Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > rec.arts.theatre.misc > #6

Re: Thoughts on updating classic plays to be relevant

Show all headers | View raw

In article <q5h1un$b53$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
Anson Carmichael  <noemailexists@example.com> wrote:
>Perhaps this is more commentary than a question, but it is in regards to
>the classic play "Doctor Faustus" by Christopher Marlowe and ponders the
>necessities of altering the original work to make it relevant to a
>modern audience...

A more fundamental question, I feel, is this:  If you don't think the play is 
relevant, why are you doing it?  This sort of 'updating' often goes 
hand-in-hand with paying lip-service to the greatness of the play, 
even while altering it.  How often have I heard directors essentially 
say, "We're doing Shakespeare's <whatever>, one of the greatest plays 
ever written by the greatest playwright in the English language.  
Here are the cuts I've made."

I tend to think that it many cases this sort of production results from a 
failure to trust your audience and to trust your artists.  As you note 
later on, it often seems lazy - an attempt to force an interpretation 
onto a script, rather than interpret it, via heavy-handed manipulation.

If one is interested in 'updating' a script, that's fine - and as 
another poster notes, can result in works which are interesting and 
useful in their own right, without claiming to be the 'classic' work 
in question.  West Side Story, for example, is a very good show.  
It is not Romeo and Juliet, even if it is inspired by it.  
Too often I've seen plays which were advertised as being by 
Shakespeare/Marlowe/etc but which bore little resemblance to the 
original text.

In this case, if the play was being marketed as Marlowe's Dr Faustus, 
I would have been very annoyed when I saw it.  If it was being 
advertised as a new adaptation, then I might not have been impressed, 
but I wouldn't feel cheated or deceived.


>As I mentioned before, I do understand the need to put a modern spin on an 
>old story. This is especially true for stories written in an old style from 
>so long ago.

I don't neccesarily agree.  If we claim that a play is universal, then 
it should work without rewriting. If the actors and directors know 
their business, Elizabethan/Jacobean drama works very well indeed with 
no change to the script. I am of two minds about staging changes.  
Sometimes setting the play in a different  time and/or place works, 
other times it is (as noted above) an attempt to force an 
interpretation on the text, or is just being done for the sake of 
being 'different.'  An Othello in space was an example of the 
last - the setting change added nothing to the play, and was 
simply distracting. 

A completely new play, based on the earlier work, and dealing 
with the same themes, is a different beast.  If one really feels 
that Hamlet doesn't work, but a modern spin might, then don't 
jam Hamlet into, oh, a second generation dotcom, do something else.

NB: I was involved in two different theatre companies, one in Colorado and 
one in New York, both of whom believed in performing texts such as 
these uncut.  It wasn't to everyone's taste, but art rarely is.


------------
Jeff Berry - http://www.aspiringluddite.com - food, musings, etc.
"I don't need TV when I got T-Rex" - Mott the Hoople

Back to rec.arts.theatre.misc | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Thoughts on updating classic plays to be relevant Anson Carmichael <noemailexists@example.com> - 2019-03-03 17:12 +0000
  Re: Thoughts on updating classic plays to be relevant John W Kennedy <john.w.kennedy@gmail.com> - 2019-03-03 15:36 -0500
  Re: Thoughts on updating classic plays to be relevant nexus@panix.com - 2019-03-04 05:01 -0500
    Re: Thoughts on updating classic plays to be relevant Anson Carmichael <noemailexists@example.com> - 2019-03-05 03:05 +0000
      Re: Thoughts on updating classic plays to be relevant nexus@panix.com - 2019-03-05 03:59 -0500

csiph-web