1/ The more Shakespeare I watch, the more convinced I am that it’s essential to both read and watch Shakespeare.
Read, to savour the poetry and have our own interpretations. Watch, to see different interpretations and approaches and perhaps gain a deeper understanding of the plays.
For instance, the Ian McKellen – Judi Dench production shaped my interpretation of the Macbeths. The Winter’s Tale I have always loved, but I didn’t quite see the point of Autolycus and thought the play lacked harmony until watching the Antony Sher production (with Ian Hughes playing Autolycus). The Taming of the Shrew appears misogynistic when performed as serious drama like the BBC production with John Cleese, but it is a romp when the ACT goes for commedia dell’arte and casts Marc Singer and Fredi Olster, a great match in wit, energy, and magnetism (also, Marc Singer is hot). And so on.
2/ One fun thing about watching different productions is that you can enjoy different aspects of them.
Not counting Ran and the Kozintsev film, I have seen 5 different versions of King Lear: he Michael Buffong production from 2016 (ft. Don Warrington), the Jonathan Miller one from 1982 for the BBC (ft. Michael Hordern), the Michael Elliott one from 1982 (ft. Laurence Olivier), the 1971 Peter Brook film (ft. Paul Scofield), and the Jonathan Munby one from 2018 (ft. Ian McKellen).
Don Warrington, Michael Hordern, and Ian McKellen are all wonderful as Lear.
The best Goneril? Rakie Ayola (2016).
The best Regan? Diana Rigg (1983).
The best Edgar? Anton Lesser (1982).
The best Edmund? Robert Lindsay (1983).
The best Fool? Miltos Yerolemou (2016).
The best Cordelia? Brenda Blethyn (1982).
The best Oswald? Thomas Coombes (2016).
In the 2018 production, next to the magnificent Ian McKellen, the cast is lacklustre and uninspired, but I like that Kirsty Bushell does something different—she explicitly portrays Regan as sexually aroused by violence.
3/ You know what, now that I have seen 4 different productions of Othello and see 3 very different but all brilliant Iagos (Ian McKellen, Bob Hoskins, and Rory Kinnear), I would say that Shakespeare doesn’t need to be updated or subverted or made “accessible to modern audiences”. Race-bending or gender-swapping is not necessarily a problem: Don Warrington and David Oyelowo are excellent as Lear and Coriolanus respectively, the productions respect the texts and don’t make a point about the actors being black; an Othello in which Othello is white and the rest is black is an interesting idea; an Othello in which Iago is black also sounds like an interesting idea, as it brings the two characters closer to each other and the plot even more disturbing… But too often, you can tell the directors make certain choices only for the sake of being “modern” or “bold” or “subversive”, you can tell they do certain things because they want to be “inclusive” or impose their ideology or make a political statement, you can tell they have no respect for and most likely no deep understanding of Shakespeare.
4/ Some theatre people seem to think they need to “update” Shakespeare, they need to change the race or swap the gender or add sign language or bring in deaf actors or cut half the text or add some hip hop or just do anything different, because a straight production would be boring and say nothing new. But that’s wrong! There’s nothing like the pleasure of watching a great, serious Shakespeare production, like the David Oyelowo Coriolanus or the Adrian Lester Othello. It’s exhilarating! And we cannot assume that everyone knows the plays and has all seen straight productions before—some people’s first encounter with Shakespeare may be a production that messes with Shakespeare and it ruins the play for them.
Shocking.
And that is why, folks, we must read the plays—don’t judge Shakespeare by modern productions.
It’s a curious phenomenon— directors feeling like they have to be “subversive” or “make a statement”, because in this day and age, the most subversive thing one can do with Shakespeare is present him as written. Puts me in mind of Glenn Gould (who played Bach to perfection), recorded all of the Mozart sonatas and, as he explained, consciously did them so that they would be drastically different from what had been recorded before; the result is they are completely unlistenable.
ReplyDeleteRegan as sexually aroused by violence isn’t even a stretch. One of the most shocking things in the play is her active participation in the blinding scene, including her murder of the servant.
I know. What I mean is that in the other versions, it's sadism and bloodlust, but in this one, the actress makes it explicitly a sexual thing.
DeleteI understand. I think the text supports that. Unlike, say, Queen Margaret, whose apparent sadism is really just born of intense hatred and the desire for revenge, Regan has no reason to hate Gloucester. Her enthusiasm for his torture, absent any discernible motivation, suggests (at least as one possibility) that she’s an authentic sadist, which of course has sexual overtones.
DeleteDo you think Regan is more evil than Goneril? Or are they the same?
DeleteSame. But Regan definitely shows a sadistic inclination we don’t see in Goneril.
Delete