Flapper Shakespeare

"One of the most remarkable things about the great writers of antiquity is that they appear to be so modern in their outlook. what we really mean is that they are both ancient and modern at the same time. there are certain things in life that time cannot stale. Hamlet has recently been played in modern dress, an experiment that has met with extraordinary success. Why is this? surely it is because great poetry is concerned with those feelings and thoughts which are innate and unchanging in human nature, and continue to resist the assaults of time and he vagaries of fashion." 

The Study of Poetry by Paul Landis

Chapter 1: The Nature of Poetry, pg. 13

I found this passage interesting because of what I'd discussed in an earlier post about setting Shakespearean plays in other-than-Elizabethan times. Landis has a point. One of the aspects that constitutes great art (literature, poetry, paintings, etc.) is that there is something about it that transcends the time in which is was created, representing some universal characteristic of humanity. Therefore, as long as the core content is left unchanged, it's possible to alter or remove superficial details (such as clothing in the case of performing plays) without damaging the essence of a particular work.

Shakespeare in Any Other Era

In the room the women come and go
Talking of Malviolio...*

Okay, so I know it's "Michelangelo" in The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock, but I adapted it to introduce this post about possibly-incongruous adaptations. Sorry, T.S. Eliot.

The other day I overheard a conversation two ladies were having about Shakespeare. One of the ladies had upcoming plans to see a live performance, but she was already complaining about it.

“When I went to see Much Ado About Nothing they dressed in all modern clothes. I hate that!”

What surprised me about her tone was that it implied she thought it was some new thing, for Shakespearean plays to have a “modernized” setting. She continued,

“It’s just weird, they’re going around in regular clothes, but speaking the same words.”

True, I've encountered similar adaptations and found them confusing. But is it really a travesty to perform Shakespeare—or really, any “ancient” play—as if it were a contemporary setting? Does every adaptation need to be "Shakespeare: Men in Tights"?

Language, Value, and "Troilus and Cressida"

In any work, the intentions of an author influence how that text is read and applied to everyday life.  Because of this, William Shakespeare’s intentions in writing Troilus and Cressida, what his message about language and the debate between inherent worth and intrinsic value, are particularly important to how we understand the play’s characters and their actions, and interpreting the underlying meaning is perhaps the most elusive aspect of an already ambiguous text.  

Throughout the debate within the play of these two methods of valuation, Shakespeare demonstrates that language is a creative force, for good or bad. It is a way of perpetuating certain concepts of how people are valued, and that one’s perceptions of reality—especially the reality of identity—can be made into an illusion through the manipulation of words.

Romeo and Juliet: An Alternate Version

It is the true mark of tragedy, particularly the literary genre, that the terrible ending is almost always completely avoidable. The saying goes, “But for a horse, the kingdom was lost.” When it comes to Shakespearean pacing, however, it’s not so much a horse that’s missing, as just a few more soliloquys. 

Let’s take Romeo and Juliet, since, as the death of the main characters in any Shakespearean tragedy is a foregone conclusion, I doubt it would cause an uproar if I spoil the ending. 

Most people know the ending of the play, but here is the recap of what happens right before the tears get jerked: Romeo and Juliet, being from two feuding families, have fallen in love and married in secret. Juliet is being pressured by her dad to marry this other guy named Paris, and since she’s gotten married in secret to her father’s mortal enemy she can’t well explain the whole situation. Well, she could. But that would have forced the families to get along without their children’s untimely demise.  Can you imagine the Thanksgivings?* Since this is a tragedy, though, that would be totally ridiculous. So instead Juliet does the only rational thing. She runs away and a Friar helps her fake her death.

Shakespeare's "Othello": From Victim to Villain

William Shakespeare’s Othello is a play concerned with hatred, betrayal and jealousy. Its main character is presumed hero is a Moorish soldier, Othello, who over the course of the plot demonstrates each of these emotional states. This is ironic since it is the villain who should have possesses these negative traits, and yet in Othello both the hero and the villain are consumed with jealousy and hatred. Othello is radically altered from a protagonist to an antagonist in his own story, and his rapid descent into barbaric behavior makes him the culprit of his own downfall.

To read, or not to read, that is a silly question

"The remarkable thing about Shakespeare

is that he is really very good,

in spite of all the people who say he is very good." 

~ Robert Graves

Recently I finally read William Shakespeare’s Hamlet, as I slowly make my way through the entirety of the Bard’s works, and at my sister’s behest since it is her favorite tragedy.*  While I found Hamlet well-written and dealing with deep and interesting themes, I could not help but react with my default reaction: inappropriate jocundity.  This default reaction has occurred with every Shakespearean tragedy (and a few plays by Christopher Marlowe as well), starting with my initial exposure to Othello.  I think this is due to the tragic elements of the story being completely avoidable.

Take Hamlet, for instance.  Obviously as the story opens the titular character has some…issues.  This is understandable since his father, the king of Denmark, has recently died.  Yet instead of ensuring that her son gets the grief counseling he needs, Hamlet’s mom, Queen Gertrude, decides to compound her son’s mental imbalance by marrying his uncle Claudius (the king’s brother and...twin, apparently.  I’d go crazy, too.).  As Hamlet becomes more and more erratic, the people around him constantly ignore the warning signs, instead chocking his unhealthy amount of crazy to his love for Ophelia (although he just doesn’t seem that into her).

Unbeknownst to them, it is the visitations of his father’s ghost that is driving Hamlet crackers.  His father’s ghost demands Hamlet avenge his death by killing his murderer…his own brother Claudius.  Eventually (spoilers) Hamlet succeeds in spades, not only killing Claudius, but including his mom, Ophelia, Ophelia’s dad, himself, and also two random dudes named Rosencrantz and Guildenstern to the death toll.  One almost expects to see a tally number pop up at the bottom of the stage when this play is presented.

Personally, I find Hamlet unrelatable.  If I were in his position, just minding my own emo business, and some ghost showed up that looked like my dad, I would at least demand some otherworldly I.D.  How else can Hamlet be sure that his dad and mom didn’t pull an ol’ switcheroo and kill Claudius, pass him off as the king, then collect the life insurance money and get (re)married?  Then Claudius’ ghost, out for revenge, would be all, “Hamlet, Hamlet I ammmm your father! Avenge my death!”  This is probably what happened.  Which is why the ghost is totally okay with the collateral damage.

Also, how come none of the other characters show up as ghosts?  I mean, obviously the door between the spiritual and earthly realms is wide open, or else the King/Claudius-in-disguise wouldn’t be taking nightly walks on the battlements trying to freak out sentries.  After Polonius dies, I expected him to show up to Laertes and be like “Laertes!  Avenge my death!”  This little ghostly appearance thing would also be helpful in clearing up exactly how Ophelia dies…if she did die….** 

After the play ends and pretty much everyone we cared about (and even some we only kind of tolerated) are dead, why don’t they all show up in ghost form?

HAMLET: Father! I have done as you asked and avenged your death!  Now we can be together!

KING: Dude, that’s your uncle. 

GERTRUDE: Yeah, Hamlet.  If you’d stopped acting all nuts for a while your dad and I would have let you in on our insurance scam secret.

HAMLET: Uncle?  Why would you do that to me?

POLONIUS: Do that to you?  You stabbed me to death and then proceeded to have an entire conversation with your mother as if my corpse weren’t stiffening on the floor right in front of you!  I can’t believe I tried to get you to marry my daughter.

OPHELIA: I never really felt enthusiastic about that plan anyway.

Speaking of Polonius’ death scene, am I the only one who saw parallels between that and The Wizard of Oz?  “Pay no attention or violence to the eavesdropper behind the curtain.”

Lastly, as I came to the close of Hamlet I could not help but wonder, “What came next?”  Are we really supposed to root for this Fortinbras nonentity becoming King of Denmark?  Or did Horatio steal the throne (which to me makes more sense, since he basically enables Hamlet in his bloodthirsty escapades of insanity)?  And did the Danes ever catch on to the fact that they’d been invaded by Italy and Greece? (Claudius?  Horatio?  Ophelia?  Laertes? Polonius?  Methinks Shakespeare was in need of one of those name origin books for prospective parents.) 

Guess I’ll just have to wait for the sequel to come out.***

Here I am about to view Shakespeare's First Folio (see Feature Image at the beginning of this post). It was open to the "To be or not to be" speech from Hamlet. The security guard did not allow us to turn the page to finish reading, however. 

*Huh.  “Favorite tragedy” just sounds weird. 

**My play-watching self functions on the premise that “no body, no death.”  I figure Ophelia went to England with Rosencrantz and Guildenstern and started a pop-rock band.

***Hamlet II: The Rise of Horatio has a nice ring to it.  Also a spin-off entitled Ophelia and the Pussycats, or perhaps a parallel-universe “Parent Trap” story in which Hamlet is forced to get his mom back together with his ghostly father with only the help of his long-lost twin brother (naturally played by Hayley Mills) and their combined acoustic guitar-playing skills.  

"What's in a name?" Re-titling Shakespeare

Most people probably know already that in acting circles it's considered bad luck to call "MacBeth" by its proper name. To ward off this curse, actors call it "The Scottish Play." Which got me thinking: what if all Shakespearean plays were cursed? What would the alternate titles be?

Tragedies:

• Hamlet - The Danish Play
• Othello - The Racist Play
• King Lear - The Bad Parenting Play
• Timon of Athens - The Misanthropic Play
• Romeo and Juliet - The Completely Avoidable Teen Suicide Play

Comedies:

• The Taming of the Shrew - The Sexist Play
• The Merchant of Venice - The Antisemitic Play
• Measure for Measure - The Ol' Switcheroo Play
• The Tempest - The Revenge-by-Matchmaking Play
• A Comedy of Errors - The Extra Confusing Play
• As You Like It - The "go live in the forest.  everything's better in the forest" Play
• A Midsummer Night's Dream - The "this would make a good reality dating show" Play
• A Winter's Tale - The "of course faking your death will restore all relationships" Play
• Twelfth Night - The "Wait, how'd they live happily ever after in this enemy kingdom?" Play
• All's Well That Ends Well - The "how I promised to love my wife if she became a kleptomaniac" Play

This isn't a complete list. If you are disappointed by seeing your favorite play omitted, feel free to make up your own "codeword title" and post it in the comments. I'd love to hear alternate titles to my own as well!

How to be smarter if your name's MacBeth

Things you should do if you happen to find yourself in the same situation as MacBeth:

1.      Ask yourself: “Hum, three WITCHES just appeared in the wilderness OUT OF NOWHERE with a CAULDRON and are for some reason trying to get me to KILL THE KING.  I wonder if maybe they have some personal agenda of being EVIL WITCHES?”

2.      Ask your wife the same thing when, after telling her the witches’ prophecy, she seems freakishly gung-ho about it even though you know she’ll just cave to guilt if you actually carry out the assassination. 

3.      If you do fall for the whole “kill the king” thing, don’t go around with a fake clownish smile on your face repeating “don’t look like a murderer don’t look like a murderer” between your gritted teeth.