There has been much controversy over the years about the various productions of Shakespeare’s works. Whether it be an opera or a movie, many productions have taken the risk of altering his works to create a contemporary feel. Although some may not deem it a risk since it Shakespeare’s work are usually portrayed in contemporary form. There are unique advantages and disadvantages that result from this. Personally, I appreciate productions that stay true to Shakespeare’s infamous stories. Any form of art that is toyed with or tweaked causes the art to lose its original meaning.
Based on the New York Times article “To Renovate or Not to Renovate” by Charles Isherwood there are benefits to modernizing classics. For instance, it makes the story more relatable to those who experience it. This can enhance the viewer’s understanding. Still, I think part of the fun of reading and/or watching Shakespeare is allowing yourself to become immersed in the setting he has fashioned. Isherwood states that he is uncertain about how he feels towards the revisions of Shakespeare.
There are various versions of “Romeo and Juliet” that twist the controversy within the story to be one of race or class. It is understandable that this can emphasize the tension that is within the classic. However, if Shakespeare can construct the same amount of tension with out such add-ons then they aren’t necessary. A well-know version of Romeo and Juliet is the one that starred Claire Danes and Leonardo DiCaprio. I have seen this movie and found it very entertaining. However, I don’t think it captures Shakespeare’s “Romeo and Juliet” as effectively as it could have were it to stick to the classic script. The added technology (guns in place of swords, cars) shifts attention away from the true meaning of the play. Even West Side Story is a wonderful movie/play. But it bears its own uniqueness that differs from the original “Romeo and Juliet”. It is like buying a reproduction of an original Picasso. It may still be beautiful and interesting, but it simply isn’t the original.
Isherwood states “Fundamentally, a great Shakespeare production will rise or fall not on what the actors are wearing, and whether they are barking into cell phones or slinging swords at each other, but on whether they can infuse these magnificent, challenging texts with the life blood of honest feeling and formal beauty.” If one maintains this mentality, perhaps they can get passed the added fluff and changes existent in various modern productions and succeed at grasping Shakespeare’s core message.
Works Cited:
Isherwood, Charles. “To Renovate or Not to Renovate” New York Times. 26 September 2013. Web. 26 September 2013.
There is always controversy in taking a work and changing it in any form, whether it be translating the piece or making the text more modern in its syntax. However I believe that when people do decide to change the text that they would do so with integrity and try to keep the author’s intent, themes, tone, and other important aspects of the piece intact. While there are many people against the “modernization” of Shakespeare’s works, I believe that this allows the pieces to remain relevant today. The thin, paperback books of Hamlet and Macbeth that we all read in high school are all translations that retain the original aspects of Shakespeare’s plays in (slightly) more modern context. Obviously reading these are not the same as reading what Shakespeare wrote in the late 1500’s, but they make the works more palpable. Even Metamorphosis is a translation that, if read in its original german be understood differently. However its translation allows the work to reach a larger audience and it still retains the themes Kafka wrote originally.
There is nothing wrong with revamping classic works, i feel that they could help the viewer understand the work on a more personal level. Shakespeare wrote his pieces within his own time frame, where people of the age could easily relate and understand. So revising some details so that the present audience could understand is not a travesty. Choosing to watch Shakespeare’s original piece or a renovated one is up to the discretion of the viewer.
If a person wishes to be engulfed in the story through the lens of the past or try seeing a timeless conflict portrayed modernly is up to them. No matter how Shakespeare’s works are shown, as long as they convey the overall messages and plots only the audience can tell which version tells the more effective meaning of them.
I agree completely with Isherwood in that quote you put in at the end. The way the Shakespeare play is masked under should not matter; as long as the play stays true to the content and depth of Shakespeare’s original is what matters. People make these modernized versions of Shakespeare plays in order to keep the plays relevant in our time. Like West Side Story, I do feel that these modernized Shakespeare plays put a twist but remain true to the core of Shakespeare’s original. West Side Story still brings up the same themes and similar plot structure as Romeo and Juliet. I could also connect more to the characters of West Side Story than the old nobles and priests of Shakespeare’s original Romeo and Juliet. I am not trying to bash the original plays because they have their own appeal as well; however, the reasons for modernizing these plays and making a new twist is understandable. It keeps the legacy of Shakespeare alive.
I like Carmella’s view on preserving Shakespearean plays because I too believe that they work best when done in the style and manner of the time they were written in. While movies like ’10 Things I Hate About You’, ‘West Side Story’ and ‘Romeo + Juliet’ (all based on Shakespeare’s novels) are entertaining in their own right, they don’t quite transmit the special quality that is in Shakespeare’s writing which makes it so memorable and endlessly interesting. I prefer straight up film adaptations of Shakespearean plays like Roman Polanski’s version of ‘Hamlet’ or Franco Zeferelli’s ‘Romeo and Juliet’ because they manage to really take you away to a different time where people truly lived according to different standards. I don’t find it difficult to relate to them at all. But actually, my favorite way to see Shakespeare is not in high budget movie production but in its original format of a simple play. Productions such as this Ken Campbell play in San Francisco (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ys4f2wXgrr8) really transmit the kinetic and theatrical body movements that made Shakespeare so entertaining to watch. Movies bring it down to a much too realistic, serious note and lose the entertainment value. As a side note: the actors in the play only wear white because in Shakespeare’s time, there were so many theater productions that they had to keep reusing costumes and thus wanted the audience to imagine the colors of the clothes.
I think it is not a mistake to modernize timeless works. I’ve seen many type of these modernizations, and I don’t think they take away the messages of the original works. Rather, I view those modernizations new renditions which are inspired and influenced by the original works. The twists and spins may be different but that is up to the creators to decide. The classics will always be preserved, so there is no harm in using them as sparks to create something new.
I personally do not mind modernizing classics, in fact I think that art is achieved at its fullest when it brings out new interpretations. I have seen some of the newer Romeo and Juliet movies and they are fun to watch, even if I know the ending in advance. However, one thing I will say is that when masterpieces are touched by others and the new take is not impressive, it is just awkward for everybody involved. Also, I think people should try to create their own movies or plays before just settling on a remake. If someone is going to touch a classic, they better make sure they have an entertaining and unique spin, otherwise everyone loses.
My opinion on modernized classics varies. I think that it works best with stories that are timeless, like Romeo and Juliet (there’s always going to be people “from opposite sides of the tracks” falling in love) or at least plausible, like Twelfth Night (the movie “She’s the Man” adapted the play very well, in my opinion) and The Comedy of Errors. It could even work for stories like A Midsummer Night’s Dream, although in my opinion, the modernized version would have to leave in the magical aspects of the play in order to really work–it’d have to be a modern fantasy.
But for other plays, like Hamlet and Macbeth, I just don’t think they could be modernized without aspects of the story being lost. For example, both stories contain politics that feel very era-specific, such as problems related to monarchial succession (Hamlet’s uncle marrying his sister-in-law and becoming king as a result just doesn’t seem like a plot point that could work in a modern power structure the way it does in a monarchy) and international relations (Malcolm seeking support from England in Macbeth, and the territorial dispute between Denmark and Norway in Hamlet). I feel that these elements in particular wouldn’t work in a totally modern, present-day setting. Either the story would have to change, or the modern setting would have to change enough to accommodate for something like an old-fashioned monarchy (for example, a post-apocalyptic setting explaining that the old system rose back up after some global catastrophe caused governments to collapse, and as a result the strongest of the survivors were able to establish their power over other survivors. Just a hypothetical scenario).
I feel the same way about other works, not just Shakespeare’s. Stories like Wuthering Heights or Great Expectations would probably work in a modern setting because they aren’t very era-specific, have aspects that are easily translatable to a modern setting, and wouldn’t lose much by way of story for those that aren’t. However, stories like A Tale of Two Cities or Around the World in 80 Days probably wouldn’t work because they contain era-specific conflicts (such as being a political prisoner in post-revolutionary France) and elements (traveling around the world today takes as little as a day or two, assuming you aren’t stopping to visit anywhere; additionally, you wouldn’t be traveling the exact same way that Phileas Fogg does).
Overall, I think it really depends on whether the original story could realistically happen in a modern setting. If director doesn’t have to change the story or the setting in order to make it work, then I feel comfortable with the modern version.
I can understand how people would want to keep that essence of Shakespeare theme in plays and movies, but I personally like to see Shakespeare stories adapted to modern times. It helps us relate to the idea and meaning more closely, like the Romeo and Juliet movie featuring Leonardo DiCaprio. This newly modernized film shows how Romeo and Juliet would be seen in today’s world, which is an interesting view on this classic story. If we were to constantly focus on traditional stories and on Shakespearean language, we would continue to struggle with adapting it to today’s standards. It’s important to make connections with the literature of the past and the literature today because it shows how we have progressed and transformed, with Shakespeare being one of the main foundations of the classic English Literature.
While I do agree that modernizing and reinterpreting Shakespeare’s work may lead to the lose of some things, I also believe that what makes art so special is the idea that anybody can interpret it however they want. In the case of the Romeo and Juliet movie, you were seeing the directors interpretation of the play, and while it may not have been the same as yours, it is still art. Without the constant reinterpretations of classic works, I think that the originals would have been forgotten about a long time ago. That is why I feel that not only is it not a mistake to reinterpret and modernize timeless works, but it is also necessary for the long term survival of them.
I think the purpose of art is to invoke a response. If that response is a modernization, then so be it. Everyone is different and everyone has his or her own interpretations. Through a presentation of their responses, the world of art is expanded to a point where questions like “what is art” are raised. Without these various interpretations, I don’t think we would be able to enjoy what art offers to us today. Even though interpretations would result in things lost from the original piece, the interpretation is still a piece of art. And that chain of response is necessary for growth.