I heartily endorse that sentiment, but I'm not sure that's how I'd describe what the director and adapter were doing in this case. After all, I still drew my own inferences, they weren't the ones I think they were aiming for, and that difference didn't prevent me from enjoying the play. I think that's a sign that they weren't condescending to the audience in the way you describe--and I have certainly experienced that kind of condescension.
I think this is more of a case of "I have this story to tell; can I find a way to tell it using Shakespeare?" which can be another trap. It's generally a lot better to say "what is the story Shakespeare is telling and how can I tell it effectively?" But I've seen much worse examples of distorting Shakespeare to tell another story than this production. And I am relatively tolerant even of those directors who want to "use" Shakespeare to tell some other story, provided that they tell a good story well.
At the end of the day, Shakespeare is strong enough that he'll outlast everyone, so I don't feel the need to be overprotective of him.
I think you're right about the production in question - I've just wanted to shout my sentiment from the housetops for decades now, and wasn't strong enough to resist the temptation. Sorry!
More in keeping with the Richard II you saw, anyone is of course free to do whatever they want with his plays, but before they do they should have to go through a Cambodian-style reeducation camp, the point of which is to convince them that Shakespeare is smarter and stronger than they are ("Better - stronger - faster", a sort of theatrical Six-Million dollar Man). Once they understand that, they can be turned loose to do anything they want.
Edited to black out the last line, to which Noah objects. I do, however, disagree that I "can make [my] opinions clear without resort to obscenity and insult". My opinions on this absolutely require obscenity and insult, and plenty of it. But I will now leave that to the reader's imagination, which is likely better than mine.
MarkS: I haven't ever felt the need to articulate a comments policy, or do much moderation, and I hope I don't need to. Please refrain from this kind of language in the future if you want to continue to be welcome to comment. I think you can make your opinions clear without resort to obscenity and insult. (I'm talking specifically about the last line of your comment, in case that's not clear.)
There is nothing I hate more than Shakespeare staged by people who think I'm too stupid to draw my own inferences.
I heartily endorse that sentiment, but I'm not sure that's how I'd describe what the director and adapter were doing in this case. After all, I still drew my own inferences, they weren't the ones I think they were aiming for, and that difference didn't prevent me from enjoying the play. I think that's a sign that they weren't condescending to the audience in the way you describe--and I have certainly experienced that kind of condescension.
I think this is more of a case of "I have this story to tell; can I find a way to tell it using Shakespeare?" which can be another trap. It's generally a lot better to say "what is the story Shakespeare is telling and how can I tell it effectively?" But I've seen much worse examples of distorting Shakespeare to tell another story than this production. And I am relatively tolerant even of those directors who want to "use" Shakespeare to tell some other story, provided that they tell a good story well.
At the end of the day, Shakespeare is strong enough that he'll outlast everyone, so I don't feel the need to be overprotective of him.
I think you're right about the production in question - I've just wanted to shout my sentiment from the housetops for decades now, and wasn't strong enough to resist the temptation. Sorry!
More in keeping with the Richard II you saw, anyone is of course free to do whatever they want with his plays, but before they do they should have to go through a Cambodian-style reeducation camp, the point of which is to convince them that Shakespeare is smarter and stronger than they are ("Better - stronger - faster", a sort of theatrical Six-Million dollar Man). Once they understand that, they can be turned loose to do anything they want.
Agreed. This version seems completely repulsive to me.
"Because that’s not really the play Shakespeare wrote,"
No shit Sherlock!
"Fraser and Keiley make a number of adjustments to the text to tell their story."
**********************************************************************************
Edited to black out the last line, to which Noah objects. I do, however, disagree that I "can make [my] opinions clear without resort to obscenity and insult". My opinions on this absolutely require obscenity and insult, and plenty of it. But I will now leave that to the reader's imagination, which is likely better than mine.
MarkS: I haven't ever felt the need to articulate a comments policy, or do much moderation, and I hope I don't need to. Please refrain from this kind of language in the future if you want to continue to be welcome to comment. I think you can make your opinions clear without resort to obscenity and insult. (I'm talking specifically about the last line of your comment, in case that's not clear.)