Oregon Shakespeare Festival doing modern "translations" of Shakespeare

[JBroadway]

Posted: 9/28/15 at 1:15pm

https://www.broadwayworld.com/article/Shakespeare-Translated-Into-Modern-English-Would-You-Attend-20150928

 

Is this article a joke? Because it honestly reads like one. Let me risk becoming a gullible idiot and respond: 

I have to say I really expected more from OSF. They of all people should understand that Shakespeare is pointless without his language. Shakespeare didn't become the greatest playwright to ever live because of his stories. In fact, most of them were not even original. But nobody cares because it's all about his language. I might expect this from some mid-sized contemporary theatre Company trying to be cool and hip, but Oregon Shakespeare? They really should know better. 

Updated On: 9/28/15 at 01:15 PM

[eperkins]

Posted: 9/28/15 at 1:20pm

And what about the verse? Will that be lost?

Seems like this would only be good for Children's theatre.

[CATSNYrevival]

Posted: 9/28/15 at 1:47pm

I love this idea just because I personally would enjoy some of Shakespeare's plays a bit more if I understood them better but I can understand why Shakespeare aficionados might not be too thrilled with the idea. I've often wondered what some of his plays would be like if the language was more modern and I'm surprised it hasn't really been previously attempted on this scale.

 

It would be interesting if they maybe try to retain some of the more famous lines that have endured in our culture and become common for people to sometimes quote in conversation even to this day.

[newintown]

Posted: 9/28/15 at 2:16pm

As pointed out above, Shakespeare isn't considered great just because of his story lines and characters. Most of the dialogue is poetry. Heightened language. Not mere colloquial jabber.

 

Do we need to provide contemporary vernacular versions of Byron, Shelley, Keats, Frost, cummings, etc., too? And for prose, how about translations of Dickens, Austen, Eliot, Melville? They can be difficult to understand, too. And why should a reader/audience member ever be expected to do anything that smacks of "work?"

 

I do admit that it might be fun to hear Hamlet spit out "Should I live, or not? That’s the question – am I better off if I just take whatever life throws at me? Or should I open a can of whoop-ass on all that crap and give it the KO?"

 

That's almost as poetic as the original, and so much easier to understand, right?

[Kad]

Posted: 9/28/15 at 2:32pm

I agree with you completely, Newintown. The stories, which were already well-worn by the time Shakespeare wrote his versions, are almost beside the point; it's always been about the depth, the emotion of the language, which is written precisely to draw out those emotions using rhythm, vowel sounds, rhetoric- all the tools of language. And not only that, but there are innumerable examples of adaptations of Shakespeare's works that transport them to modern times while retaining the themes of the source. Why do we need No Fear Shakespeare onstage? What's the point of divesting the poetry from the plays?

[The Distinctive Baritone]

Posted: 9/28/15 at 2:42pm

I agree, Kad. I'm a professional Shakespearean actor and teacher, and even I still find much of his language confusing. But that is part of the fun - looking up all the archaic words, deciphering the poetry...to "modernize" his texts would completely destroy the point of doing them. I am, however, very much in favor of cutting things in his plays (lines, words or even complete scenes that are either way too archaic or just plain unnecessary). Cutting Shakespeare's plays for the stage is common practice. But TRANSLATING them? Save No Fear Shakespeare for the page, not the stage.

This idea is completely ridiculous, irresponsible, and disrespectful - both to Shakespeare and to the American public.

[eperkins]

Posted: 9/28/15 at 3:07pm

I have two words for the OSF. Cliffs Notes.

[kdogg36]

Posted: 9/28/15 at 6:24pm

JBroadway: They of all people should understand that Shakespeare is pointless without his language.

Kad: it's always been about the depth, the emotion of the language

I certainly understand the points both of you are trying to make. But don't these statements, at least in such a strong form, imply that Shakespeare's plays have little value for non-English speaking audiences? And that, once English has changed enough to render Shakespeare as difficult as Beowulf, they'll be little more than historical curiosities?

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 9/28/15 at 6:51pm

Word.  People can do whatever they want with Shakespeare's template.  Make it virtually wordless, even, a la Sleep No More.  The question is whether or not what they create has value on its own, as something OTHER than the real Shakespeare plays.  I'm for any and all easily digestible gateway drugs to the real thing.  People are free to see these shows or not, according to their desires, no?  Calling it disrespectful to the American public (just how wide is the Oregon Shakespeare Festival's reach, anyway?) may just be a titch hyperbolic.

[JBroadway]

Posted: 9/28/15 at 6:54pm

As someone whose native language is English, and as someone who has never read a translation of Shakespeare's work, I can't claim to know whether non-English speaking audiences enjoy Shakespeare as much, or whether faithful translations exist. 

 

But to answer your question based on my own personal opinion: That's correct. I don't think Shakespeare would be any more than a "historical curiosity" if not in his own language. I think that's probably true for many non-English poetic texts as well. 

 

As for the evolution of English? Once again, I can't know for sure, but I think the scenario you mentioned could very well come to past, if people don't continue to accustom themselves to Shakespeare's style of language.  

 

EDIT: I admit I'm kinda talking out of my ass in this post to some degree. I'll probably think about this issue more, as I'm currently in a Shakespeare course at my school. But the bottom line is that I think Shakespeare's plots and stories have very limited value, particularly his comedies. It's the language and the verse that makes Shakespeare Shakespeare, and I'm not talking out of my ass when I say that. 

Updated On: 9/28/15 at 06:54 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 9/28/15 at 7:00pm

Yes.  Asses are made to bear...

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 9/28/15 at 8:24pm

JBroadway said: "As someone whose native language is English, and as someone who has never read a translation of Shakespeare's work, I can't claim to know whether non-English speaking audiences enjoy Shakespeare as much, or whether faithful translations exist.

 

They do-not surprisingly.  THe only one I really know specifically is I had a Russian lit prof who I loved, and she said that there most audiences are obsessed with the 19th Century translations edited and compiled completely by Nikolay Gerbel which some claim are surely better than the originals.  So, according to her anyway, for those audiences those specific translations are held up as classics (though, of course, there have been other translations into Russian.) 

I agree with Namo here--there's no danger of these supplanting the original texts...  I'm more curious about whether they're getting well known playwrights to do the translations, new playwrights, translators who aren't playwrights, or?  That said, I also agree with others that if you modernize the language completely it really seems to become more of an adaptation and in that case there's nothing new...  (Also, why set out to do ALL of his plays?  Will there suddenly be increased demand to perform The Two Noble Kinsmen? )

And while I agree that a large part of the appeal of Shakespeare is his language, certainly his best plays also are great examples of dramatic (or comedic) construction.

[g.d.e.l.g.i.]

Posted: 9/28/15 at 8:40pm

Actually, Eric, I'd argue that Shakespeare wasn't a master of dramatic construction, per se. He wasn't always the best narrative storyteller in the world. He borrowed plots, he relied on improbable coincidences, mistaken identity, and other devices we'd find amateurish in anyone else's hands. (Even West Side Story arguably fixed some of Romeo and Juliet's plot problems.) His skill was in the complex psychology of his characters, maybe even more so than in his incredible language. He was the first theater writer to delve deep down into the complexities of human emotion and motivation, and the reason his plays are performed centuries later is partly because he was right on the money in most of his work.

[TheGingerBreadMan]

Posted: 9/28/15 at 8:48pm

Shakespeare's writing is arguably some of the most perfectly articulated literature of all time. His words have such complexity that even today cannot be found in most writing. The fact that so many people can interpret his works in so many different ways just goes to show how versatile and well versed he was as a playwright. Someone butchering this will take away everything that makes Shakespeare so timeless and so loved. There's a reason that his plays are still constantly produced, hundreds of years later. Had he been born a couple centuries later and written in what we consider to be more "modern" prose, his works would not have stood the test of time, even with the same characters and plots that we all know so well. Anyone who takes away from his writing should be ashamed of themselves.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 9/28/15 at 9:33pm

g.d.e.l.g.i. said: "Actually, Eric, I'd argue that Shakespeare wasn't a master of dramatic construction, per se. He wasn't always the best narrative storyteller in the world. He borrowed plots, he relied on improbable coincidences, mistaken identity, and other devices we'd find amateurish in anyone else's hands. (Even West Side Story arguably fixed some of Romeo and Juliet's plot problems.) His skill was in the complex psychology of his characters, maybe even more so than in his incredible language. He was the first theater writer to delve deep down into the complexities of human emotion and motivation, and the reason his plays are performed centuries later is partly because he was right on the money in most of his work.

 

"

Oh I know all that, and I know many would argue my point (and to be clear I by no means meant all of his plays.)  But I think, for example, he improved many of the borrowed plots he did use.  Of course for theatre of its time you have to accept a lot of the things like mistaken identity--I still think he knew how to sequence and build on them, at his best, very well.

But good point on the psychology of the characters--which I include as dramatic construction...

Updated On: 9/29/15 at 09:33 PM

[dramamama611]

Posted: 9/28/15 at 9:40pm

I adore Shakespeare.  I love reading/studying/acting/directing/watching Shakespeare.

 

That being said, I'm not actually opposed to them taking a stab at it.  Will it REPLACE Will's work? Methinks not.....but it might just work.  Would I be interested, maybe out of curiosity for one or two.

[Charley Kringas Inc]

Posted: 9/28/15 at 11:31pm

Shakespeare's words are indisputably brilliant, but claiming that his skills didn't lie in plotting is to shortchange him completely. He was a fabulous plotter, particularly considering what "plot" meant in those days, and a great deal of the power of his plays lies not just in the words but the concepts and ideas his words convey. The poetry of his dialogue is immortal but what it all means is just as fabulous, and if they can indeed find playwrights who can translate the concepts and emotions of the words into modern "colloquial jabber" then I don't think we have anything to worry about.

[newintown]

Posted: 9/29/15 at 12:20pm

Here are the assigned playwrights and dramturgs. Some interesting names, but I still question the intellectual/artistic value behind the project.

 

If they called them"adaptations" rather than "translations," it would make a universe of difference, I suppose...

 

https://www.osfashland.org/playon

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 9/29/15 at 5:17pm

No one would bat an eye if they merely said adaptations.  And they'd get no free publicity.

[A Director]

Posted: 9/29/15 at 5:42pm

It's unfortunate the Wall Street Journal ran an article about this before the OSF officially announced the project.  Here is a link to FAQ about the project which is called Play On.

https://www.osfashland.org/experience-osf/upcoming/play-on/play-on-faq.aspx

[GavestonPS]

Posted: 9/29/15 at 6:53pm

A lot of the playwrights are well-known on the West Coast and in regional theaters across the country. I've met and seen the work of at least half-a-dozen of them and, yes, they are fine writers. (What they will do with Shakespeare, I can't say.)

 

I have my misgivings about the whole project, but the OSF certainly isn't throwing amateurs at it.

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 9/30/15 at 2:21pm

Taylor Mac is doing Titus Andronicus!!

I bet there'll be food.

 

Amy Freed is doing Taming of the Shrew.

 

The Playbill article makes the project seem more sensible.  Especially because OSF is performing the whole Shakespeare canon over the next decade.

 

[Kad]

Posted: 9/30/15 at 2:22pm

I would love to see Taylor Mac perform in a production of As You Like It.

[Wilmingtom]

Posted: 10/1/15 at 2:20am

If it brings a bigger audience to the Bard or into the theater in general, I'm all for it.  The original texts will always be there.