THE Oregon Shakespeare
Festival has decided that Shakespeare’s language is too difficult for
today’s audiences to understand. It recently announced that over the
next three years, it will commission 36 playwrights to translate all of
Shakespeare’s plays into modern English.
Many
in the theater community have known that this day was coming, though it
doesn’t lessen the shock. The Oregon Shakespeare Festival has been one
of the stars in the Shakespeare firmament since it was founded in 1935.
While the festival’s organizers insist that they also remain committed
to staging Shakespeare’s works in his own words, they have set a
disturbing precedent. Other venues, including the Alabama Shakespeare
Festival, the University of Utah and Orlando Shakespeare Theater, have
already signed on to produce some of these translations.
However
well intended, this experiment is likely to be a waste of money and
talent, for it misdiagnoses the reason that Shakespeare’s plays can be
hard for playgoers to follow. The problem is not the often knotty
language; it’s that even the best directors and actors — British as well
as American — too frequently offer up Shakespeare’s plays without
themselves having a firm enough grasp of what his words mean.
Claims
that Shakespeare’s language is unintelligible go back to his own day.
His great rival, Ben Jonson, reportedly complained about “some bombast
speeches of ‘Macbeth,’ which are not to be understood.” Jonson failed to
see that Macbeth’s dense soliloquies were intentionally difficult;
Shakespeare was capturing a feverish mind at work, tracing the turbulent
arc of a character’s moral crisis. Even if audiences strain to
understand exactly what Macbeth says, they grasp what Macbeth feels —
but only if an actor knows what that character’s words mean.
Two
years ago I witnessed a different kind of theatrical experiment, in
which Shakespeare’s “Much Ado About Nothing,” in the original language,
trimmed to 90 minutes, was performed before an audience largely
unfamiliar with Shakespeare: inmates at Rikers Island. The performance
was part of the Public Theater’s Mobile Shakespeare Unit initiative.
No
inmates walked out on the performance, though they were free to do so.
They were deeply engrossed, many at the edge of their seats, some crying
out at various moments (much as Elizabethan audiences once did) and
visibly moved by what they saw.
Did
they understand every word? I doubt it. I’m not sure anybody other than
Shakespeare, who invented quite a few words, ever has. But the inmates,
like any other audience witnessing a good production, didn’t have to
follow the play line for line, because the actors, and their director,
knew what the words meant; they found in Shakespeare’s language the
clues to the personalities of the characters.
I’ve
had a chance to look over a prototype translation of “Timon of Athens”
that the Oregon Shakespeare Festival has been sharing at workshops and
readings for the past five years. While the work of an accomplished
playwright, it is a hodgepodge, neither Elizabethan nor contemporary,
and makes for dismal reading.
To
understand Shakespeare’s characters, actors have long depended on the
hints of meaning and shadings of emphasis that he embedded in his verse.
They will search for them in vain in the translation: The music and
rhythm of iambic pentameter are gone. Gone, too, are the shifts — which
allow actors to register subtle changes in intimacy — between “you” and
“thee.” Even classical allusions are scrapped.
Shakespeare’s
use of resonance and ambiguity, defining features of his language, is
also lost in translation. For example, in Shakespeare’s original, when
the misanthropic Timon addresses a pair of prostitutes and rails about
how money corrupts every aspect of social relations, he urges them to
“plague all, / That your activity may defeat and quell / The source of
all erection.”
A primary meaning of “erection” for Elizabethans was
social advancement or promotion; Timon hates social climbers. The wry
sexual meaning of “erection,” also present here, was secondary. But the
new translation ignores the social resonance, turning the line into a
sordid joke: Timon now speaks of “the source of all erections.”
Shakespeare
borrowed almost all his plots and wrote for a theater that required
only a handful of props, no scenery and no artificial lighting. The only
thing Shakespearean about his plays is the language. I’ll
never understand why, when you attend a Shakespeare production these
days, you find listed in the program a fight director, a dramaturge, a
choreographer and lighting, set and scenery designers — but rarely an
expert steeped in Shakespeare’s language and culture.
A
technology entrepreneur’s foundation is bankrolling the Oregon
Shakespeare Festival’s new venture. I’d prefer to see it spend its money
hiring such experts and enabling those 36 promising American
playwrights to devote themselves to writing the next Broadway hit like “Hamilton,” rather than waste their time stripping away what’s Shakespearean about “King Lear” or “Hamlet.”
No comments:
Post a Comment