Should Hamlet be updated?

[Stephen]

Renee wrote: "Have you watched "Ten Things I Hate About You?"

I have and I liked it. (Both the movie and the series it became.) Course the wierdest production of "Taming of the Shrew" was one that I saw at the Stratford Festival in Canada. They did it as a western. Yee Haw!

[mkfs]

Stephen wrote: "Course the wierdest production of "Taming of the Shrew" was one that I saw at the Stratford Festival in Canada..."

I always liked the Moonlighting episode "Atomic Shakespeare", myself. Bruce Willis was a perfect Petruchio.

[Philip]

Back in the early seventies, Johnathan Pryce was in Liverpool's Everyman Theatre, a repertory company. I saw him play Richard III in a circus themed production, the whole set being a giant lion's cage. It was... wild.

[Karen]

Renee wrote: "Karen wrote: "... This is good- one of my favorite songwriters, Richard Thompson, wrote and performs sometimes his 3 minute version of Hamlet- it's very funny.
"

I've always like Robin Williams' ..."

I have not seen that, it sounds hilarious! Or did I see it and forget? Is it in his stand-up, I've seen some of that Shakespeare.

[Renee E]

Karen wrote: "Renee wrote: "Karen wrote: "... This is good- one of my favorite songwriters, Richard Thompson, wrote and performs sometimes his 3 minute version of Hamlet- it's very funny.
"

I've always like Ro..."

Karen, it's some of his earlier stand-up, "Reality, what a concept!"

[Karen]

Renee wrote: "Karen wrote: "Renee wrote: "Karen wrote: "... This is good- one of my favorite songwriters, Richard Thompson, wrote and performs sometimes his 3 minute version of Hamlet- it's very funny.
"

I've ..."

Oh, I will have to check it out then.

[[deleted user]]

We are not talking about Shakespeare's other plays. We are talking about Hamlet. To me, Hamlet stands alone as untouchable.

[Stephen]

For me, nothing is completely untouchable. I'm thinking that, when done right, an update or a new approach to a classic is a bit like re-reading the original from a new perspective.

I've been sold on re-reading ever since I did lights for a community theater production of A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum.

I saw different things in the show at almost every performance. And I realized that no matter how familiar one is with the material, there's generally something worthwhile in almost any work of art if one can look at it with fresh eyes.

[Elentarri]

Simon wrote: "Presumably the only reason an update of 'Hamlet' is suggested is that some people say that they cannot understand it. As with all the classics, might I suggest we leave the works alone and update the people"

Good idea! :)

[Laura]

Stephen wrote: "For me, nothing is completely untouchable. I'm thinking that, when done right, an update or a new approach to a classic is a bit like re-reading the original from a new perspective.

I've been sol..."

I like this point of view. I believe some people like the feeling of being some sort of "cultural elite", but I personally think that it's cool to reach to different kinds of people, who can see art from different perspectives.

[[deleted user]]

Democracy is the worst government and the best philosophy.

[Renee E]

Stephen wrote: "For me, nothing is completely untouchable. I'm thinking that, when done right, an update or a new approach to a classic is a bit like re-reading the original from a new perspective.

I've been sol..."

What a great perspective, Stephen. This is the sort of perspective I wish more teachers had.

[J.C.]

No, it is the way it is supposed to be. What we should be doing is reading new work that isn't forced down our throats, and find the next Hamlet by supporting indie lit! Like this... www.illusionoftophet.weebly.com

[Gerd]

Simon wrote: "Presumably the only reason an update of 'Hamlet' is suggested is that some people say that they cannot understand it."

Dunno, I read some of Shakespeare's text in their original and understood only about half of it if that much - 'tis certainly fun if you're into linguistics and don't mind to read extensive notes on Shakespears's English, but as reader I rather take the modern text version, even if I will miss some of the subtleties no doubt.

You will also note that there are, to my knowledge, no more productions being made using the original text, only ever the "modern" English text versions.

[Stephen]

Gerd wrote: " ...You will also note that there are, to my knowledge, no more productions being made using the original text, only ever the "modern" English text versions. "

While you're correct of course, you really should watch this clip if you haven't already https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpp...

It's fun to see how in some ways the "old tongue" worked better.

[Laura]

Stephen wrote: "While you're correct of course, you really should watch this clip if you haven't already https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpp...
It's fun to see how in some ways the "old tongue" worked better. "

This is amazing, but it's nonetheless impossible to understand for some people, especially if English isn't your first language. I found that video extremely cool and it's great to have Shakespeare's puns explained, but when he pronounced it in "OP", before looking at the text and without the explanation, I didn't understand almost anything.

Producing a good update/adaptation doesn't mean that the old versions and the "old tongue" would be obliterated forever. It would open and expand these plays to other people, other than English scholars and linguists. I personally think that's fantastic. We don't need classic literature to be snob and feel superior than the "common folk" who can "only" get modern English.

Shakespeare's intended audience wasn't exactly the academic or intellectual crème de la crème of Europe, was it?