LibriumArcana.Games

As I study Shakespeare this semester there have been a number of things that I've come across, namely to do with innovating Shakespeare. Modernising it, changing the setting or what not. What innovations can you think of which you have liked or feel that you would like? Here are some examples:

• Setting Julius Caesar in a corporate environment, making Caesar a CEO for example and everyone wears business suits (I've heard about this in a production years ago but never saw it - nevertheless I find the concept compelling).
• Setting Richard III in a 1930's era Britain and the title character into a not-so-subtle Hitler parallel (Ian MacKellan as Richard, and he looks decidedly Adolf-like). Haven't seen it though.
• Kenneth Branagh's adaptation of Hamlet which has the setting in an Edwardian, 19th Century Denmark as opposed to a medieval setting I suppose it was originally conceived for. This has caught on and I've seen one performance that aped Branagh's idea - probably because it really does work so well.
• Baz Luhrmann's modernisation of Romeo and Juliet, replacing the swordfights with gunfights, and Leonardo DeCaprio in the role of Romeo. Holy shit, was this film a goddamn waste - unlike some critics, I can't stand Baz Luhrmann or his directorial style and I am not sold on the concept. Oddly enough, retaining the swords even in a modern setting would have worked better than the 'gun duels' that took place.
• There's a recent adaption of Macbeth by an Australian - the same who made the film Romper Stomper - which again modernises the play. Macbeth is an underworld figure, and it's about gang warfare rather than clan warfare (which is fairly analogous I must admit), and another (BIG) change is the three witches are depicted as young, sexy 'Charmed'-esque characters as opposed to three ugly hags.
  
  Um... I like the idea of seductive schoolgirl witches. It sounds hot. And I'm told there's graituitous sex scenes in there, and I'm a fan of graituitous sex scenes.
• The 1950's scifi classic B-movie Forbidden Planet is loosely based on The Tempest, and it's a good example of taking the basic story of one of the Bard's plays and adapting it in a new setting, environment, even somewhat significant plot changes.
• Akira Kurosawa directed some adaptations of Shakespeare plays but set them in Feudal Japan instead - the two that occur are Throne of Blood and Ran, which adapt Macbeth and King Lear respectively. I haven't seen either, but this is the same guy who made Seven Samurai - I'd trust them to be good.
• The teen movie 10 Things I hate About You was based on The Taming of the Shrew - again, modernised and with a focus on adapting the plot rather than lifting the actual play and forcing it to conform to a modern setting.

Ok, can you think of any others that you'd like to see? Do you have an opinion as to adapting a play or taking the basic plot and using that as a framework?

'Bout nine years ago I watched a horrid interpetation of Macbeth in California, that had AKs and used knife duels in place of the sword duels. The assassins that Macbeth sent after Banquo (SPOILER TAGS MAY BE NECESSARY) were guerilla warrior types.

I'm sorry, but the big final fight just doesn't work as a knife duel instead of a nice, clattery swordfight.

I was living with an actor buddy of mine and his wife at the time, and he knew the acting troupe and their director, and so as we're standing around outside afterward chatting with them, one of them asks what he thinks of the guy's interpetation.

So my buddy, who has a hard time being anything other than very directly blunt is standing there as he tries to think of something not utterly derogatory to say. Finally, he comes out with 'He has an interpetation?'

The movie 'O' is an adaptaion of Othello. Again Julia Styles plays in that. It's much like "10 things I hate about you."

I'd say that the Romeo + Juliet film was at least entertaining... it had quite a bit of surrealistic over-the-top nature that was much better if you remembered to not take it so seriously. Which does seem to be a problem with many films these days; there are too many films trying for seriousness or slapstick humour, and not enough over-the-top surrealism.

I would like to see a decently-done Macbeth in a similar formula.

I wasn't all that fond of R + J though I admit I was never a fan of the Shakespearian play, either, I hated reading it in high school, but that's probably just my ire for "King of the World" Leo.

I'll say that my favourite play was The Tempest. It portrays a malicious sorcerer who is generally not an evil bloke, but someone who's been driven to the very edge of sanity because he's been dumped out there on an island by some greedy arsehole (his brother IIRC) who suddenly decided that he wanted to be the Duke of Milan.

My only wish is that they keep Shakespeare out of the English classrooms and put it into the bloody theatre. The language progressed leaps and bounds past Shakespeare's time... and it's no longer relevant to an English class.

They'll teach us to say 'you' and then make us read plays that use 'thou'. The plays are brilliant contributions to the world of writing, and I value them highly, but they have no actually tangible place in the curriculum when it comes to teaching how to properly use our language.

But this is a tangent, and I'll stop now.

Narsil wrote:I'll say that my favourite play was The Tempest. It portrays a malicious sorcerer who is generally not an evil bloke, but someone who's been driven to the very edge of sanity because he's been dumped out there on an island by some greedy arsehole (his brother IIRC) who suddenly decided that he wanted to be the Duke of Milan.

It's one of my favourites as well. Remember, it's actually one of his comedies.

My only wish is that they keep Shakespeare out of the English classrooms and put it into the bloody theatre. The language progressed leaps and bounds past Shakespeare's time... and it's no longer relevant to an English class.

They'll teach us to say 'you' and then make us read plays that use 'thou'. The plays are brilliant contributions to the world of writing, and I value them highly, but they have no actually tangible place in the curriculum when it comes to teaching how to properly use our language.

They do have a place in the curriculum, if only to teach us how the language has evolved. I think the problem is how it's taught, but if you're going to teach enlish then you have to teach that which makes it great. There were more than few shit english novels I was forced to read, which were ultimately forgettable, while Shakespeare was memorable because we were usually given videos to watch. Nothing beats watching Laurence Fishburn as Othello and Kenneth Brannagh as Iago when you have that text set for you. Similarly, Polanski's Macbeth.

Stofsk wrote:It's one of my favourites as well. Remember, it's actually one of his comedies.

Aye... you insolent whoreson noisemaker! (Sorry, I just particularly love that line, makes me chuckle )

Stofsk wrote:They do have a place in the curriculum, if only to teach us how the language has evolved. I think the problem is how it's taught, but if you're going to teach enlish then you have to teach that which makes it great.

Yes, but they did it terribly at my schools. They wanted us to analyse the meaning behind the play, analysing it line-by-line, but I'm rather antipathic to that method. What they forget with Shakespeare is that individual lines weren't what made the play, but rather the bigger story itself. Macbeth isn't about understanding that Macduff (if that's the right bloke) was a c-section, but that betrayal will come back and bite you on the arse later.

Stofsk wrote:There were more than few shit english novels I was forced to read, which were ultimately forgettable, while Shakespeare was memorable because we were usually given videos to watch.

My favourite of the forgettable novels was 'a fourth grade nothing' (it was when I was eight... ten years ago I think), simply because they were trying to teach us Commonwealth English by using an American English novel. I never reallly understood the advanced logic behind that one. (Not that I'm trying to be anti-American here, but if you're going to teach Commonwealth English to a class... it makes very little sense to use an American English book for it.)

Stofsk wrote:Nothing beats watching Laurence Fishburn as Othello and Kenneth Brannagh as Iago when you have that text set for you. Similarly, Polanski's Macbeth.

Seconded. Shakespeare was meant to be watched. I just hope that they release a decent Macbeth adaptation. Medieval Scotland could quite easily be replaced by modern-day Glasgow... which quite fittingly has English just as incomprehensible, knife-fights to replace swordfights and gang-warfare to replace clan warfare. Done decently, mind.

Oh, and Ra; one of your favourite films is a Romeo and Juliet adaptation. Two houses alike in nobility and dignity, two starcross'd lovers, the only difference is that they don't die at the end.

Oh, and Ra; one of your favourite films is a Romeo and Juliet adaptation. Two houses alike in nobility and dignity, two starcross'd lovers, the only difference is that they don't die at the end.

Yes, Underworld is indeed an adaptation, and I do very much like the difference that the only one who dies in the end is the asshole Viktor.

Yesm, it lacks the sheer tragic element of Romeo and Juliet's ending, but I prefer it when the bad guy gets what he deserves.

Anyway, I'll end the UW tangent, sorry for going off-topic there guys.

Topic: Shakespeare Adaptations.

You mentioned: Underworld, which is an adaptation of Romeo and Juliet.

Not really what I'd call off topic there mate.