Theatrical Adaptation

Julia D blog

In “Looking for Richard” there is a lot of talk about sharing a love of Shakespeare with the masses. Before I go any further I should say I am not sure of my opinion but for now I’ll argue against the idea of sharing the passion. I am not a football fan my father has tried his best to instill this passion in me but I find myself seesawing between being bored and overwhelmed. There are brief moments when I understand and actually enjoy the game but on the whole it doesn’t seem worth it. I am not saying my father should stop watching football or that he’s dumb for enjoying it. I just have other interests furthermore if someone tried to simplify the game so I could understand it the game would be loosing some of its complexity and beauty. On the other hand continually pausing a game on the television to explain every action instant replays and challenges kill the suspense and spirit of the game.
Looking for Richard tries to share a passion, to do so its edits, it narrates it even changes a line,( G to C) and switched settings. Yet Compared to other versions of Shakespeare “Looking for Richard is very conservative. “Ten Things I Hate About You” changes language setting and plot details of “The Taming of the Shrew. “No Fear Shakespeare” a written adaptation goes so far as to modernize the language and cliff notes if it can be called an adaptation summarizes the plot with bare bones descriptions. If we take out what makes Shakespeare odd and challenging and transform it to familiar then what makes Shakespeare distinct what is really of value. Shakespheare often took his plots from other stories. So if the plot is all that stays perhaps he deserves no credit at all .Furthermore reading cliff notes is a lot like seeing the answers at the back of a math book as opposed to every step of the work done to get that answer. On the face value just seeing the answer seems easier. But to really understand the answer you have to no the process and understanding the math is a lot easier with the work in front of you than with just the answer. In movies it’s considered acceptable to show a person get on a bike at there house then one second later show them put their bike on a rack by the grocery store. This is a simpler version of this event then showing the person ride past numerous houses, nearly hit a cat and pedal for 20 minutes but the edited version presumes more knowledge then the unedited. By this logic I think the easiest way although time consuming to understand Shakespeare is to see it in it’s most complete form possible on stage every scene acted in Elizabethan language.
But then I see it from the other side. My first experience with Shakespeare was a Wishbone version of the Tempest. It definitely edited it certainly took artistic license in casting a dog as Ariel and the show cut in and out from the play and the adventures of a boy in the 90’s with his dog. But because of that version when I went to see the Tempest in 4th grade (still cut some for time) I understood the play. I didn’t get every line but I understood more than I would of and really enjoyed the show.
I give credit to the Wishbone version for providing me a basic understanding of the plot of “The Tempest” and thus an entrance into the world of Shakespheare. Understanding the plot wasn’t what made me love the show but it let me put my focus elsewhere into appreciating the characters and the puns.
On a separate point in response to one British man in the movie saying that the British understood Shakespheare more because they had a greater culture knowledge and experience in the arts. I don’t think I enjoyed the “Tempest” because of what I knew of Shakespeare and art but because of what I didn’t know. I was to ignorant to have Bard-phobia. I was young enough that not getting every word of a conversation (which I agree with Al Pacino is an obsession which bogs many people down) seemed normal. I really liked “Looking for Richard” because in the end it seemed to come to the conclusion that Shakespeare is never straight forward. Even professional actors and scholars don’t know things, debate things, and get confused. I think Al Pacino’s line “everyone gets and opinion” and the scholars admittance of “I don’t know” were great examples of that. Shakespheare is about exploration scientists love precision artists possibility.
Thus it’s good to get a basic understanding of the plot, it’s good to do research as long but you can’t stop there. That’s not a play It’s a lot like football there’s a certain amount of players set innings(or acts) given roles but the structures not the game it’s people maneuvering within that structure that’s the beauty of football, the chaos between the lines.

posted by artpoet @ 3:33 PM