![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Adaptation
Sep. 29th, 2009 07:58 pmLast Spring the Asolo Repertory Theater performed A Winter's Tale. They set it in the 1950's and 60's, which visually worked quite well: the farmers of Bohemia were transformed into hippies, complete with and oldstyle VW bug, while in Sicilia, it was all business suits and ball gowns. I really enjoyed it. (Actually I liked it so much I went back with 2 more times with different friends.) After seeing it there was a discussion with refreshments, during which time the idea of adaptation came up. One elderly gentleman asserted that, like many he did not think highly of adaptation and cited West Side Story. (Now, I don't like West Side Story all that much, but that is an opinion not a critique on the genre.) I was reflecting on this the other day and decided to share my thoughts on the subject of adaptation.
In my opinion, adaption is a natural part of the performative process. A director adapts the text of a play any time he stages a play he is making choices about how actors should perform lines, what kinds of sets, props and costumes to use, or why emphasize one part or another. It is then only a stretch to change the setting and only a little further to try to push a certain message with a play, both of which happen all the time. (which is good. It makes the play more interesting when there is good directorial focus.) Adaptation into something completely new, like Shakespeare Retold or "O," is further into the spectrum but I think no less valid use of text. Shakespeare himself derived his plays from poems and stories, which is adaptation. Though even something more interesting and something I think most people miss is: Shakespearean plays were produced in contemporary garb during his day. So plays like Timon of Athens or Julius Caesar would have been performed in Elizabethan dress not ancient Greek or Roman. Therefore, to me it always seems strange when people criticize "plain clothes" productions. As long as they don't hinder the reception of a work (such as modern dress in a play about class because it is difficult to portray class clearly with today's styles.), why shouldn't performers use clothes contemporary to us today? They are much easier on the costuming department to come up with, that is why Shakespeare used them.
Therefore, the question shouldn't be: why adaptation? It should be: what is this adaptation doing? Adaptation can be such a fun thing. When it works, it's amazing. When it doesn't, we are left to wonder what the director is thinking. But that is what making theater an ongoing participation with text and not simply a regurgitation.
In my opinion, adaption is a natural part of the performative process. A director adapts the text of a play any time he stages a play he is making choices about how actors should perform lines, what kinds of sets, props and costumes to use, or why emphasize one part or another. It is then only a stretch to change the setting and only a little further to try to push a certain message with a play, both of which happen all the time. (which is good. It makes the play more interesting when there is good directorial focus.) Adaptation into something completely new, like Shakespeare Retold or "O," is further into the spectrum but I think no less valid use of text. Shakespeare himself derived his plays from poems and stories, which is adaptation. Though even something more interesting and something I think most people miss is: Shakespearean plays were produced in contemporary garb during his day. So plays like Timon of Athens or Julius Caesar would have been performed in Elizabethan dress not ancient Greek or Roman. Therefore, to me it always seems strange when people criticize "plain clothes" productions. As long as they don't hinder the reception of a work (such as modern dress in a play about class because it is difficult to portray class clearly with today's styles.), why shouldn't performers use clothes contemporary to us today? They are much easier on the costuming department to come up with, that is why Shakespeare used them.
Therefore, the question shouldn't be: why adaptation? It should be: what is this adaptation doing? Adaptation can be such a fun thing. When it works, it's amazing. When it doesn't, we are left to wonder what the director is thinking. But that is what making theater an ongoing participation with text and not simply a regurgitation.
