeare.

[JBI]

George Bernard Shaw seems to hate Shakespeare.

Perhaps, though he borrows quite a bit from him - perhaps even more than he did from Ibsen. If anything though, I'd say Shaw loved Shakespeare - he seems quite Shakespeare obsessed, that is for sure, though, I am no Shaw expert.

[Scheherazade]

though, I am no Shaw expert.You surely don't expect us to believe that, d'ya?

;)

[meh!]

I don't see the point in reworkings of shakespeare. Not in the way that a director may choose to do things but things like... updating the language and things like that. If you're not going to perform the play shakespeare wrote... write your own play.

[mortalterror]

I don't see the point in reworkings of shakespeare. Not in the way that a director may choose to do things but things like... updating the language and things like that. If you're not going to perform the play shakespeare wrote... write your own play.

That's essentially how I see it. The words were Shakespeare's only contribution. You're basically just using the same source material if you don't use his words. He didn't invent the titles, the characters, or situations.

What's really funny is that Shakespeare rewrote bad plays or stories and turned them into good ones. When people rewrite Shakespeare they always go after Hamlet, Lear, and Macbeth. You don't see people knocking down doors to rewrite Cymbeline, Henry VI, Timon of Athens, Pericles, or The Winters Tale. Let's face it, you're not going to make Hamlet better. Why not try your hand at a play where there is obviously room for improvement? I rewrote Hamlet one summer in highschool and you know what I figured out? It's really better without the Star Wars references.

[JBI]

That's essentially how I see it. The words were Shakespeare's only contribution. You're basically just using the same source material if you don't use his words. He didn't invent the titles, the characters, or situations.

What's really funny is that Shakespeare rewrote bad plays or stories and turned them into good ones. When people rewrite Shakespeare they always go after Hamlet, Lear, and Macbeth. You don't see people knocking down doors to rewrite Cymbeline, Henry VI, Timon of Athens, Pericles, or The Winters Tale. Let's face it, you're not going to make Hamlet better. Why not try your hand at a play where there is obviously room for improvement? I rewrote Hamlet one summer in highschool and you know what I figured out? It's really better without the Star Wars references.

Though, there is room for pushing - as far as I know, the only traditional staging practice that has really come down to us from Shakespeare's time (meaning the only real sense of performance we have) is a little gag in Midsummer Night's Dream, where the actor playing Thisbe is unable to unsheath Pyrimus' sword instead stabs himself with the scabbard. There are a few other gags we know of too, though none as comical or genius - for instance, Macbeth often plays the third murderer - a tradition, but not a rule.

In terms of text though, the Shakespeare has undergone a sort of revision already, before it gets into the Arden, Oxford, or Signet editions, or whichever. The language, to an extent, already has been modified to create a definitive, modernly written version, which matches are written English more, and values the texts, making judgments on which versions are permitted and which aren't.

Though, in my high school, it was common practice to memorize a scene, with a group, of a play, and then preform it in the original, and then in colloquial English. In a sense, as an exercise that is a particularly good one; it forces students to decode Shakespeare, and put it into their own words - sooner or later, after enough decoding, I think the goal is to get people to realize that decoding can simply be replaced by reading, and that the language isn't all that difficult. It seems though, that it doesn't work. We have virtually everything from auto-machinery to Church Slavonic available in books for "Dummies" or "Idiots" - it is only fitting that Shakespeare gets his place amongst the Stars too.

[Madame X]

I agree completely. I've long held with Ezra Pound who argued that any English language reader who couldn't make the effort to learn the few words necessary to read Chaucer in the original deserved to never read anything of any worth again.:lol: I wonder what he would have thought should be done with those who cry out for the modernization of Shakespeare.

Have them all summarily executed only to “deeply regret” it some years down the line, no doubt. :redface:

As for modernizing Shakespeare, well, why the heck not? Of course it is our duty as literary professionals to point out the obvious fact that printing your (a general “you” here, as in: anyone attempting such a feat) name alongside that of a literary ‘great’ is no guarantee of greatness by association...but that aside, you’re fortunate in being fairly free to occupy your time in this life with whatever form of cerebral drudgery you fancy most. :thumbs_up

Granted, I’m not averse to translation in any literary capacity, that is, for the sake of accessibility (At være eller ikke at være: det er spørgsmålet, Hamlet ponders in his native tongue, albeit with a bit of native assistance :cool:); that’s a meticulous matter of attempting to maintain the aesthetic dignity of the source language whilst rendering it, in as comparable a fashion, into an entirely, or at least significantly, different linguistic framework...commendable if pulled off...however, modernizing both language (in the original no less) and plot seems more a stylistic imposition wherein the ‘interpreter’ is less conduit and more creative force, if you will, in which case, as has been mentioned, I don’t see why you’d not prefer simply writing something of your own contrivance, more as your own appreciative nod to that most princely of playwrights without being awkwardly confined to his stage (hence, in all likelihood, making yourself look sorta silly and amateurish in comparison :banana:).

Just a thought. Of course, I may very well end up looking like the silliest sucker of them all if any brave soul here would care to grace us with a few sensational samples of their own efforts in such classical modernization?

[kelby_lake]

I would like to keep the language...but there's certain elements of the play that are radically altered (setting and characters)

[wessexgirl]

Perhaps, though he borrows quite a bit from him - perhaps even more than he did from Ibsen. If anything though, I'd say Shaw loved Shakespeare - he seems quite Shakespeare obsessed, that is for sure, though, I am no Shaw expert.

Shaw hated Shakespeare. Not a plus point for Shaw in my opinion. Perhaps a touch of the old green-eyed monster? I think he said something about wanting to dig him up to throw stones at him.

[meh!]

Shaw hated aspects of Shakespeare, as is his right. Anyway, anyone who defends each and every shakespeare play as perfection is clearly wrong. Shaw found Shakespeare infuriating and used the great phrase passage:

why our stage should ever have been cursed with this “immortal” pilferer of other men’s stories and ideas, with his monstrous rhetorical fustian, his unbearable platitudes, his pretentious reduction of the subtlest problems of life to commonplaces against which a Polytechnic debating club would revot, his incredible unsuggestiveness, his sententious combination of ready reflection with complete intellectual sterility, and his consequent incapacity for getting out of the depth of even the most ignorant audience, except when he solemnly says something so transcendently platitudinous that his more humble-minded hearers cannot bring themselves to believe that so great a man really meant to talk like their grandmothers. With the single exception of Homer, there is no eminent writer, not even Sir Walter Scott, whom I can despise so entirely as I despise Shakespeare when I measure my mind against his

But he also makes clear he is 'bound to pity the man who cannot enjoy shakespeare' beacuse of his command over language etc etc

[kelby_lake]

How can I update Lysistrata?

[JBI]

How can I update Lysistrata?

It's already been done, and been preformed as a response to the Invasion of Iraq, amongst other things. I actually had a radio adaption on my old computer of a modernized rendition of it, not a politically motivated one mind you, but a modernized one nonetheless.

Of course, I think the play loses something when the men don't come on stage wearing phalluses, but perhaps that is just me.

[mortalterror]

It's already been done, and been preformed as a response to the Invasion of Iraq, amongst other things. I actually had a radio adaption on my old computer of a modernized rendition of it, not a politically motivated one mind you, but a modernized one nonetheless.

Of course, I think the play loses something when the men don't come on stage wearing phalluses, but perhaps that is just me.

That's one of my favorite plays. Is that radio version available for download anywhere?

[kelby_lake]

I hate the play but we have to 'make it relevant for a 2010 audience'. If only we could do a Greek tragedy- they were vital to theatre.

[acdouglas92]

I myself find that Shakespeare really can't be improved...I mean, we are talking about SHAKESPEARE here! And I have to agree with many here who are annoying by modernizations of Shakespeare. I feel as though his plays should be seen as they were meant to be seen in the Golden Globe some time ago. Although I've never seen a Shakespeare play in person...does anyone know if seeing one in person would make such a significant difference in my appreciation of a play such as, say, "Hamlet"?

[kasie]

I myself find that Shakespeare really can't be improved...I mean, we are talking about SHAKESPEARE here! And I have to agree with many here who are annoying by modernizations of Shakespeare. I feel as though his plays should be seen as they were meant to be seen in the Golden Globe some time ago. Although I've never seen a Shakespeare play in person...does anyone know if seeing one in person would make such a significant difference in my appreciation of a play such as, say, "Hamlet"?

Yes! My goodness, yes! A good production will move you, thrill you, absorb you, show you aspects you may never have thought of, send you back to the text, stimulate interest in further productions - but make sure it is a 'live' production, Shakespeare on film is a different proposition entirely.

I've just seen a production of As You Like It at the Globe in London, performed in Elizabethan costume on what is thought to be a similar stage to the original Globe - it was an excellent production and actually had novelty and charm in its presentation as a 'reproduction' of the original setting - but I'm not sure if I gained anything in particular from this aspect. I gained more from the interpretation of the characters by the skilled and enthusaistic rendering of the language. I've seen many productions in modern dress and have enjoyed every one, even (dare I say it?!) The Merchant of Venice as interpreted by a visiting American company at Stratford: at first the accents got in the way (I'll apologise and grovel a bit at this point, shall I?), though strangely not the mobile phones and laptops, but before the first scene was over, I was no longer hearing the accents and the beautiful Armani suits were adding to the play - these were seriously wealthy young men, making their money by trading and the modern Stock Market setting helped to reinforce this, while Portia in a severe black trouser suit was attractively androgynous, an aspect that is not immediately apparent in period costume where for a modern audience she is 'dressed up' anyway. The modern setting worked, imo, because it wasn't there for a gimmick, it was used to emphasize an aspect of the play.

I've seen a Romeo and Juliet in a Mafia setting - it made the 'honour feud' more accessible to a society from which such concepts have largely disappeared. The fight scenes with sticks and baseball bats were truly frightening.

So to the OP I would say - Leave the language well alone, make sure your actors do it justice, and if you choose a 'modern' setting, make sure it is one that reinforces some aspect of the play's theme and is not just a gimmick.

[JBI]

That's one of my favorite plays. Is that radio version available for download anywhere?

Legally, I don't know, though if you try a torrent tracker that hosts torrents from demonoid.com, I'm sure you can find it (or go to demonoid.com for that matter), though technically, unless you own the work, that would be against the law in most countries.

[Tapioca Shine]

I don't see why there needs to be a "point" to modernizing old works. Not every work of art needs a mission statement. Sometimes seeing a work done differently helps you see it in a new way. Sometimes it's just cool.

As for disliking Shakespeare, there was a post in here earlier about "call[ing] into question the literacy of someone who didn't like Shakespeare" or something like that. This is the position of an ultra- a zealot so far into his own head he is like a crude satire of himself. PLENTY of fully capable readers dislike Shakespeare. Art is subjective; a matter of opinion. No one ever needs to defend their artistic opinions.



Nietzsche and Proust are two literary figures that I hold in the highest regard, and they're both pretty popular(in the literature world anyway...

And yet Proust (along with Joyce) may certainly be among the most "Shakespearean" writers of the century. Joyce challenges Shakespeare's love of wordplay while Proust in perhaps the creator of the fullest and richest characters of the past 100+ years.

Joyce and Proust are far from Shakespearean. You are using "Shakespearean" as a measure of quality, not style. If I define "Hubbardian" as a measure of book length, then I could say "Victor Hugo is almost as good as L. Ron Hubbard." This is, needless to say, rediculous. This is why you can never say two things are similar when you are only comparing certain aspects of them. Joyce and Shakespeare use wordplay, cars and beercans are made of metal. In neither case are the two similar.

p.s. Someone said reading Chaucer in the original Middle English required one "learn a few words." It is clear that anyone saying this has either never read Chaucer in the original, or grew up in the 1400s. I will quote a randomly selected passage as evidence:
"Wher they ne felte noon effect in dreme.
Who-so wol seken actes of sondry remes
May rede of dremes many a wonder thing.
Lo Cresus, which that was of Lyde king,
Mette he nat that he sat upon a tree,"

[stlukesguild]

As for disliking Shakespeare, there was a post in here earlier about "call[ing] into question the literacy of someone who didn't like Shakespeare" or something like that. This is the position of an ultra- a zealot so far into his own head he is like a crude satire of himself. PLENTY of fully capable readers dislike Shakespeare. Art is subjective; a matter of opinion. No one ever needs to defend their artistic opinions.

There is a clear difference between stating a dislike of Shakespeare and stating or suggesting that Shakespeare is simply a poor writer that could be easily improved upon. Tolstoy expressed a dislike for Shakespeare... albeit he clearly is a figure that cannot be ignored. His opinion is rooted ostensibly in his aversion to Shakespeare not taking a moral stance... Good does not always prevail and evil is not ignorant. Such was unacceptable to Tolstoy... although one suspects that not unlike Plato's criticisms of Homer the fact cannot be ignored that what was being expressed was something or a professional jealousy... a realization that for all his strength, Tolstoy recognized he would never surpass Shakespeare. Art is subjective? To a limited degree. Everyone has opinions. Some are worth more than others. Those who cannot defend their artistic opinions are certainly not those whose opinions are bound to matter much one way or another.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stlukesguild View Post
Nietzsche and Proust are two literary figures that I hold in the highest regard, and they're both pretty popular(in the literature world anyway...

And yet Proust (along with Joyce) may certainly be among the most "Shakespearean" writers of the century. Joyce challenges Shakespeare's love of wordplay while Proust in perhaps the creator of the fullest and richest characters of the past 100+ years.

Joyce and Proust are far from Shakespearean. You are using "Shakespearean" as a measure of quality, not style. If I define "Hubbardian" as a measure of book length, then I could say "Victor Hugo is almost as good as L. Ron Hubbard." This is, needless to say, rediculous. This is why you can never say two things are similar when you are only comparing certain aspects of them. Joyce and Shakespeare use wordplay, cars and beercans are made of metal. In neither case are the two similar.

"Shakespearean" is not a value judgment. If I were suggesting that Proust were on the level of Shakespeare (and he may just be... along with Joyce... the closest the past century has produced to such). At the same time "Shakespearean" need not be assumed to be limited to use in comparison to a similar use of language (ala Spenser, Milton, etc...). "Shakespearean" may be used to call attention to any number of elements in a writer's work that echoes or recalls that of Shakespeare. Any number of writers and critics (Harold Bloom not the least of these) have spoken of writers ranging from Melville, Joyce, Proust, Keats, Goethe, etc... as "Shakespearean" in one way or another. An author as far removed as Eugenio Montale has been repeatedly compared to Dante. Such comparisons are common... but not to be thrown around lightly or without further explanation or development. Many have noted the "Shakespearean" elements of Joyce ranging from his obsessive wordplay and other inventiveness of language, to his character development and exploration of the psychology of character. One might also point out any number of references to Shakespeare in Ulysses (for example) that convey Joyce's own admiration and struggle with his great predecessor. As I more than made clear, my use of "Shakespearean" with regard to Proust deal with Proust's richness of character development... and the exploration of their inner thoughts or psychology. Considering that such is one of Shakespeare's unquestionable strengths it certainly would seem an apt analogy.

p.s. Someone said reading Chaucer in the original Middle English required one "learn a few words." It is clear that anyone saying this has either never read Chaucer in the original, or grew up in the 1400s. I will quote a randomly selected passage as evidence:
"Wher they ne felte noon effect in dreme.
Who-so wol seken actes of sondry remes
May rede of dremes many a wonder thing.
Lo Cresus, which that was of Lyde king,
Mette he nat that he sat upon a tree,"

That would be me as well... quoting Ezra Pound. Your assumptions as to whether I have read Chaucer in the original would be sadly mistaken as I don't even own a modernized version... excepting one finely bound edition that I own as an art object more than to read. Literature of nearly any past ara demands practice and some familiarity with vocabulary and poetic or prose structure. To many high-school students Dickens and even Poe are challenging. Chaucer wrote well before the English language became codified and standardized as a result of the printing press and publication... still his English (a London dialect quite different from that used by Langland in the near contemporaneous Piers Plowman) is most certainly not overly difficult for the reader who is comfortable with Shakespeare, Spenser, Wyatt, Sidney, etc... More than half the difficulties are with spellings and the fact that the spelling of the same word may take several different forms throughout the text. Outside that once one has mastered a few common words that may be unfamiliar the text is not exceeding difficult and far more rewarding as poetry than most modernizations. One need only a solid edition with footnotes (such as the Everyman edition).

1 Whan that Aprill with his shoures soote
When April with its sweet-smelling showers
2 The droghte of March hath perced to the roote,
Has pierced the drought of March to the root,
3 And bathed every veyne in swich licour
And bathed every vein (of the plants) in such liquid
4 Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
By which power the flower is created;
5 Whan Zephirus eek with his sweete breeth
When the West Wind also with its sweet breath,
6 Inspired hath in every holt and heeth
In every wood and field has breathed life into
7 The tendre croppes, and the yonge sonne
The tender new leaves, and the young sun
8 Hath in the Ram his half cours yronne,
Has run half its course in Aries,
9 And smale foweles maken melodye,
And small fowls make melody,
10 That slepen al the nyght with open ye
Those that sleep all the night with open eyes
11 (So priketh hem Nature in hir corages),
(So Nature incites them in their hearts),
12 Thanne longen folk to goon on pilgrimages,
Then folk long to go on pilgrimages,
13 And palmeres for to seken straunge strondes,
And professional pilgrims to seek foreign shores,
14 To ferne halwes, kowthe in sondry londes;
To distant shrines, known in various lands;
15 And specially from every shires ende
And specially from every shire's end
16 Of Engelond to Caunterbury they wende,
Of England to Canterbury they travel,
17 The hooly blisful martir for to seke,
To seek the holy blessed martyr,
18 That hem hath holpen whan that they were seeke.
Who helped them when they were sick.

19 Bifil that in that seson on a day,
It happened that in that season on one day,
20 In Southwerk at the Tabard as I lay
In Southwark at the Tabard Inn as I lay
21 Redy to wenden on my pilgrymage
Ready to go on my pilgrimage
22 To Caunterbury with ful devout corage,
To Canterbury with a very devout spirit,
23 At nyght was come into that hostelrye
At night had come into that hostelry
24 Wel nyne and twenty in a compaignye
Well nine and twenty in a company
25 Of sondry folk, by aventure yfalle
Of various sorts of people, by chance fallen
26 In felaweshipe, and pilgrimes were they alle,
In fellowship, and they were all pilgrims,
27 That toward Caunterbury wolden ryde.
Who intended to ride toward Canterbury.
28 The chambres and the stables weren wyde,
The bedrooms and the stables were spacious,
29 And wel we weren esed atte beste.
And we were well accommodated in the best way.
30 And shortly, whan the sonne was to reste,
And in brief, when the sun was (gone) to rest,
31 So hadde I spoken with hem everichon
I had so spoken with everyone of them
32 That I was of hir felaweshipe anon,
That I was of their fellowship straightway,
33 And made forward erly for to ryse,
And made agreement to rise early,
34 To take oure wey ther as I yow devyse.
To take our way where I (will) tell you.

Do we really need the translation? Do we need to translate Zephirus into the West Wind? Must "sondry" be transformed into various when it is clearly just an earlier spelling of "sundry"? We can't figure out what "chambres" (chambers) are? Shouldn't we actually know what "palmeres" (palmers) are if we are reading a medieval text set in a pilgrimage to a religious site? I seriously don't see the incredible difficulty.

[Tapioca Shine]

Are you going for anything but post length? I'm at a loss to even begin pulling apart your post; It's like you picked some random words from my post and used them as a free-write prompt. I'm confident anyone reading this thread will look back at your post and see this- I'm not up for 20 minutes of dissecting babble.

As for your selection from Chaucer, you deliberatly chose cognates (palmeres, etc.) By your logic, any speaker of english should be able to speak latin, german, spanish and french. After all, do we really need the translation? Do we need to translate carta into chart? Must "boot" be transformed into ship when it is clearly just an earlier spelling of "boat"? We can't figure out what "calculatrices" (calculators) are? Shouldn't we actually know what "trenes" (trains) are if we are reading a technical manual for a railroad worker? I seriously don't see the incredible difficulty.

[stlukesguild]

I just love it when someone new to LitNet jumps in and begins to make various and sundry:D assumptions without the least idea of who they talking with or what they are talking about. You charge into the middle of a fray and immediately began with attacking me. You question the appropriateness of my use of the term "Shakespearean" and then expect that I should not offer a counter argument? You insinuate that I must known nothing of Chaucer's original text and then bristle when I suggest that I don't find it all that impossible to read and dismiss my comments as "babble". The term "troll" comes to mind... and surely you don't need me to translate this for you.

[Tapioca Shine]

I take it as a sign of my victory that your post boils down to "Don't you know who you're talking to?!"

[Scheherazade]

.
R e m i n d e r

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Posts containing such comments will be deleted without any further notice.
.

[JBI]

Heh Lukes, even your text of Chaucer in the "original" has been modified to ease your reading, which is kind of ironic, though I'm in agreement that "Modernized" translations tend to suck - most people can trace the meanings of the words pretty easily if they are very proficient English readers. A couple footnotes, preferably on the side rather than underneath or in the back generally does more than enough.





As for your selection from Chaucer, you deliberatly chose cognates (palmeres, etc.) By your logic, any speaker of english should be able to speak latin, german, spanish and french. After all, do we really need the translation? Do we need to translate carta into chart? Must "boot" be transformed into ship when it is clearly just an earlier spelling of "boat"? We can't figure out what "calculatrices" (calculators) are? Shouldn't we actually know what "trenes" (trains) are if we are reading a technical manual for a railroad worker? I seriously don't see the incredible difficulty


One who really knows how to read English should be versed, to an extent, in etymologies, which are common to other languages. French is generally a requirement in many institutions, for instance, for people pursuing Ph. D.s in English (it is, at least, in all credible Canadian universities with good graduate programs, though can be wavered if a suitable second language is found) and a command of basic Italian isn't too bad either. Modern German is perhaps less helpful, though a basic understanding of Anglo-Saxon may help. It is, actually, unbelievable what can be learned from a text just by checking which words came from Latin, and which from Anglo-Saxon - the way English rhetoric is built is based upon this relationship, with Latinate words being more grand and formal, and the brief Anglo-Saxon syllables sharp and pungent.

But this is a digression - generally, there are certain readers who are better at reading than others, certain people who can really take apart a text. In a sense, they get more out of the text, but even so, Chaucer isn't particularly difficult if you work at it - all the hard words are already on the side for you, and all the references at the bottom. Shakespeare though? Hardly a difficult writer, unless he chooses to be, in which case you aren't exactly modernizing, you are dumbing down.

Shakespeare has moments that even a school child can understand; he also has deliberately ornate moments with fancy language and dense wordplay. His difficulty isn't in that he is archaic, but rather that he is witty, and creative in his employment of language.

[stlukesguild]

Heh Lukes, even your text of Chaucer in the "original" has been modified to ease your reading, which is kind of ironic...

You may be right. I just pulled it off the net rather than typing it from my own edition. Unfortunately, none of the "original" texts (in Chaucer's hand) have survived (something that comes up in the book, Who Murdered Chaucer? that I was discussing with Petrarch before her withdrawal due to work load). There are a number of fragmentary editions of Chaucer's text dating from the early 15th century. The version used in the Everyman edition is based upon the Ellesmere manuscript (also dating from the early 15th c.) which includes all of the fragments of the Canterbury Tales that Chaucer left at his death.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Shakespeare though? Hardly a difficult writer, unless he chooses to be, in which case you aren't exactly modernizing, you are dumbing down.

Shakespeare has moments that even a school child can understand; he also has deliberately ornate moments with fancy language and dense wordplay. His difficulty isn't in that he is archaic, but rather that he is witty, and creative in his employment of language.

Certainly agree. Shakespeare is of course is closer to us than Chaucer anyway, and for the most part definitely readable for the average school student (thought most of them don't think so).

Naturally there is the odd word or turn of phrase that is going to confuse on a first reading, but given just a little effort, and there's the problem most of the time, Shakespeare repays the reader tenfold.

[acdouglas92]

Yes! My goodness, yes! A good production will move you, thrill you, absorb you, show you aspects you may never have thought of, send you back to the text, stimulate interest in further productions - but make sure it is a 'live' production, Shakespeare on film is a different proposition entirely.

I've just seen a production of As You Like It at the Globe in London, performed in Elizabethan costume on what is thought to be a similar stage to the original Globe - it was an excellent production and actually had novelty and charm in its presentation as a 'reproduction' of the original setting - but I'm not sure if I gained anything in particular from this aspect. I gained more from the interpretation of the characters by the skilled and enthusaistic rendering of the language. I've seen many productions in modern dress and have enjoyed every one, even (dare I say it?!) The Merchant of Venice as interpreted by a visiting American company at Stratford: at first the accents got in the way (I'll apologise and grovel a bit at this point, shall I?), though strangely not the mobile phones and laptops, but before the first scene was over, I was no longer hearing the accents and the beautiful Armani suits were adding to the play - these were seriously wealthy young men, making their money by trading and the modern Stock Market setting helped to reinforce this, while Portia in a severe black trouser suit was attractively androgynous, an aspect that is not immediately apparent in period costume where for a modern audience she is 'dressed up' anyway. The modern setting worked, imo, because it wasn't there for a gimmick, it was used to emphasize an aspect of the play.

I've seen a Romeo and Juliet in a Mafia setting - it made the 'honour feud' more accessible to a society from which such concepts have largely disappeared. The fight scenes with sticks and baseball bats were truly frightening.

So to the OP I would say - Leave the language well alone, make sure your actors do it justice, and if you choose a 'modern' setting, make sure it is one that reinforces some aspect of the play's theme and is not just a gimmick.

Well, I'm not sure if you know your theaters around the states as well, but I'll be traveling to New York, New Jersey, New Hampshire, and possibly North Carolina through July; any good places to see a Shakespeare play around there?

[bluevictim]

I've updated one of his plays to the 20th century. What should I do about the language? Much of it won't fit as there's a twist which will probably shock/annoy you.My curiosity is piqued! This sounds like a fun project. :)
I would like to keep the language...but there's certain elements of the play that are radically altered (setting and characters)You might be able to get more helpful suggestions if you expand a little on your vision. Why would you like to keep the language? What are some of your intentions behind choosing the altered setting and characters? I think the two approaches (keeping the language vs. updating the language to fit the new setting) would produce very different effects, and you'd have to decide what fits best with your design for the play. Or maybe it would be interesting to use a completely different language altogether -- Romeo and Juliet in Klingon!



How can I update Lysistrata?
I hate the play but we have to 'make it relevant for a 2010 audience'. If only we could do a Greek tragedy- they were vital to theatre.It's too bad you hate Lysistrata; I find it quite enjoyable. The prompt to make it more relevant for a 2010 audience is interesting because you have to use your imagination a little to predict what would be relevant next year. There are many obvious ideas. For example, using the Israel vs Palestine conflict as the setting in place of the Peloponnesian War, or, for Americans, maybe the conservative vs. liberal "culture wars". I think the battle of the sexes can still provide plenty of good fodder for comedy even in this day and age, but I also think it would be interesting to replace it with something like gay vs. straight or black vs. white.

Anyways, just thought I'd offer some ideas. I hope these projects turn out well!

[JBI]

But still, all the humor in the play is lost when the guys don't come on wearing giant phalluses! how can it be funny without them? a pack of horny men is always far more humorous when they actually look like it.

But even so though, such conflicts don't work, as it ultimately cheapens the experience. I have seen, for instance, Romeo and Juliet done as Israeli / Palestinian instead of Capulet and Montague. Ultimately, the story was cheapened, as it invited the audience to take a side, which is something Shakespeare deliberately avoided - he didn't want the actual cause of the conflict, or background to appear, because, quite simply, he didn't want it to matter, or to affect judgment - the futility and stupidity of the fight is what is in question, not who is right.

With Lysistrata, perhaps it works better. But ultimately, I think if the trace is just allowed to float around, the viewer will get their own message without it needing to be spelled out for them.

[mayneverhave]

Honestly, I ultimately prefer reading Shakespeare as a closet dramatist, when he clearly was not. It would be impossible for a theatre production or film to match my particular dramatic tastes or interests, let alone the ability to imaginatively recreate the scenes mentally.

[kasie]

acdouglasa92: Sorry, I can't help you - my only experience of the theatre in the States was an off-off-Broadway production and a summer theatre production somewhere in eastern Pennsylvania in the early seventies. But I'm sure there are plenty of States-side Forum members who would be able to advise you. I do hope you enjoy whatever you manage to find.

mayneverhave: Would seeing a dramatic presentation perhaps expand your understanding of the written text or at least give you food for thought? The thing about seeing a stage play is the 'real time' nature of the event - you do not have time to stop and mull over a line, you have to remain alert to the on-going action, but the words somehow distill in your mind and the pattern of the themes form and grow as you watch which, for me, is a thrilling and stimulating experience.

jbi: a good actor doesn't need any 'appendages' to show sexual state. :D I think it's called 'subtlety' ? :)

[JBI]

Yes, but it is a convention - keep in mind, that's how it was "meant" to be played.

[kelby_lake]

My curiosity is piqued! This sounds like a fun project. :) You might be able to get more helpful suggestions if you expand a little on your vision. Why would you like to keep the language? What are some of your intentions behind choosing the altered setting and characters? I think the two approaches (keeping the language vs. updating the language to fit the new setting) would produce very different effects, and you'd have to decide what fits best with your design for the play. Or maybe it would be interesting to use a completely different language altogether -- Romeo and Juliet in Klingon!


It's too bad you hate Lysistrata; I find it quite enjoyable. The prompt to make it more relevant for a 2010 audience is interesting because you have to use your imagination a little to predict what would be relevant next year. There are many obvious ideas. For example, using the Israel vs Palestine conflict as the setting in place of the Peloponnesian War, or, for Americans, maybe the conservative vs. liberal "culture wars". I think the battle of the sexes can still provide plenty of good fodder for comedy even in this day and age, but I also think it would be interesting to replace it with something like gay vs. straight or black vs. white.

Anyways, just thought I'd offer some ideas. I hope these projects turn out well!

Romeo and Juliet is now set in the 1980's, and the two families are political rivals. My adaptation, shaky as it is, emphasises the conflict, and internal conflicts.
The most radical and not entirely set-in-stone element are Romeo and Juliet- loads of people have done the race card, I did political, but I was thinking of ye olde times when men played all the parts. Thus I am experimenting with Juliet being a man. (shocks!)

[kasie]

jbi: a good point but kelby is thinking of updating the production.

kelby lake: Juliet a man? Go for it! I saw a marvellous production of The Taming of the Shrew played by an all-male company a couple of years back - it brought all sorts of new dimensions to a play which presents 'problems' in these PC times.

[kelby_lake]

For Lysistrata, I can't help thinking that it would have been more funny back then when men did all the parts. I can't believe this play is supposed to be 'feminist'- the women are moronic and suffer worse than the men.

Anyhows, what if Lysistrata was a woman, her women were played by men, and the men were played by women?

[bluevictim]

Romeo and Juliet is now set in the 1980's, and the two families are political rivals. My adaptation, shaky as it is, emphasises the conflict, and internal conflicts.
The most radical and not entirely set-in-stone element are Romeo and Juliet- loads of people have done the race card, I did political, but I was thinking of ye olde times when men played all the parts. Thus I am experimenting with Juliet being a man. (shocks!)Sounds interesting. It would certainly be timely to use Romeo and Juliet to explore issues surrounding homosexuality (I'm assuming you meant both Romeo and Juliet would be men in your version). You mentioned that you wanted to keep the original language rather than update the language. I suppose that would reinforce the connection with the past that arises from using Shakespeare as a basis for the play. It might be used to highlight the fact that the modern view of homosexual relationships relies on a long tradition developed for heterosexual relationships. On the other hand, updating the language might emphasize the necessity of changing social standards as society changes over time.



For Lysistrata, I can't help thinking that it would have been more funny back then when men did all the parts. I can't believe this play is supposed to be 'feminist'- the women are moronic and suffer worse than the men.I definitely would not consider Lysistrata a feminist play. Both you and JBI pointed out certain conventions of Old Comedy that add to the humor, but I don't think the lack of these conventions is really such a fatal blow for bringing Lysistrata to a modern audience. After all, variations of the jokes in Lysistrata regularly show up in today's sitcoms. I think the power of Lysistrata really comes from anxiety over the Peloponnesian War, and there are many ways to tap into that power through current events.

[kelby_lake]

Sounds interesting. It would certainly be timely to use Romeo and Juliet to explore issues surrounding homosexuality (I'm assuming you meant both Romeo and Juliet would be men in your version). You mentioned that you wanted to keep the original language rather than update the language. I suppose that would reinforce the connection with the past that arises from using Shakespeare as a basis for the play. It might be used to highlight the fact that the modern view of homosexual relationships relies on a long tradition developed for heterosexual relationships. On the other hand, updating the language might emphasize the necessity of changing social standards as society changes over time.


Yep, Romeo and Juliet are both men. I sort of see it as the two boys breaking away from their father's attempts to mould them into a Capulet or Montague, sort of 'coming of age' type thing.
Juliet is a male character in my version- I was thinking of him actually being called Giles but jumping on the androgynous new-romanticy fashion and going by the name of Juliet.

I might keep some of their soliloquies but it's going to be pretty hard to keep the rest considering the changes.