Works that have survived the test of time and are still relevant in our modern society face the distortion and re-adaptation of modern directors. These renovations can go either way; sometimes the new drab reveals an aspect of the play that was not understood before and other times a mess of props disguise the writer’s original intention.
The first sentence of Charles Isherwood’s article, “To Renovate or Not to Renovate” encapsulates what he is trying to say. He opens with, “Wherefore art thou riding a motorcycle, Romeo?” He introduces the question: Should we alter the classical plays of old to fit our modern audience?
I believe that costume and set are not meant to be completely permanent, and the addition of new dimensions can add to the success of the play. In particular, I applaud the introduction of new and vivid imagery that serves to revive works of art that would be lost otherwise. These acts should be regarded in a positive manner, because they incorporate important ideals of the past to a modern audience. Attention grabbing motorcycles allow the audience to be encapsulated by the work, and through this they will receive the message more completely. However, if the meaning of the work of art is distorted, the piece should be discarded or presented in a way that it is not seen as a direct adaptation of the original work.
It is hard to determine what is too far in the changing of an old text to please a modern audience. The addition of loads of man jewelry onto the hand of Orlando Bloom will not distort the original points that Shakespeare intended. Similarly, Elizabethan clothing does not define Romeo’s characterization or Juliet’s suicide. However, in this play the presence of the racial tension between the black Capulets and white Montagues as well as the Renaissance fresco set with a graffiti background may add just enough unneeded fluff to distort Shakespeare’s original intent. Viewers may leave the theatre in an awe of contentment, but gain no depth of knowledge or perspective.
I believe modern adaptations have the power to grab the attention of viewers like the Globe never could. What we saw Tuesday night at the Joyce Theatre was a key example of this. Minute changes to aspects like the hobby of the daughter, religious preference of the boarders and addition of Gregor’s favorite drink did not alter Kafka’s meaning. Instead, the majority of the adaptation served to entice the viewer and relate more of what Kafka was trying to establish than a mundane version where a cockroach rolls in bed ever could. That being said, I don’t like the idea of someone walking out of theatre full of glee after seeing Orlando Bloom, and spouting how they have seen Romeo and Juliet and understand it thoroughly.
I truly believe the cinema is the true venue for intense renovation. It allows you to fully show what you are trying to do via a wider range of effects and editing. This is seen in “West Side Story” and “Homeland”, two adaptations of the same Romeo and Juliet story that relate some of the points in an entertaining way without citing the Shakespeare name. It’s almost like how a movie will tell you, “based on a true story.” You have more freedom in movies, and the theatre truly does and should not allow for such an expansive range of creativity for renovations of original works. In a perfect world, everyone would sit with his or her eyes glued to the original version of the play, but this seems to be an unrealistic expectation.
Link to article: http://theater.nytimes.com/2013/09/25/theater/to-renovate-or-not-to-renovate.html?pagewanted=all
Isherwood, Charles. “To Renovate or Not to Renovate.”New York Times 26 September 2013, n. pag. Web. 27 Sep. 2013. <http://theater.nytimes.com/2013/09/25/theater/to-renovate-or-not-to-renovate.html?pagewanted=all>.
Krulwich, Sara. Orlando Bloom in “Romeo and Juliet” on Broadway.. 2013. Photograph. The New York Times, New York City. Web. 27 Sep 2013. <http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/09/25/theater/20130925-shakespeare-slide-MV1Z/20130925-shakespeare-slide-MV1Z-articleLarge.jpg>.
Austin
I agree with you on the part about adaptations. Sure, it is not the original, but as innovators, there’s always a way to make things better, and certainly more relatable. Romeo and Juliet is a timeless classic (and probably will be for years), but there is no reason for it to remain in the same time period with the same outfits. In addition to innovation, many students do not appreciate Shakespeare. For there to be a play that appears to be more modern clothing-wise and even motor-wise, a younger audience may be able to understand the story better. Which in a sense is the most important part of a play – it’s story.
As long as the intention is there and all the key points are hit, it doesn’t matter what they make of Romeo and Juliet. But I also do believe that the audience should be mindful that it began so long ago. Just goes to show that the moral can be passed down for hundreds of years. If anything, a modern adaption allows Shakespeare’s ideas live on.
Janice Fong
I completely agree with you that aspects of a piece, such as wardrobe and scenery, can be altered without changing the intent of the playwright. Modern audiences may not appreciate or understand a play as well if they have no relation to the time period in which it is originally set. In my opinion, contemporary adaptations of plays are a successful means of giving a piece relevance to its viewers – but not if its essence or message is skewed, like you said. I think that renovation is necessary in order to attract and appeal to today’s audiences. However, it is crucial for the initial meaning of a play to remain intact.
I think your idea that costume and set should change with the society brought a good point that doing so allows directors to connect the culture of different decades and centuries to the modern age. I think with a lot of art, and especially in literature, the first time you see or read something can be a different experience than the most recent time. As your personality changes, your understanding of different life moments develops. Therefore, I think the same applies to different mediums of the same text, as well as, different cultural adaptations. Your point that each medium has its own strengths reminded me that each person is different and connects to art in a different way. Some may prefer dance, some may prefer music; having multiple versions of expression helps to bring the arts to everyone.
This is definitely a very relatable subject and interesting as well. In our educational careers, we are sometimes assigned books that we don’t necessarily understand the language of because it’s quite old. Surely, we assumed that if the language was more modern we would have a better grasp of the text. In reality, the language, the garb, the actions of the times are what shape those particular novels into the classics that they are. I agree with you that it seems a bit strange for someone to see a complete remake of Romeo and Juliet, thus believing that they have entirely grasped the concept of the play and found it completely relatable to modern day. Meanwhile, I do agree that the way in which several aspects of Kafka’s Metamorphosis were transformed when we saw it weren’t too bad because they didn’t particularly take from our experience, but actually added to it. Thus, the line between keeping a classic as is and remaking it is very sketchy, so one must be very careful when dealing with a remake. To renovate or not to renovate that is the question, but there really is no definite answer.
Great analysis! I agree that movies that are renovated give a new insight to a previously forgotten film, but on the other hand it takes away from the beauty of an original work. Although modern interpretations are interesting to watch, at least personally, I do not feel as though they contribute positively to the piece in question. They often give me a sense of something out of place. If the original was well received, a rework may not be something crowds will enjoy. Just in the same way books are not often rewritten to fit a modern crowd I do not feel as if a modern interpretation of a movie would fit. A renovation of a film makes it seem as if the producer for the renovation of the old film does not feel as if the old producer did justice to the movie in question.
Modern adaptations definitely do have the power to grab the attention of viewers like the Globe never could! This statement is proved through the countless new developments that aid the production of a play – incorporating elements that never existed during Shakespeare’s time. Lighting, special effects, advanced props, intricate costumes, and the technology to make plays today possible are much flashier and quicker to attract the attention of the audience than the plays from years ago. Despite all these aesthetic improvements, little matters unless the original message is still able to be deduced from the play.
After reading your response to Romeo and Juliet, I completely resonate with your following idea: “If the meaning of the work of art is distorted, the piece should be discarded or presented in a way that it is not seen as a direct adaptation of the original work.” I can see why you feel that modern adaptations fail to bring to light the author’s true intentions. As an avid Shakespeare fan, I too felt uncomfortable with the news of modern adaptation of Romeo and Juliet. However, after I watched the show, I realized that constraining classical art based on the fear that its essence may vanish in the process, is of no use. One needs to take into perspective that the audience that goes to watch these shows has, more often than not, read Shakespeare’s original play.
Based on personal experience, I can tell you that reading Shakespeare’s plays and watching them enacted on stage are two completely different things— and that difference is expected. No amount of creativity could realize the author’s (or playwright’s) true intention; it’s something that fades over time. As individuals who admire classical art, it is our responsibility to preserve its essence and make it available to the younger generation. That being said, I disagree with show producers who are willing to make profits at the expense of the meaning and depth of the play.
As far at the David Leveaux’s play is concerned, I think most changes he made are justifiable to an extent. For instance, Romeo’s entrance on a motorcycle could be a representation of his liberal or daring nature compared to the society he lives in. (After all, he is brave enough to fight his family and Verona for his love.) Leveaux may have interpreted Romeo as the most audacious character in the play, and thus decided to depict this nature through a motorcycle. His interpretation is open to debate, and so are all works of literature.
Although I can understand the need for modernization in the play, I don’t see why the painting was the backdrop of the play. In addition, I don’t understand why the Montagues and Capulets wore casual clothes when they are supposed to be royal and wealthy characters.
Despite these questions, I appreciate Leveaux’s attempt to bring back Romeo and Juliet to Broadway. Most importantly, today, we continue to see Romeo and Juliet’s relationship as the epitome of true love. That meaning has stood the test of time, and will continue to do so, even if Romeo were to enter in a private jet in the next adaptation.
I completely agree with your take on renovating classics. Society is an ever changing mechanism and I believe art should grow and change in accordance. By modernizing Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, Leveaux allowed for viewers to relate to the characters who looked, dressed, and acted like they do. Had Orlando arrived on a horse instead of a motorcycle, the audience may have deemed the play as outdated and thus would have lost the timeless value of Shakespeare’s message. However, I agree with your apprehensive statement, “It is hard to determine what is too far in the changing of an old text to please a modern audience.” In this sentiment the question that jumps out at me is, “what is too far?” When does reconstruction become demolition? Although is is difficult to ascertain a specific limit to adaptation, I think it is when the work loses its initial intent. In other words, modern takes on classic works become disasters when they change the meaning or integrity of the original art.
Hi Austin,
While I do agree with you on the idea that adding modern day adaptions into an old text, like Shakespeare, would please the current audience much more, I think that it also unjust to do so. Sure, we all enjoy the facilitations of simplification, and yes, changing some of the storyline in order for us to understand it is good too, but I think it also takes away the real meaning and ritual in going to the theatre. The whole idea behind why we still read outrageous stories like “The Metamorphosis” and “The Nose” is because we must analyze the true meaning behind it for ourselves. If it were just told to us blatantly in simplified text without any further questioning, there would be absolutely no point, and quite frankly, no fun in it.
However, I also believe to some degree that adding and changing certain context when putting together a production, such as Romeo and Juliet, can to some point be accepted. Stories with many interpretations can also follow with many different ways that a director would like to display to their audience. To some extent, Leveaux was justified by adding the gaudy jewelry and a motorcycle in his production of Romeo and Juliet if that’s what it meant for the modern day audience to understand it better. I just hope that with all the evolving technology in our current day and age, we do not lose that link we have to old, classical performances performed in original context.
I totally agree with the notion that movies and creative arts should be allowed to freely express their motifs and took the Metamorphosis ballet at the Joyce Theater; although it may seem absurd to most of the audience, the production did what they thought was suitable without changing Kafka’s true intention of the novella. It reminds me of director Stanley Kubrick’s work, because even though they seem odd and unconventional and it really depends on an individual to prefer his work or not, he still freely uses his thoughts and creativity to convey different themes- like in the movie A Clockwork Orange. Thanks for bringing my attention to this aspect of arts.
There is no doubt that shows today have a need more modern adaptations to attract more audiences. Sure not everything from the original author may be to be conserved, but it’s better than having the show discarded by the mass public due to its lack of innovation and falling behind the times. On the other hand there is always a chance to conserve the original ideas of the author while the show is renewed to fit the taste for contemporary audiences. There is no need to criticize innovation; look at our history, it is a record of the constant innovation of our culture for the better, and I think plays should follow the same road.