Dumbing down Shakespeare
Joe Gillis
Dumbing down of Shakespeare: The translations
Thousands of teenagers across the country are studying 'dumbed down'
Shakespeare plays at school, it has been revealed.
Here, we compare the original works of Shakespeare with their modern
day translation.
ROMEO AND JULIET
Act One, Scene One - confrontation between the Capulets and Monatgues
Shakespeare:
Tybalt: What, art thou drawn among these heartless hinds? Turn thee,
Benvolio, look upon thy death.
Benvolio: I do but keep the peace, put up thy sword, Or manage it to
part these men with me.
CGP:
Tybalt: Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough.
Benvolio: Leave it out, big nose.
Act One Scene Five - Romeo and Juliet kiss for the first time
Shakespeare:
Juliet: Good pilgrim, you do wrong your hand too much, Which mannerly
devotion shows in this; For saints have hands that pilgrims' hands do
touch, And palm to palm is holy palmers' kiss.
Romeo: Have not saints lips, and holy palmers too?
Juliet: Ay, pilgrim, lips that they must use in prayer.
CGP:
Juliet: What are you thinking about?
Romeo: Oh, just moons and spoon in June.
Juliet: Wow. Give us a snog then.
Act Two, Scene Two - balcony scene
Shakespeare:
Romeo: But soft, what light through yonder window breaks? Is it the
east and Juliet is the sun! (...)
Juliet: O Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art though Romeo? Deny thy father and
refuse thy name.
CGP:
Romeo: What's on your mind?
Juliet: Oh, just moons and spoons in June.
Romeo: Cool - let's get hitched then.
Act Five, Scene One - Balthasar tells Romeo that is Juliet is dead. He
decides to poison himself
Shakespeare:
Balthasar: Her body sleeps in Capels' monument, And her immortal part
with angels lives. (...)
Romeo: Tush, thou art deceiv'd. Leave me, and do the thing I bid thee
do. Hast thou no letters to me from the Friar? (...) I do remember an
apothecary (...)
CGP:
Balthasar: Julie's (sic) dead, mate. Saw her with me (sic) own eyes.
Romeo: Rats. Maybe that guy will sell me poison. That'll solve the
problem.
MACBETH
Act One, Scene Seven - Macbeth and Lady Macbeth discuss killing King
Duncan
Shakespeare:
Macbeth: We will proceed no further in this business: He hath honour'd
me of late: and I have bought Golden opinions from all sorts of people,
Which would be worn now in their newest gloss, Not cast aside so soon.
Lady Macbeth: Was the hope drunk, Wherein you dress'd yourself? Hath it
slept since? And wakes it now, to look so green and pale At what it did
so freely? (...)
Macbeth: I am settled, and bend up Each corporal agent to this terrible
feat. Away, and mock the time with fairest show: False face must hide
what the false heart doth know.
CGP:
Macbeth: I'm not going to do it.
Lady Macbeth: Cowardly custard!
Macbeth: I've changed my mind. I'll do it.
Act Two, Scene One - Macbeth sees a blood-covered dagger
Shakespeare:
Macbeth: Is this a dagger, which I see before me, The handle toward my
hand? Come, let me clutch thee:- I have thee not, and yet I see thee
still.
CGP:
Macbeth: Oooh! Would you look at that.
Act Three, Scene Four - Macbeth sees Banquo's ghost.
Shakespeare:
Macbeth: Thou canst not say, I did it; never shake Thy gory locks at
me.
CGP:
Macbeth: Bloomin' nora its Banquo's ghost!
Act Five, Scene Eight - climatic fight between Macduff and Macbeth
Shakespeare:
Macduff: Turn, Hell-hound, turn!
Macbeth: Of all men else I have avoided thee: But get thee back, my
soul is too charg'd With blood of thine already.
CGP:
Macduff: Prepare to die squid-for-brains
Macbeth: No man born from a woman can kill me
Macduff: Well I wasn't born as such, I was cut out of my mum's belly
Macbeth: Oh flip!
Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see')
Joe Gillis wrote:
>
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=389412&in_page_id=1770
>
> Dumbing down of Shakespeare: The translations
>
> Thousands of teenagers across the country are studying 'dumbed down'
> Shakespeare plays at school, it has been revealed.
>
It's interesting that this issue wouldn't become met with such fervour
if this were a German or Bengali language discussion group talking about
Shakespeare in those languages. The real question is how far back you
have to go in a language before works are allowed to be translated into
current parlance without somebody claiming it's a travesty.
--
"What did you do that day?"
"I was to attend the Bolshoi Ballet. Not out of love for the dance. I'm
not one of those perverts. But it was a chance to spot some Reds."
-+Costa-Gravras, "Z"
Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
Richard Yates
> >
> > Thousands of teenagers across the country are studying 'dumbed down'
> > Shakespeare plays at school, it has been revealed.
> >
> It's interesting that this issue wouldn't become met with such fervour
> if this were a German or Bengali language discussion group talking about
> Shakespeare in those languages. The real question is how far back you
> have to go in a language before works are allowed to be translated into
> current parlance without somebody claiming it's a travesty.
I think a few years ago I would have harrumphed about it. Now, as I have
learned more about very different Shakespeare's English actually is, I don't
have an objection at all. Linguist John McWhorter has said that he finds
listening to the plays difficult. The words are the same as they sounded in
Shakespeare's day but the audience experience and understanding is quite
different, and those qualities should be the essence of theater.
Richard Yates
Hatunen
Good acting will convey the proper meaning for most speeches.
Since the words of Shakespeare are the important thing about him,
rewriting the dialogue into some sort of hip modern language is
really like turning Romeo and Juliet into West Side Story, a
valid exercise but certainly not a way of performing Shakespeare.
When done well this sort of translation can create its own work
of art, e.g., Kurosawa's rendering of King Lear as the movie Ran.
But it takes another artist to do it right. Come to think of it,
that's how Shakespeare got most of his stories.
************* DAVE HATUNEN (hat...@cox.net) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
avery
"Richard Yates" <raya...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:XdSdnc5IC_E2-RrZ...@comcast.com...
I think the problem here is the premise of "dumbing down" Shakespeare -- The
matter at hand is not "dumbing down" but "updating" Shakespeare to make it
easier on students. Shakespeare's language was undoubtedly somewhat more
stylized and poetic than your average Elizabethan's on the street, but it
*was* everyday English at the time, and just because it sounds all "fancy"
and "highfalutin'" to students today doesn't mean that it was, or that it
needs to be *recited* in loud, echo-chamber vibrato with preposterously
enormous gestures. (I doubt that Hamlet pondered the option of suicide in a
deafening, quivering ponderous voice accompanied by grandly campy stage
blocking.) Still, I think it's a disservice to convey this by changing the
language. I had a fantastic English teacher in HS who guided us through the
text, showing us both its *everyday* relevance and how to interpret it, so
we could appreciate the text as the cool (?) and curiously contemporary
story it was while making an effort that was, in the end, really rewarding.
I have no problem with modern-setting Shakespeare if it's presented as such,
but to change the words to make them easier on impatient brains mollified by
sound-byte-sized attention spans isn't doing anybody any favors.
subscriber1997
"avery" <doom...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:qiLhg.2549$qo4.271@trndny05...
nothing wrong with learning another language
...and Elizabethan English is a different language
learnin shit iz always good !
IMHO odz bodkins!
avery
"subscriber1997" <duke...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:CkLhg.6589$%h.2...@news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.com...
Wow! You summed it up.
Dana Carpender
avery wrote:
My teachers generally found it helped increase class interest if they
pointed out the bawdy puns.
Dana
Lily
<<Thousands of teenagers across the country are studying 'dumbed down'
Shakespeare plays at school, it has been revealed.>>
Source please?
These dialogue malfuntions sound suspiciously like the "LA math test."
[see Snopes]
IF the kids were reading the play before attending a performance-- which
is the ideal way to introduce them to Shakespeare-- and the teacher had
the kids try to "translate" the dialogue into modern vernacular, that
would be fine. In fact, it would be swell.
But this is ridiculous. Abridge him? Fine. Everyone does and always
has. But I find it unbelievable that what was quoted was ever cited in
a textbook as actual Shakespearean dialogue. This doesn't pass the
smell test.
Lily
subscriber1997
wot can i say hon
i'm a pithy muthafucka
apothogmen
Joseph Michael Bay
>I think the problem here is the premise of "dumbing down" Shakespeare -- The
>matter at hand is not "dumbing down" but "updating" Shakespeare to make it
>easier on students. Shakespeare's language was undoubtedly somewhat more
>stylized and poetic than your average Elizabethan's on the street, but it
>*was* everyday English at the time, and just because it sounds all "fancy"
>and "highfalutin'" to students today doesn't mean that it was, or that it
>needs to be *recited* in loud, echo-chamber vibrato with preposterously
>enormous gestures. (I doubt that Hamlet pondered the option of suicide in a
>deafening, quivering ponderous voice accompanied by grandly campy stage
>blocking.)
SPEAK the speech, I pray you! As I pronounced it to you, trippingly
on the tongue; but if you mouth it, as many of our players do, I HAD
AS LIEF THE TOWN-CRIER!!! SPOKE MY LINES!!!!1!!
Nor do NOT saw the AIR too MUCH with your hand, *thus* (gesticulates
wildly); but use all gently (gesticulates wildly), for in the very
TORRENT, TEMPEST, and (as I may say) WHIRL-wind of your PASsion, you
must aquire and beget a temperance that may give it SMOOTHNESS!!
(puts back of hand to forehead, draws hand-kerchief from shirt) O it
ofFENDs me to the soul (feigns nearly fainting) to hear a roBUStious
(spitting) Periwig-Pated fellow tear a passage to tatters!! -- TO VERY
RAGS!!!!! -- to split the EARS of the groundlings (takes a moment to
point to the front row), who for the most part are capable of nothing
but inexplicable dumb-shows (pantomimes monkey-like moves) and NOISE.
I would have such a fellow WHIPPED (makes whipping gesture, "wah-KEESH"
whip noise) for o'er-doing Termagant. It out-herods Herod:
(long pause)
pray you, avoid it.
--
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of sXXXch, Joe
.. or the right of the people peaceably to XXXemble, and to Bay
peXXXion the government for a redress of grievances." Stanford
-- from the First Amendment to the US ConsXXXution University
avery
"Joseph Michael Bay" <jm...@Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:e6863u$b7t$1...@news.Stanford.EDU...
<standing, head bobbing with emotion, deafening claps alternating with moved
clutchings of own tattered suede elbow patches> Bravo! Bravo! <trilling
R's, feigning non-ownership of pocketed cellphone squealing "Frankie Goes to
Hollywood" ringtones >....
Richard R. Hershberger
Historical linguists traditionally divide English into three periods:
Early English from, what was it, around 500 A.D. or so (I don't recall
off the top of my head when Hengest and Horsa were doing their thing)
to around 1100 A.D., Middle English from 1100 A.D. to around 1500 A.D.,
and Modern English from 1500 A.D. to the present. By this scheme, no,
Elizabethan English isn't a different language. And in fact
Elizabethan prose isn't really all that difficult to read, and much of
what difficulty there is is due to peculiarities of orthography more
than actual linguistic differences. (But if you still want to argue
for "different language", you can take heart from the sub-division of
Early Modern English, being the Modern English used from roughly 1500
to, oh, let's say 1650-ish.)
Richard R. Hershberger
Dana Carpender
Joseph Michael Bay wrote:
When I saw the Branaugh Much Ado About Nothing, which I generally
enjoyed very much, it struck me that Keanu Reeves' notion of
"Shakespearean acting" was to enunciate very, very clearly.
Embarassing, really.
Dana
Jordan Abel
Bill Bonde ('The path is clear, though no eyes can see') wrote:
>
>
> Joe Gillis wrote:
>>
>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=389412&in_page_id=1770
>>
>> Dumbing down of Shakespeare: The translations
>>
>> Thousands of teenagers across the country are studying 'dumbed down'
>> Shakespeare plays at school, it has been revealed.
>>
> It's interesting that this issue wouldn't become met with such fervour
> if this were a German or Bengali language discussion group talking about
> Shakespeare in those languages. The real question is how far back you
> have to go in a language before works are allowed to be translated into
> current parlance without somebody claiming it's a travesty.
But "Oh flip!"?
There's also the issue that the meaning is not being preserved - it's
not only being made modern, it's being made simpler.
I'd buy "Wherefore art thou Romeo" being translated into "Why are you
'Romeo'? (too many people misread "wherefore" as meaning "where" when
it's closer to "why" as it is) But omitting that sentiment entirely from
the scene in question?
Hatunen
<rrh...@acme.com> wrote:
>Historical linguists traditionally divide English into three periods:
>Early English from, what was it, around 500 A.D. or so (I don't recall
>off the top of my head when Hengest and Horsa were doing their thing)
>to around 1100 A.D., Middle English from 1100 A.D. to around 1500 A.D.,
>and Modern English from 1500 A.D. to the present. By this scheme, no,
>Elizabethan English isn't a different language. And in fact
>Elizabethan prose isn't really all that difficult to read, and much of
>what difficulty there is is due to peculiarities of orthography more
>than actual linguistic differences. (But if you still want to argue
>for "different language", you can take heart from the sub-division of
>Early Modern English, being the Modern English used from roughly 1500
>to, oh, let's say 1650-ish.)
Modern translations of the Bible simply don't have the zing of
the King James version.
HVS
> When I saw the Branaugh Much Ado About Nothing, which I
> generally enjoyed very much, it struck me that Keanu Reeves'
> notion of "Shakespearean acting" was to enunciate very, very
> clearly. Embarassing, really.
I've always had a fair amount of difficulty relating Shakespeare-
as-he-is-done to the content of what's being said.
I think Branagh's the only one -- including Olivier -- who speaks
it in a way that makes me forget that it's Shakespeare, and lets me
understand the actual content of the speeches.
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed
For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van
John Dean
I've seen several Keanu movies (not often by choice) and... He. ALways.
Does. THAT.
--
John Dean
Oxford
Podkayne Fries
<Floating...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=389412&in_page_id=1770
>
>Dumbing down of Shakespeare: The translations
>
>Thousands of teenagers across the country are studying 'dumbed down'
>Shakespeare plays at school, it has been revealed.
>
I can still recite most of Shakespeare's plays and many of the sonnets
verbatim. Back in the 70s, my high school AP English classes were
taught by a man who was enthralled with Shakespeare, and who was smart
enough to know that he'd have our complete attention if he explained
all the dirty parts first. ;)
--
Regards, Podkayne Fries
..."I'm gonna be just like you if I never grow up."
--Cronan Thompson
Font of All Important Info
compelled by mysterious forces to say:
i thought the article was meant to be a joke. those translations were
pretty funny.
--dez
...a pistol-hot cup of Dez...
"Chef of chicanery, your buns are mine!"
--the Tick
UC
stupid that it creates a black hole in space and sucks matter into it.
What these people are doing is beyond even that.
vorot...@yahoo.com
UC wrote:
> There is stupid, appallingly stupid, breathtakingly stupid, so fucking
> stupid that it creates a black hole in space and sucks matter into it.
>
> What these people are doing is beyond even that.
>
I assume this translation is an attempt at humour... am I wrong?
Bob Geary
I don't think you are.
UC
It was not presented as such.