|
My mother introduced me to Shakespeare when I was a child. We had grown tired of the usual bedtime stories (and so had she), so she started reading Shakespeare to us instead. I really can't stand to read any of the plays. Thus, we come to my first point about Shakespeare: It was never intended to be read like literature. It was meant to seen and heard -- a play, a dramatic reading, a film -- three dimensional with human passion and wit. The words on paper will never convey all the rich possibilities of Shakespeare's works. Of course, there is the matter of interpretation and scholars argue over what was meant and what was done in the 16th century and whose portrayal is more valid. With so many films being produced by so many notable directors and actors we hear again the endless argument of "To cut or not to cut," and what to cut and whether restructuring the scenes has altered the fundamental purity of the original work. Silly nonsense, all of it. A play -- on stage, on radio, on film, or read by a parent to a child -- is still a living thing. It changes fashion with the time. The beauty of Shakespeare is that it can change and still speak to the human condition as it is now. In the end, all that matters is: Did you enjoy it? I do not pretend to be a scholar on these matters, but as a writer and theatre patron, I know what I like. I know why some interpretations work for me and others do not. Unlike literary purists who would put Shakespeare on the same bookshelf with holy writ, I think he was a brilliant writer cranking out plays to make a living. I doubt he ever once thought of his words being spoken half a millennium later by the likes of Robin Williams or Claire Danes. He never thought of on-site locations, big budget productions or hundreds of extras all correctly costumed. I, therefore, take exception to those who dismiss current productions, on stage or screen, for cutting too much or too little, for unusual cast choices, or for changing the time and place from the traditional venue. Each adaptation must stand or fall on its own merit and how it speaks to the audience. They say, "If it ain't on the page, it ain't on the stage," but in the end what is on the stage is what you've got to judge -- the director's choice and the actors' interpretation of the characters. I don't believe that there can ever be a definitive version of any of the plays, which is why it is perfectly alright for Kenneth Brannagh to choose to do Hamlet so soon after Franco Zefferelli directed Mel Gibson in the same role. Most of my comments are aimed at recent filmed versions of the plays with some added thought drawn from productions performed in the Washington, D.C. area. What follows, then, are my observations and interpretations of my favorite productions. And, students, if you are cribbing this page for a term paper or other assignment, please have the good grace to give me the credit for writing it. |
|
Well, not an entire play, of course -- only the "good parts" with her narrative filling in the rest of the scene. It was wonderful and, later in life when I majored in theatre and then took up writing, those early encounters with the Bard served me very well. There was one small drawback, though.
Shakespeare: A Very Brief Biography
Shakespeare Trivia Questions
No Holds Bard