Tlingit Shakespeare

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Cloud

what, you don't think the Tlingit people can relate to madness, murder, and betrayal?

Of course they can, they've been dealing with whites for hundreds of years.

I'm just happy to see Shakespeare played at all, and happy that disparate cultures can embrace it.

Why? Is this to their benefit in some way? Is no culture complete unless a smidgen of Shakespeare is shaken, not stirred, in to the mix?

Originally Posted by Aliantha

What about Romeo and Juliette? That's been redone so many times it's not funny. Along with many many many other shakespeare plays.
Every mills and boon novel is a taming of the shrew (just about).
Not to mention that practically every high school student has to create their own interpretation of one or the other of shakespeares plays.
I'm not sure what the problem is here. It's interpretational theatre. That's an expression of self, or in other words, art.

But why have these same plays been done to death? Why are they interpreted ad nausea? It's an expression of self to rehash the same thing again? You can't do it uniquely enough to be entirely original, because it's been done by so many, and still be recognizable as Shakespeare.

Originally Posted by wolf

Shakespeare being so well known has caused any number of theatre directors to feel the need to do something about the same old play seen over and over and over again, so they change the setting presumably to underline the universality of the themes. ~snip~
When you're a Jet you're a Jet all the way, from your first cigarette to your last dyin' day

I think your on to it, there.

OK, what is the value of Shakespeare? Why are the plays the subject of such adulation, the subject of countless lectures and the top dogs for actors?

They are old? No, lots of old writings aren't nearly revered.

The costumes? Nope, that even changes from production to production that are trying to maintain as much authenticity as possible.

The language? Strange sentence structure, words and spelling are pretty unique to that time, but if you're going to reimagine them, that uniqueness is lost.

The characters? Yeah, but if you reimagine the characters into a new time, place, and background, they aren't the same characters.

Plot/story line? Yes, those are timeless, founded in oral traditions, of the Minstrels and storytellers. They describe the basic truths about people, what they respond to, what makes them tick and the human condition.
I don't know if Willie was the first to put these basic plot lines on paper? Maybe he did it in a more entertaining way that anyone else had done. Or maybe he was in the right place at the right time, with a head full of plots and a command of the language, when the public was ready.

Yeah, I guess that must be it. When a theatrical production touches on any of those basic plot lines, Shakespeare gets credit, or name dropped, even though nothing else about the production, even remotely parallels Willie's originals.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Yeah, I guess that must be it. When a theatrical production touches on any of those basic plot lines, Shakespeare gets credit, or name dropped, even though nothing else about the production, even remotely parallels Willie's originals.

Um, if they are deliberately reimagining Shakespeare, then he should get credit.

[Griff]

'oH vam [a] [dagger] [which] jIH legh qaSpa' jIH


I need a better translator.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

Um, if they are deliberately reimagining Shakespeare, then he should get credit.

If I melt down a Ford into an ingot, then stamp out a Chevy, Ford should get credit? They have similar design elements, 4 wheels, engine, doors, etc.

[Happy Monkey]

What makes you think that is what's happening? It's still Macbeth, as far as I can see.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by Griff

'oH vam [a] [dagger] [which] jIH legh qaSpa' jIH


I need a better translator.

They're working on it.

[DanaC]

What makes Shakespeare so great is that his plays work, half a millennia after he wrote them. They deal with universal and fundamental human truths (that and knob gags)

Reinterpretation is just that.....it's taking the essence and applying it to a new setting, or using it to illuminate something in the now. I don't see it as a problem. I've seen some stunning ...and also awful...reinterpretations of Shakespeare's plays, both as straight drama, musical presentations and even a mime....(don't ask). I think it's great, that hundreds of years after MacBeth was first performed in England, a culture wholly alien to that England is drawing from that tradition and melding it with their own. Brilliant. Hope it works

BTW--for my money--Faust would be played by either Christopher Walken or Harvey Keitel.

ooooh.....Walken definately.

[Cloud]

I'm really frustrated with this thread. I don't understand what you are on about, Bruce, frankly. If you don't understand the value of Shakespeare, why do you care?

And I just flat out disagree that it stops being Shakespeare, or meaningful, if it is reinterpreted, no matter how outre. Furthermore, you might as well get over your distaste (or whatever it is), because he will continue to be reinterpreted, forever, if humanity is lucky. No one is making you see the thing, after all. I was actually disappointed when I found out my trip to DC was not going to intersect with its run.

I also really, LOATHE arguing for argument's sake, although I know a lot of people get into it. I was hoping this thread would die so I wouldn't feel the need to post again in it.

[Aliantha]

Bruce, if people didn't see the value in reinterpreting other people's work, there'd never be any cover bands. There'd never be ballets like swan lake for example. Imagine if every opera you ever saw was a new one and not ever a classic from one of the masters.

People enjoy classic anything and so there will always be rebirths of classics. Sometimes in their original form, and sometimes with a new twist...just for originality.

That's it for me on this one.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I'm really frustrated with this thread. I don't understand what you are on about, Bruce, frankly.

Oh, sounds like a personal problem. Maybe you were mistaken about that....Just like you're mistaken about the thread.

If you don't understand the value of Shakespeare, why do you care?

So your one of the, it's wonderful, it must be 'cause everybody says so. I can't tell you why, because I don't know, but I know its wonderful, crowd. OK, your off the hook, maybe somebody else knows.

And I just flat out disagree that it stops being Shakespeare, or meaningful, if it is reinterpreted, no matter how outre.

I'm sure you do. Since you don't know why it's good, you certainly wouldn't know when it isn't. Do you have a bumper sticker that says, "A bad play of Shakespeare is better than a good day at work"?

Furthermore, you might as well get over your distaste (or whatever it is), because he will continue to be reinterpreted, forever, if humanity is lucky.

I suppose they will, but I'm not stupid enough to say it was wonderful when some of them fuck it up. Humanity? Good grief.

No one is making you see the thing, after all.

Yes they are, the same ones that forced you come back and defend Willie's honor.

I was actually disappointed when I found out my trip to DC was not going to intersect with its run.

Yes, that's a shame, but I assure you, that's not my fault either.

I also really, LOATHE arguing for argument's sake, although I know a lot of people get into it. I was hoping this thread would die so I wouldn't feel the need to post again in it.

It's such a tragedy it didn't end, so you wouldn't be assaulted by those arm twisters. But if you had shed some light instead of just creating heat, it might have been.

Now where did I say I disliked Shakespeare? Hmmm I can't find it, can you?
The discussion was not whether Willie wrote nice plays, nobody was saying he didn't. The question was, and still is, how much reimagining can you do before it's not Shakespeare any more, because we don't agree on that.

This is why I wanted to reach some sort of consensus of what makes Shakespeare unique. I gave my deductions on what the core values are, that makes Shakespeare special, but you would rather shrill......heretic..... blasphemy, than contribute to rational discussion. pity.

[cowhead]

personally I love the double entandres and general twists of phrase, the beautiful flow of words. there in lies alot of the problem with 're-imagining' it. it lacks the lyrical quality and depth of the original, like a highschool choir covering queen... yeah it can be done.. and to some degree I think it ought to be tried to inspire and challenge the artists involved.. but should it be done in public? perhaps not. the themes presented in willies works are universal to all humanity and cultures, which is why the persevere and hopefully will continue to do so.

loves me some willie s.

[Happy Monkey]

Here'a another reimagining of Shakespeare.

[DanaC]

HM, I just followed the link on your sig. The Crayon eating cartoon...That's fucking funny man.

[DanaC]

Check that....I just followed the rest of your link. Good stuff HM. Fight the good fight.

[Sundae]

Do you ever want to sing, "HAPPY Monk-eh to yah, HAPPY Monk-eh to yah" in the style of Stevie Wonder....?

Or is it just me?

(btw I know it was sung about Martin Luther King but Wonder made it a pop song, not me)