Many show producers stray away from traditional performances and put contemporary spins on classics such as Romeo and Juliet. David Leveaux’s “Romeo and Juliet,” for example, which opened a little over a week ago, featured a Romeo dressed in a leather jacket, hoodie, and T-shirt. As Charles Isherwood puts it, Romeo was dressed like an “urban hipster.”
In the article “To Renovate or Not to Renovate?,” Charles Isherwood questions whether cloaking the text with contemporary costumes is more effective than sticking with traditional ones. Essentially, he’s asking, old or new? He notices that the “norm” for Shakespearian productions is contemporary style, and that it’s actually strange nowadays to see a production of a Shakespearian classic set in the Elizabethan times.
Isherwood discusses that there are many reasons for this decision to perform modern takes on these classic works. One is definitely to spike interest. The modern factor makes these works much more relatable to the audience. In the business point of view, this is crucial in defining the success or failure of a show. Along with that, the language spoken throughout the shows can be a barrier for the audience. Shakespearian language tends to be very dense and hard to understand, so there are a few choices to be made. Either the language can be made “simpler,” or the imagery can be more relatable for the audience to stay in tune with the show.
In the end, it all depends on whether or not the producers are able to convey the significance of the story in a contemporary setting or not. In this field, there have been many attempts to create contemporary productions, but the modern additions cloud the original spirit of the story, resulting in bland shows. But that is not to say that there aren’t any that have been successful. Nicholas Hytner’s take on “Othello” and Robert Falls’s “King Lear” are two examples of superb productions of classics set in contemporary settings.
I think that there is definitely room for innovation in these shows and it does make it more appealing to watch something the audience can relate to. I personally find it very interesting to see how the producer can incorporate the spirit of the story and shift it into a modern setting. As long as the story behind the modern mask is still intact, I think that contemporary spins on the shows are fine. Although there are some who people may like to stick with the “original” or traditional story, I think what makes these new shows interesting is the fact that they are different from the books themselves. It gives the audience more perspective.
What do you prefer? Traditional or contemporary? What did you think of the shows you watched recently?
Article Link : http://theater.nytimes.com/2013/09/25/theater/to-renovate-or-not-to-renovate.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Isherwood, Charles. “To Renovate or Not to Renovate? – NYTimes.com.” Theater – The New York Times. N.p., 26 Sept. 2013. Web. 1 Oct. 2013.
I love how you juxtaposed Orlando Bloom’s “bad boy” clothes with his Elizabethan speech. I actually watched Romeo and Juliet as part of my critical review so I can understand what Charles Isherwood is saying. It was definitely strange hearing the whole cast speak Shakespearian. I guess modernizing the appearance of the characters without modernizing their speech is weird in terms of how he feels. Honestly, I did not understand half of what everyone was saying but because of their use of props and body language, I was still able to understand everything (for the most part.) If the director was able to alter the language that they use to one that is slightly more understandable, I think that more people would want to watch classical productions. I also agree with what you said about how shows give us more perspective. They are able to change the characters so that we can perceive them differently than how we originally did in the book. Lastly, I think I prefer contemporary just because I am biased towards this time period (we were born here) and because classical productions seem slow compared to our busy, rapid paced lives.
I actually went to see this new version of Romeo and Juliet last weekend and I think that your analysis of the language is spot on. Before the performance I actually didn’t know that the entire play was going to be in Shakespearean English. I assumed that, because the costumes and scenery were updated, the language would be too. However the director decided to leave it unchanged, probably to preserve the themes and integrity of the original play.
But this clash of eras definitely took away from the show. It was a confusing and funny seeing actors wearing bling with jeans down to their knees speaking in iambic pentameter. I couldn’t take it seriously. I personally think that the play would have been much more successful if the costumes had matched the traditional language.
I agree with you that using the contemporary style in reenacting classical pieces is a good idea! I like the point you made that Shakespeare’s plays revolved around the daily life of his world, so modern replays of his work should follow that tradition of going contemporary. Speaking of Shakespeare and contemporary, I remember watching a modern interpretation of “Comedy of Errors” by Shakespeare at BAM (Brooklyn Academy of Music). Instead of taking place in Middle Age Italy, BAM’s setting was a Mexican ghetto of the 1980s-90s. It was pretty hilarious because the BAM’s version had a cast of all male actors who played female roles as well, which I guess also fit the contemporary picture of homosexuality??