The video below is less about The Merchant of Venice (though I talk about it at the end) than an introduction to the idea of adapting Shakespeare, with an eye toward your Paper #3 assignment. I'll be posting more links and tips for doing this assignment and the Final Project to follow soon. For now, watch this video and COMMENT below, and then be sure to read Acts 1-2 of The Merchant of Venice for next week. See you then!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
For Tuesday: The Tempest, Acts 4-5 (last questions for the class!)
Answer TWO of the following: Q1: What do you make of the elaborate play (or "masque," a 17th century genre where allegorical fi...
-
Answer TWO of the following... 1. The final act is peppered with scenes and moments that are often cut or condensed in modern pro... -
Please watch the short video (20 min) on Acts 1-2 of the play, focusing primarily on Cleopatra as an actress, and answer the question that f...
Stacy Haigood
ReplyDeleteI do consider Shakespeare's works to be art. I have been surprised by some of the characters. I don't think that means we need to automatically go through and edit them. I think it matters how you are adapting/ translating your performance. If you want to do a more modern performance and change the characters to have modern values, cool. I love "10 Things I Hate About You" and "She's the Man". They are two teen flicks based loosely on Shakespeare's plays. They brought the characters up to date. If you are wanting to do a traditional version, I don't see anything wrong with proceeding with the plays as they are written. If they offend, then that gives people something to think about. I do not believe in erasing history. I believe we should learn from history so that we do not repeat it.
Great point, though couldn't we also argue that a play ISN'T history? It's a work of art, which was created a specific point in history, but the point of art is that it transcends history. We don't have to know anything about the Elizabethan era, really, to enjoy the play (though it helps!). And the adaptations you mention are great, but they're no longer the same play--they change too much of the play. Those are works "inspired by" Shakespeare, rather than an "adaptation of." So how do we modernize/adapt Shakespeare without simply writing an entirely new play? I think art deserves to be taken on its own terms, even more than history, since it's not the exclusive property of any one group or nation. But because it's not, it's harder to say how it should look, or even what 'traditional' means when it comes to Shakespeare.
DeleteJust from reading the first two acts of this play, I think Shylock stands as one of the most interesting characters. There seems to be a great juxtaposition in the fact that, while all the trappings are set for him to be the villain, the character himself doesn’t seem to warrant such a role. I mean, yes, requesting payment by way of another human’s flesh is quite the bold move. However, the evidence of Shylock’s motives and reasoning behind such a request is pretty evident in the text. He has a history with Antonio, and it’s not a pleasant one. We are informed that he has made a habit of abusing Shylock in the past, and if for whatever reason we didn’t believe this previous account, evidence to such treatment is shown presently in the way Antonio treats Shylock when requesting a favor from the man. Given the display of anti-Semitism that is set up just within the first two acts of this play, I think the very habit of being blinded by stereotypes themselves is being called out. In other words, while Shylock’s villainization (because that’s a word?) is being rooted solely in his religion, how exactly are the “good guys” of the play exhibiting what is apparently being deemed as preferred and “superiorly Christian”? While his attitude is somewhat cantankerous, I think Shylock also comes across as someone who is simply trying to look out for himself, his livelihood and his daughter. Currently, and while only being halfway through the play, I’m not sure Shylock’s character should be removed. While he may be offensive, frankly, so are the other characters in their own right. I have no allusions that this sort of implication would be lost on some, and that is indeed both frustrating and concerning. Because of this, I do think efforts should be made in the attempt to make interpretation somewhat more recognizable to the modern viewer. However, no matter what context you put it in, it is still solely left up to the individual watching to be willing to identify the good and bad within themselves.
ReplyDeleteYes, great observations: this is a tough play since Shylock can be seen as a stereotype at times, but he's also a strong character--maybe the most 'human' character in the play. What's clear is that he is NOT played for laughs. We quickly sympathize with him when we see how offensive Antonio is in his racist attitude towards Shylock. Why wouldn't Shylock hate him? So if we find Shylock offensive, shouldn't we also find Antonio offensive as a stereotype of Christians? And if we removed Shylock or made him no longer a Jew, the play would make no sense, since his 'outsider' status fuels all his animosity and the drama of the play (stealing his daughter and his gold, the trial in Act 4, etc.). I think in this case, we have to trust the play and let the lines speak for themselves. I don't think many people can watch this play (or read it) and see Shylock as the villain of the play (maybe he is ONE of the villains, but not the only one). A better question is--who are the heroes?
DeleteI believe writing is Art and a deposit of one’s thoughts and emotions. I would respond with a comment such as “Are we supposed to take all African American, Natives, and Indigenous people out of books because some might be offended? No, because this is how the indigenous people are calling attention and awareness to what they have endured and in hopes to make changes in society.” Just as Shakespeare does by exposing the truths in the eras he writes about also it could offend individuals for not including those racist, sexist, and class issues that people engaged in during this time. It is a part of history, and whether it is ugly or bad, it is reality. I think some of the stereotypes in Shakespeare’s plays could be toned down a level and not as extravagant. Such as women viewed as property and how women do not speak much after they get married. The concept would still be there but not the level of exaggerating and derogatory. Overall I think people will always have an opinion (good or bad), and writers can not make everyone happy, but they can keep the readers/viewers in mind while writing.
ReplyDeleteGood response--but as easy as this sounds, think about how difficult it is in practice. If we are just out to 'tone down' stereotypes in his plays, how much do we change without changing the play itself? And if the message is critiquing his society, would the satire make sense without the stereotypes? I agree with you that we can't simply remove things because they might offend someone, though I also agree that some aspects will offend modern-day audiences. That's why some productions switch the genders, making the women have the male roles and vice versa, which sort of makes sense since men played the female roles anyway. That way, you don't have to change the lines or the characters at all. But does it solve all the problems? Hard to say...
DeleteI feel that if we were to change any of Shakespeare's stereotypes in his plays then we would sort of be sugar coating the artist that he really was. I know that in today's climate. we sometimes have to walk on egg shells when certain topics regarding race or gender arise but Shakespeare's writing was not created for the times that we live in today. However, if they were written originally in today's times then I do not believe that Shakespeare would have included the stereotypes that he does in his original works. I say all of that to say, I feel that there is a fine line between tinkering with certain aspects of a work and completely changing the plot and flow of the play. I feel that if it is not too major, then a simple plugin here and there to replace certain stereotypes would not be out of the realm of possibility as long as you are able to keep the foundation of the great work of Shakespeare. As a previous response to the video stated there have been several Shakespeare adaptations that have been turned into shows or movies and they are obviously not one hundred percent accurate, so it can certainly be done.
ReplyDeleteYes, as you suggest, every movie of Shakespeare shows evidence of adaptation--usually, of modernization. While some of the changes are more drastic than others, it's never a case of hiding what makes his work powerful--the characters and the struggles they endure in the play. If the plays themselves offend us, it might be more useful to ask ourselves why rather than ban the plays altogether. Because maybe they would have had the same effect on his audiences? Maybe they're supposed to strike us this way?
DeleteI'm really torn about this issue, because Shakespeare's plays aren't meant to be propaganda, they are meant to be satire. They are meant to criticize certain behaviors in society. But because Shakespeare is hard to understand, and his culture is so far removed from ours, modern audiences don't understand that. And I feel like, even if you try to explain it to a modern audience, cancel culture is so prevalent that they won't care. Part of me wants to be able to stage the plays in a way that keeps the social criticism, which means keeping some of the parts that people might deem offensive. A lot of art is made to make a statement, and when you sanitize the art, you are effectively taking away it's meaning and overall impact. Also, when you sanitize art in that way, you are denying the issues that the art was trying to bring awareness to. Obviously there are things that you shouldn't endorse, but completely ignoring a piece of art (like when you said in the last class that most people won't touch the Merchant of Venice with a 10 foot pole) makes it seem like the issues Shakespeare and others were trying to bring awareness to never happened, which is a terrible way to handle things like that. You know that old saying, those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
ReplyDeleteHowever, another part of me realizes that I come from a place a privilege when talking about this. Even though I am a woman, and the Taming of the Shrew really bothered me before taking this class (and some parts still bother me a little now), I am a white Christian. So when I am exposed to plays like Othello or the Merchant of Venice, I'm not feeling as unsafe as I did when I first read the Taming of the Shrew. Part of me wonders if this impacts my views on showcasing this kind of art. Even if most people understand the intent behind Shakespeare, there will be at least one person who doesn't, and they could do something cruel because of it. But because I am not part of the demographic that would be impacted by an audience member misinterpreting the meaning behind a play about race (like Othello), am I too far removed from the situation to make the right call?
Part of me thinks that we should just explain the intent behind Shakespeare's plays and not take it personally if someone still misinterprets it, because people are dumb and will buy into their preconceived prejudices despite all the social commentary and evidence we present to them. I mean, we have people who actually support frickin Qanon despite there being no evidence that Q is even a real person or that their claims are even remotely true, so people believing what they want to believe despite the information we give them isn't really our fault. However, I also feel like I can only give definitive opinions on how we portray certain works of problematic art based on whether or not that art effects me personally. I can give my thoughts on work concerning the treatment of women and queer people because I am a queer woman, but when it comes to works concerning the treatment of POC and non-Christians, my opinion shouldn't be placed above the people who are the subject of the art, and will be impacted by how people perceive that art.
This is a great point, since it does come down to, who gets to speak for the offended? If a Jewish organization writes to beg that a production be abandoned, you have to consider it carefully. Do they have more of a right to be offended than a non-Jew? Definitely. At the same time, it depends WHY they're offended. As the letter stated, it was less for the art than the chance that people would misunderstand it. And Shakespeare does just that--he never tells you how to feel or to respond. You have to put the pieces together, even if he does give you a little help along the way. I think Shylock emerges as a maligned villain, one who is 'made' by his society, and I think that's Shakespeare's point: he was never given love, so he doesn't know how to give it back--he only knows revenge. Or, as he says in Act 3, "the villany you teach me I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction" (in other words, you've taught me how to hate and how to be cruel, and I'll become even better at it than you!). I think it's hard to read this play, and this character, as a racist stereotype, but rather, a very human tragedy with racist at the heart of it. But maybe some things are too real, and too ugly, to contemplate on stage?
DeleteThis is a tough question. I feel like Shakespeare’s plays are a work of art for the time they were written in. If they were written today, they would probably offend a lot of women. For example, in A Midsummer Night’s Dream Hermia’s father wants to pretty much arrange a marriage for her. That was common during Shakespeare’s time but not in America today. It is hard to understand Shakespeare and I feel like many of the times when we read a Shakespeare play about a women being mistreated we justify that with “oh that was common during that time period,” when really we hope that Shakespeare was trying to bring awareness to the hypocrisy during his time, but we really don’t know why Shakespeare wrote what he wrote.
ReplyDeleteYes, and we can't hide behind the statement, "well, that's just how things were back then," since a play is a work of art, not a time capsule. Bad art is just a reflection of its times, but good art, art that lasts, always transcends it. We expect more of it; otherwise, why bother re-reading it? So we have to see that Shakespeare does more than peddle in outdated stereotypes, even if those stereotypes teach us how people acted and thought back then. He has to be relevant to today as well, not just a museum piece. I think he is, since he never plays to the stereotype--he resists it, he complicates it. No one could read or watch Shylock carefully and come away saying, "yes, he's a stereotypical Jewish villain." But they could if they're misreading it or reading lazily. And some people will...
DeleteGloria Evans
ReplyDeleteI have grown to love Shakespeare's authorial tone in these plays, and it is unfortunate that some people could take that tone out of context. That being said, if we are meant to censor every thing that could be taken the wrong way, where does the boundary lie? Shakespeare seems to have written so many plays about the hypocrisy of society and the dangers of being too close to a narrative. That voice being thrown away because of the possibility of offense is unfortunate. I would respectfully respond to the organization by stating that I respect their mission and would love to accommodate their request, but ultimately say that I am unable to stifle art form based on the possibility of offense. If we are to "cancel" Shakespeare for creating satire about the worst parts of his society, then should we also cancel The Office, New Girl, Thirteen Reasons Why, or any other production that addresses controversial topics?
This is exactly the problem: every work of art is coming under fire these days because some people object to art which isn't didactic. They feel that every work of art should have a moral and political agenda which is clear and obvious. A work of art that is ambiguous or subjective is seen as suspicious or even dangerous. A lot of people wouldn't understand why Shakespeare would create a Jewish villain in a play, since that would reinforce generations of negative stereotypes. But that's the point--he's taking the stereotype and looking deep inside it for the human being. If he just made the Jew 'good,' it wouldn't be a subversive play. And yet, he does that, too--Jessica is one of the 'good' characters in the play, even though she does an evil thing by robbing her father. No one comes out good in this play...in a racist society, everyone is compromised. Everyone looks bad.
DeleteAs others have mentioned, this is a difficult subject with no real right answer. While Shakespeare's plays are most definitely a product of their time, if we were to censor or even as to go as far as to cancel them; I feel that we'd be losing more than we'd gain. Personally, I wouldn't change much of what Shakespeare's plays offer. Yes, there are scenes, characters, and plot elements that are disgusting to look at within today's lenses. However, these are not to be taken within a literal sense. As fellow classmates have mentioned, it is supposed to be satire. As mentioned though, what if there are ignorant individuals that don't recognize that satire and use it as "legitimate" reasons to spread and harbor further hate. It would not only completely undermine the messages and themes that it is supposed to representing against; it would instead contribute right towards those themes. To answer the question though, people that would take offense to Shakespeare wouldn't be in the wrong and have legitimate reasons as to why censorship would be necessary. However, even if that satire of Shakespeare's plays aren't there; I would not censor it. My reasoning is due to we can not ignore those issues. If we were to completely neglect the past of all its issues, we will repeat those exact problems. There is an important lesson behind all pieces of media from the past and that is we have to keep growing and that growing doesn't coming from neglect. So, if an organization had issues with my involvement towards a play they deem offensive, that would be my exact response and I would do little to change. Issues must be highlighted, not ignored.
ReplyDeleteYes, the intelligence of the audience is really at stake, and not everyone is going to get it--anymore than everyone gets any book or poem or film. Indeed, the Nazis used Shylock as an example of the evil tendencies of the "Jew," and how he corrupts good, honest people (like Antonio, apparently!). But this comes from a sloppy reading of the play, or a very bad production of the play. That's why we have to go back to the text itself, and see what Shakespeare really wrote, and try to figure out what he might have intended based on the language. But I like your idea that "issues must be highlighted, not ignored." If we lived in a truly post-racist society, this play might be pointless. We wouldn't need to relive this hatred and tragedy. But we don't, so Shakespeare offers us a new way to confront an age-old problem. "New," because even though the play is so old, most people have never even seen it or heard of it. And that's why art is always new again. There's so much to watch or read for the first time, and so many new ways to stage or present it. If we censor it, we miss out on the opportunity to see that Shakespeare was, in a sense, our contemporary, dealing with the same issues we are--and maybe smarter about them, too!
DeleteFirst, if an organized group lodged an intelligent and thought out remark rather than simply taking to social media to cancel Shakespeare I would seriously consider removing the character. I believe it depends on the character and the characters actions if he or she needs to be removed. Do not get me wrong being a slut is not great, but in my eyes being blatantly racist or prejudice to people of color is far more important. I believe that art can be used to teach people about the injustices of society. I think Shakespeare does this very well when he tackles to mistreatment of women in his comedies. I do not think we need to change Shakespeare at all. I believe that it is evident through his works that he is a forward thinker and one who opposes societal norms.
ReplyDeleteI agree that there is a fine line to walk on with this subject. If I were a creator, using Shakespeare's plays I would certainly not want to offend anyone, especially BIPOC. However, I will say that as a women who would identify myself as a feminist, I think that there is much to gain from a play like The Taming of the Shrew. I think that Petruchio is a character that is still VERY MUCH relevant in todays society. I would be inclined to take this play and make it fit with maybe a high school setting. I would do this because, even if I would be more inclined to enjoy an 1800's period piece with these themes, I think doing it in a 2020's high school setting, or even a corporate office setting has more shock value. It's easy for people who are maybe less "woke" to react to a taming of the shrew period piece and say, "well this doesn't happen now days, women have rights now" instead of saying "wow, I can totally see how this parallels to our own society". I would want to leave in the horrid misogynistic jokes because people still say them today but I would probably change the ending and include that character learning from their mistakes so that nothing in lost in translation.
ReplyDeleteI feel that art is the utmost form of perspective from the view of the artist. I think that there should not be restriction placed upon older renditions just to suit the ever changing societal views. What makes make art such as Shakespeare's plays great is the freedom that comes after his era for those who want to do adaptations of it. I feel that there is no original art, no matter the form. I think that everything we produce any more is adaptations of previously viewed or admired works. While I do understand why some of the organized groups would find works such as these offensive, I feel that this is no different that anything else in life. There is always a way to find offense if one looks hard enough, there is no need to change things to appease them because when enough time passes what is seen as offensive now will change again.
ReplyDeleteI believe that there is a line that just shouldn't be crossed in any form of media. Racism and Sexism are just two things that in modern days are impossible to make okay. Older culture didn't have many stipulations on what they could or couldn't do so it wasn't a problem. It seems that these are such old plays now that fighting against them at this point would seem meaningless. As said in the prompt it does confront stereotypes in a way that needs to be known but the offense will still be there for good reason.
ReplyDelete