![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Shakespeare Ranting
Sep. 28th, 2005 10:49 amSo, Trevor Nunn has an interesting article" in The Guardian about people wanting Shakespeare to be presented as it was 'meant' to be presented vs the clever productions that do things like set Romeo and Juliet in modern day Miami, or something.
He ends the article saying this: Shakespeare works much more through storytelling than symbolic gesture, and that every play of his is unique, different and particular, and won't be solved by the application of a formula.
With that, I thoroughly agree. If you do something clever to Shakespeare merely for cleverness's sake, it isn't going to work. I also think the people involved really need to love Shakespeare. This is why Ian McKellan's Richard III set in pre-WWII 1930's works and (In my opinon) That Leo DiCaprio/Claire Danes Romeo and Juliet movie didn't.*
There was a Midsummer Night's Dream that was set during the turn of the 20th century that just didn't work because they were so busy trying to be clever by having everyone ride around on bicycles. I mean, who rides a bicycle through woods?
Apparently our local high school is going to be doing Romeo and Juliet set during the 1960's, with Romeo being from Hippie stock, and Juliet from a military family. That could totally work if the people involved stay focused on the story and don't try too hard to make it clever.
The thing about Shakespeare, and the reason it is still resonant today is he wrote about basic human emotions which never really change, so where it is set isn't nearly as important as how it is portrayed.
*At least not for me. They were too busy saying 'oh, let's have guns and stuff' and not paying attention to the story. Though making Mecruito a transvestite was clever. And Claire Danes had no concept of what Shakespeare was and I wanted to slap her every time I heard her interviewed.
He ends the article saying this: Shakespeare works much more through storytelling than symbolic gesture, and that every play of his is unique, different and particular, and won't be solved by the application of a formula.
With that, I thoroughly agree. If you do something clever to Shakespeare merely for cleverness's sake, it isn't going to work. I also think the people involved really need to love Shakespeare. This is why Ian McKellan's Richard III set in pre-WWII 1930's works and (In my opinon) That Leo DiCaprio/Claire Danes Romeo and Juliet movie didn't.*
There was a Midsummer Night's Dream that was set during the turn of the 20th century that just didn't work because they were so busy trying to be clever by having everyone ride around on bicycles. I mean, who rides a bicycle through woods?
Apparently our local high school is going to be doing Romeo and Juliet set during the 1960's, with Romeo being from Hippie stock, and Juliet from a military family. That could totally work if the people involved stay focused on the story and don't try too hard to make it clever.
The thing about Shakespeare, and the reason it is still resonant today is he wrote about basic human emotions which never really change, so where it is set isn't nearly as important as how it is portrayed.
*At least not for me. They were too busy saying 'oh, let's have guns and stuff' and not paying attention to the story. Though making Mecruito a transvestite was clever. And Claire Danes had no concept of what Shakespeare was and I wanted to slap her every time I heard her interviewed.
