Recording and Evaluating a Source

Before I begin exploring how to modernise Shakespeare, I thought it would be interesting to research the debate into whether it should be done at all. I knew there were arguments for and against the notion, and with further investigation, was intrigued to find not just a split but a spectrum of people from so-named 'Shakespeare purists' to those who are in favour of complete re-contextualisation of the plays.

I read four articles on updating plays by the Bard, one of which from 'The New Yorker' teaching me the history of doing so. It commented interestingly on the attitudes to modernising Shakespeare over the decades: 'Until the late Victorian era, stage performances usually observed the setting and period implied in the play, but they transformed the language.' (Pollack-Pelzner). It is a 'fairly recent notion' to do the opposite and freely adapt features like 'the setting, the period, the characters’ race or gender', but keep the language completely intact.

I believe this could be due to the way the plays have matured over time and become more precious to people, particularly as modern language develops. Shakespeare's words have become less relevant and his contextual references more obscure, yet the plays are subsequently heralded in a sort of historical nostalgia. It's amusing to know that there was such a different approach to the Bard's plays as early as the aftermath of the English Civil War, which the 'New Yorker' article also explores. Playwrights would update the works in all manners, like in the lines, which John Dennis saw as 'stiff and forc’d, and harsh and unmusical' (Pollack-Pelzner) and Shakespeare's rival Ben Jonson as 'bombast speeches' 'which are not to be understood' (Shapiro). Some would go as far as to change whole scenes or even the plot endings!

If there was such a relaxed view on Shakespeare restoration even a few hundred years after he died, why now are people shunning 'even the best directors and actors' (Shapiro) as the reason audiences can't connect with the words? Only if a production team have a deep understanding of what they are performing, can they truly deliver a good performance of Shakespeare's language - that seems to be the popular claim: that you can enjoy and connect with Shakespeare without having 'to follow the play line for line' and that updated versions often find the 'defining features of [Shakespeare's] language' 'lost in translation' (Shapiro). Can these restorations be any good? Or does 'the modern adaptation, in its pursuit to make Shakespeare’s plays more accessible and universal, create simplified versions that lose the essence and complexity of their original texts'? (Partington)

In my research, I did find arguments to disprove the latter approach that creatives want 'innovation for innovation’s sake' (Partington), with some mocking the
Shakespeare purist ideology because 'the ‘original’ Shakespeare text does not exist!' (Galland) due to the carelessness at the time in handling the plays, which were far from being considered sacred. Therefore, why would anyone bother staying unnecessarily loyal to an original text that may not even be 100% historically authentic? Some would say there is no real reason, for it is 'far better that people are able to experience Shakespeare in some form' than keep the works linguistically inaccessible in the 'realms of academia' (Wakefield).

Both parties recognise that 'restored' Shakespeare plays can have their downfalls, but there's no denying that any can therefore leave you ' indifferent: you will love it or hate it, be disgusted or angry, be hesitant or shocked' (Galland). And even if a rhyming couplet is sacrificed here or there, 'surely it is better that such fantastic work is experienced, on whatever level of academic vigour, rather than not at all.' (Wakefield)

Bibliography:

1) Pollack-Pelzner, Daniel. "Why We (Mostly) Stopped Messing With Shakespeare's Language". The New Yorker. N.p., 2015. Web. 17 May 2017

2) Shapiro, James. "Opinion | Shakespeare In Modern English?". The New York Times. N.p., 2017. Web. 29 May 2017.

3) Partington, Miriam, and Hannah Wakefield. "Are Modernised Adaptations Of Shakespeare’S Plays A Good Thing? -". Epigram. N.p., 2017. Web. 29 May 2017.

4) Galland, Nora. "Can We Modernise Shakespeare? Yay.". The Cambridge Student. N.p., 2017. Web. 29 May 2017.

Initial Ideas

My aim is to experiment with different methods of modernising classical texts to make them more accessible to a modern audience, particularly of teens and young adults. The challenge is making the new material as engaging as possible while still staying true to the original pieces.

Modernising Classical Literature

key:
(What type of text?) - How could I change it?

• (Historic Text) - Adding Technology – giving classical characters a modern day communication medium.
• (Linguistically puzzling text - Shakespeare) - Updating the lexis – breaking down the language barrier while maintaining the context.
• (Morally questionable text – sexist/racist) - Updating the Politics – changing the views of characters to fit a modern perspective.
• (Alternating the conflict and setting) - Updating the main issue to one that affects people today, in a place they can relate to.
• (Fairytale) - Changing the genre – updating to a modern medium (animation, vlog even?) – something people get their information from today.

Titling my EPQ

1) Modernising Classical Literature - this title sets out the action that will be taking place, but there is no detail on what literature will be used or how it will be modernised.

2) Making Shakespeare digital - specifies the author, and also the method of modernisation. Still slightly vague however, and needs to be more exciting.

3) 'All the world's an e-book': Making Shakespeare digital. - catchy title, but still vague.

4) 'All the world's an e-book': Presenting the Bard's works to a modern audience. - could do with some re-wording, but more or less a good idea.