"What right do we have to edit the greatest writer ever, especially when we base our opinions on biased scholarship"

[lyra]

(quote, excerpts)

_______________________


Fixing Shakespeare
Why do we presume to edit the Bard?

J.P. Antonacci

Issue date: 3/8/07 Section: Comment




It has long been convention for those directing Shakespeare productions to selectively remove ostensibly extraneous passages (or entire speeches) in the interest of getting audiences out of the theatre in under two and a half hours.

This custom strikes me as absurd. What right do we have to edit the greatest writer ever, especially when we base our opinions on biased scholarship or personal whim? We wouldn't dare edit out the "boring bits" in Beckett, or decide that certain speeches in Chekhov aren't really that crucial to the plot. So why do we excise from Shakespeare with impunity?

A sloppy edit of a Shakespeare play is an insult to his craft-it's basically saying that ol' Billy just tossed in a hodgepodge of quotables for future audiences to pick and choose from.

Productions of these "shopping-cart Hamlets," having been worked over by overzealous editors, disrespect the meticulously constructed piece of art that is a Shakespeare play. Yes, there are debates over Folio vs. Quarto editions and who made what revision when and under whose authority, but cuts in modern scripts often go far beyond changing "the" to "a" or quibbling over scene numbers.




Since the time of King James, Shakespeare's plays (and Marlowe's, and Jonson's) have undergone selective revision by various directors, and I'm not suggesting that the texts should be treated as sacrosanct in every performance. Plainspoken adaptations for young audiences can be wonderfully successful and inspire a life-long love of the material. And of course the text will change if the play (or movie) is set in outer space or the old West.

But our theatre culture has hopefully matured beyond the mindset of 17th century revisionists like Nahum Tate, who felt that King Lear would have been a much better play had everyone lived at the end, and subsequently re-wrote it that way.



Viewing Comments 1 - 1 of 1

gemesi
posted 3/08/07 @ 8:14 PM EST

Do we REALLY need to hear the Friar tell us what already happened to R&J or was the original actor playing the Friar wanting more lines? Was it the Bard himself padding his part?

(from the article at


http://media.www.thevarsity.ca/media/storage/paper285/news/2007/03/08/Comment/Fixing.Shakespeare-2765100.shtml )

--
lyra

[lyra]

here is an extra...

__________________

(quote, excerpts)


Snipping Shakespeare is no sacrilege

Tamara Baluja

Issue date: 3/15/07 Section: Comment

Last week's article, Fixing Shakespeare (March 8), lamented the callous editing and exclusion of key lines and speeches from Shakespeare's plays. As a Shakespeare lover myself, I understand that indignation, especially when one spends an entire evening waiting to see a favourite passage enacted and does not receive the pleasure.

But while some might view Shakespeare as canon and his words set in stone, the fact remains that his plays are open to interpretation just like any other text. Editing, cutting, and splicing of the plays allows for new and exciting avenues of interpretation of the Bard.

The bigger question, of course, is why do audiences tend to give interpretive authority to the author of a play? After all, no one can ever know precisely what the author "really meant," and so to assume that a certain passage is essential and that its removal would distort the author's intention would make us guilty of intentional fallacy. Instead of being blinded by the obvious brilliance of the author's craft, it is far better to look at the text-and solely the text-and then to choose an interpretation or modification that suits the directorial vision.

When a text comes into the hands of a director, it is no longer the property of the author, but rather it is the director's to do with what he or she pleases. In fact, Shakespeare himself often modified pre-existing plays and stories to form the basis of his own plays, and these days his own works are recycled by Tom Stoppard in absolutely delightful ways.

http://media.www.thevarsity.ca/media/storage/paper285/news/2007/03/15/Comment/Snipping.Shakespeare.Is.No.Sacrilege-2777320.shtml