Pages

Monday, 18 November 2024

Oh these shameless moderns!

1/ Over the past few months, I have been bombarded with Facebook ads for The Duchess (of Malfi), featuring Jodie Whittaker. 

What is it? you askwhy is “of Malfi” in brackets? It’s because this is a contemporary adaptation of Webster’s play. “A bloody revenge tragedy made marvellously modern”, says The Telegraph. The Duchess of Malfi stripped of its poetry, stripped of its language. Reduced to its plot. Reduced to something about “the patriarchy” and “female resistance.” 

One ad has the writer-director, Zinnie Harris, discussing “why she thinks John Webster’s classic text is still studied in school and remains relevant today.” 

I’d say The Duchess of Malfi endures because of its poetry, not because of its plot. Zinnie Harris herself mentions language and imagery—then why did she remove all of it? 

I’ll give you two quotes from Webster’s play:  

“BOSOLA Do you not weep?

Other sins only speak; murther shrieks out: 

The element of water moistens the earth, 

But blood flies upwards, and bedews the heavens. 

FERDINAND Cover her face. My eyes dazzle: she di’d young.”

(Act 5 scene 5) 

“ANTONIO […] In all our quest of greatness, 

Like wanton boys, whose pastime is their care, 

We follow after bubbles, blown in th’air. 

Pleasure of life, what is’t? only the good hours

Of an ague: merely a preparative to rest, 

To endure vexation…” 

(Act 5 scene 4)


2/ In 2022, Netflix released an adaptation of Persuasion. A “subversive new take on Jane Austen”, according to British Vogue. Persuasion Fleabag-ified. Anne Elliot regularly breaks the fourth wall and at some point says “Now we’re worse than exes, we’re friends.” Her sister Mary calls herself “an empath.” Someone says “It’s often said that if you’re a 5 in London, you’re a 10 in Bath.” Isn’t that relatable? British Vogue says “The introduction of direct-to-camera moments and doses of contemporary humour make Anne’s inner journey immediately relatable, in a way that might have been impossible under the standard conventions of the buttoned-up Regency drama.”

“Impossible”, they say—why do they think so many people love the book? 

But that’s not all. Carrie Cracknell, the director said “I’ve always loved casting in a color-conscious way. A conversation that I’ve had with lots of the actors that I’ve worked with over the years is how powerful it can be for a diverse audience to see themselves represented in historic cultural texts and stories, because in some way it sort of broadens the scope of the audience who can feel part of this story or can feel ownership over this story.” 

How marvellous! Where would we be without Carrie Cracknell and people like her? Since its publication in 1817, we pitiful people of colour have never felt that Persuasion was ours till Netflix condescended to help us feel included. 


3/ Today, at The Open Book in Richmond, I came across a book called She Speaks! What Shakespeare’s Women Might Have Said by Harriet Walter. 

“An incisive, funny, mischievously subversive homage to Shakespeare’s heroines, written by one of mine,” Meera Syal blurbs. 

Tamsin Greig says “With characteristic wit, compassion and fierce intelligence, she gives tantalising voice to the Bard’s female greats.” 

These are the opening lines of the introduction on the dust jacket:

“Dame Harriet Walter, renowned for her wonderful portrayals in Succession and Killing Eve, among others, is one of Britain’s most acclaimed Shakespearean actors. Now, having played most of the Bard’s female characters, audaciously she lets them speak their minds.” 

I’m sorry—do they not speak in the plays? 

One of the reasons Shakespeare is called the greatest writer of all time is that his range of characters is unequalled—he creates characters of different backgrounds, races, nationalities, classes, sexes, sexualities, religions, political views, points of view… and also different types of characters—he contains everything. Look at the female characters he created—look at Cleopatra and Lady Macbeth and Gertrude and Volumnia and Rosalind and Beatrice and Isabella and Viola and Portia and Imogen and Desdemona and Emilia and Hermione and Juliet’s nurse and so on and so forth—and Harriet Walter or the intro writer thinks she “lets them speak their minds”? That she imagines what “these women were really thinking”? And Walter thinks “the mirror that [Shakespeare] held up to nature reflected a predominantly male image of the world” and he needs her to “let a little sunlight in on some of his women’s stories”? 

The arrogance is incredible. 

13 comments:

  1. So true. Nothing more annoying than condescending directors and writers making great works of art "fresh and modern" for the proles -- invariably by dumbing it down and/or vulgarizing it. Shakespeare hated this too, evidently -- as we see in Hamlet's lament at the shameless way clowns hijack the action to cater to the lowest level in the audience.

    I'm also reminded of the way the Soviet government came down on composers like Shostakovich and Prokofiev for writing music that suffered from "formalism" -- i.e., being too abstract, and therefore difficult for the masses.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with your comments, and your choice of examples is, well, exemplary. I was pleased, seeing Pericles over the weekend, to hear words spoken that were in the text that were bordering on archaic even in Shakespeare's time (and which I had assumed in advance would be modernized).

    Your quotations from The Duchess of Malfi are just gorgeous. As you say, "I’d say The Duchess of Malfi endures because of its poetry, not because of its plot." But the problem goes further - the "plot" does not exist outside of the language.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Michael and jcollord,
    My blog post included a link to one of the ads about The Duchess (of Malfi), so you can see for yourself the quality of the new dialogue.
    I wouldn't go as far as saying the plot doesn't exist outside of the language, though perhaps I misunderstood your meaning. The plot is "the sequence of events in which each event affects the next one through the principle of cause-and-effect." But a play or a novel or a film is a lot more than plot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My comment about plot probably applies better to fiction than to plays, which have to have a sequence of actions. But one should think long and hard about what it means to change the language. We know that the best translators agonize over it.

      Delete
    2. That gave me ideas for a blog post, though I'm not sure I'm articulate enough for that subject.

      Delete
    3. Think of it as a try—an « essai »

      Delete
  4. It seems like the modernising trend is everywhere. I was a big fan of opera and playing bassoon in Londonamateur orchestras, however, modern "director's opera" has ruined the opera, singers opera, yes, conductor's opera , possibly, but directors, you must be kidding. As for literature, leave Shakespeare, Jane Austen, and the others alone. We are not interested in your stupid views on the greats, and especially when you patronise us. I totally agree with your last sentence,

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah. Most Shakespeare productions in London make me despair.
      It's a pity that recently there was a production of Coriolanus that I wanted to see, but I was so busy that by the time I could look at it, it's over.

      Delete
    2. *Usually* even “directors opera” doesn’t change the language, however. The current The Marriage of Figaro in Chicago has supertitles that one reviewer called “execrable.” But the sung words were not changed.

      Delete
  5. Another ad appeared on my feed, if you're curious about the rewritten dialogue of The Duchess (of Malfi).
    https://www.facebook.com/theduchessplay/videos/1468598833805654/?mibextid=rS40aB7S9Ucbxw6v

    ReplyDelete
  6. Having read a few biographies of Jiang Qing, a sane person would take her efforts to modernize Peking opera and the resulting monstrosities (Red Detachment of Women and Taking Tiger Mountain By Strategy, seriously?) as a warning, not an invitation to do the same but with works that were actually good to start with. When I read The Tale of Genji I didn't expect to be "represented" in a novel set 900 years ago in Japan, I read it because it was a window into another world altogether; that was much more interesting than trying to figure out how I could insert myself into it. And this is coming from someone with ASD, a defining trait of which is deficient theory of mind; if *I* could figure this out the average reader certainly can, you just have to do it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, I have never understood the need to be represented on the page.
      I've got enough of me lol.

      Delete

Be not afraid, gentle readers! Share your thoughts!
(Make sure to save your text before hitting publish, in case your comment gets buried in the attic, never to be seen again).