Let’s talk about Shakespeare

[Little Jack Horner]

Here is my attempt to generate a conversation on this forum.

Two things: firstly a bit of information and, secondly, I have a complaint.

Vv’s mention of Shakespeare’s words the other day reminded me that it had been some time since I had visited David Crystal’s blog. I expect that most people who visit this forum will be aware of David Crystal, the British linguist, academic and author. In a recent blog, he mentioned the on-line companion to Shakespeare’s works which he has developed with his son Ben. Have a look here: www.shakespeareswords.com

But, to the complaint. I am seriously exasperated by producers and directors of Shakespeare’s plays who “muck about” with the plays and who do so without warning theatre goers. In recent times I have seen actors riding bicycles on stage, characters whose sex has been changed for no discernible reason, Hamlet playing a gramophone and, in King Lear, in an otherwise splendid production, watching Cordelia returning from France accompanied by soldiers carrying sub-machine guns.

I am all for productions which draw attention to the relevance of the plays’ themes to the modern world but some of these devices seem to me to detract from this aim.

I am not opposed to directors doing whatever they want but is it asking too much to request a note in the publicity material to the effect that the play has been adapted or that the production involves an innovative perspective? I just want to know in advance what I might be letting myself in for before I pay for my seat.

I hope shortly to see a production of Macbeth in modern dress because I am curious to know how in the world that can possibly work without redefining the weird sisters and adopting other novel characterisations. Can it be done? Or has the production also involved adapting the setting? I just want to know. I once saw the play relocated to gangland in a modern city and this worked very well but Macbeth had become a gang leader — I knew in advance.

[Little Jack Horner]

It is now a month since I started this thread and, despite its having been read nearly seventy times, no-one has replied. Is this a record? At a time when there was a dearth in contributions, it is ironic that my intention was to generate a debate.

[Dave Miller]

Perhaps there’s nothing much to say on the subject.

You’ve said you don’t like it when directors change elements of Shakespeare’s original plays. OK, we believe you.

Some will like it, some won’t. There isn’t really a “correct” view about which we might argue! And it doesn’t (usually) change the language.

As an aside, I never have understood how it would be possible to translate Shakespeare - can you capture the novel word-creation habits in another language?

[Twoddle]

To each his own taste, LJH. I prefer Shakespeare plays to remain as they were written, and not to be in modern dress. Having said that, I've just recorded (but not yet watched) a BBC modern-dress version of King Lear, but that's because it happened to be on TV this week, I've never seen the play, and Anthony Hopkins plays the lead part, so I'm prepared to give it a try.

Recently I watched a TV adaptation of an Agatha Christie book. I learnt afterwards that the script writer had substantially changed some of the characters and the plot, including the identity of the murderer. I disapprove heartily of that sort of thing - if it's going to happen, the story's title should at least be changed too - but fortunately I'd not read the book, so the TV series wasn't a disappointment.

[Little Jack Horner]

A few days ago, the BBC broadcast the Donmar theatre’s all-female version of Julius Caesar which I started to watch with pessimism, expecting to abandon the exercise rather quickly. I watched it to the end and admit to having enjoyed it. There are, of course, many fewer challenging Shakespearean female parts than those for men and I thought it might be interesting.

Perhaps to justify the casting, the action was presented as a play within a play and was set in a women’s prison with the inmates acting the Shakespearean rôles as some kind of project. The production kept well within the classical script. Well, well, it worked even when, during the “production” one of the characters, frustrated by the lack of participation by another character, broke off to castigate the miscreant in seriously “adult” language appropriate to the prison environment and when Brutus, committing suicide, ran onto a toy gun instead of sword (obviously prison inmates don’t have access to swords).

I congratulate director Phyllida Lloyd and the excellent cast.

[Twoddle]

Jun 21, 2018 17:29:07 GMT Little Jack Horner said:

A few days ago, the BBC broadcast the Donmar theatre’s all-female version of Julius Caesar which I started to watch with pessimism, expecting to abandon the exercise rather quickly. I watched it to the end and admit to having enjoyed it. There are, of course, many fewer challenging Shakespearean female parts than those for men and I thought it might be interesting.

Perhaps to justify the casting, the action was presented as a play within a play and was set in a women’s prison with the inmates acting the Shakespearean rôles as some kind of project. The production kept well within the classical script. Well, well, it worked even when, during the “production” one of the characters, frustrated by the lack of participation by another character, broke off to castigate the miscreant in seriously “adult” language appropriate to the prison environment and when Brutus, committing suicide, ran onto a toy gun instead of sword (obviously prison inmates don’t have access to swords).

I congratulate director Phyllida Lloyd and the excellent cast.

"Let slip the bitches of war"?