In Defense of the Shakespeare Remake

Cobbe portrait of Shakespeare

Will the real William Shakespeare please stand up? The "Cobbe Portrait" was purported in 2009 to be the only portrait of Shakespeare painted during his lifetime. While this is certainly open to debate, it reinforces a key point about all things Shakespeare -- finding the "real Shakespeare" may be impossible.

Ever hear of Romeus and Juliet? Unless you’re an English major with a yen for obscure renaissance poetry, you probably think I just misspelled the name of a play by Shakespeare.  But no — Romeus and Juliet is the title of a poem by one Arthur Brooke.  It was first published in 1562, then reprinted in 1587 — roughly eight years before Shakespeare’s play.

How about “A merry jeste of a shrewde and curst Wyfe“?  This was a poem printed around 1580, based on a number of popular Elizabethan ballads about “wife taming.”  About eight years later, Shakespeare began work on a play later published as The Taming of the Shrew.

Or The Jew of Malta?  This is a play Christopher Marlowe wrote around 1589, which he referred to as “the tragedy of a Jew” who, unlike the other characters in the play that cheat and plot against him, is unflinchingly honest about his desire to get revenge.  Around 1596 Shakespeare wrote The Merchant of Venice, where in the opening act of the play, the Jewish moneylender Shylock vows to “feed fat the ancient grudge” he has against the Christian Antonio (MV 1.3).

Are you beginning to get the picture?

It’s not that Shakespeare was a plagiarist.  Far from it.  It’s just that he “borrowed liberally” from other writers, in the words of Norrie Epstein, who writes about Shakespeare’s sources in her excellent book The Friendly Shakespeare.  Shakespeare then went on to adapt, rework, and make the material his own.

Romeus and Juliet, for example, was a foot-dragging bore of a poem, referred to by Ryan McKittrick as “rambling…hypnotic and long-winded.”  But when Shakespeare got hold of it, the prose became more lively, the characters more interesting.  Compare the way the two writers handle Juliet, for example, and you’ll see the point.  Before Juliet drinks the potion that will make her appear dead for three days, both Brooke and Shakespeare have her speak aloud about her fears.  In Brooke’s version, the first two lines out of Juliet’s mouth establish an awkwardly whiny tone:

What, is there any one, beneath the heavens high, / So much unfortunate as I?  so much past hope as I? (Romeus 2349-50)

In Shakespeare, however, you can feel Juliet’s fear and conflict, as she calls out for her mother and her nurse, then reconsiders:

Farewell! God knows when we shall meet again.
I have a faint cold fear thrills through my veins,
That almost freezes up the heat of life:
I’ll call them back again to comfort me:
Nurse! What should she do here?
My dismal scene I needs must act alone.
Come, vial. (RJ 4.3)

This was the sort of thing Shakespeare did with the material he “lifted.”  He found good stuff, then made it his own.

Which is why I have to cut contemporary Shakespeare movie remakes like 1999’s 10 Things I Hate About You a lot of slack.

It’s easy to hate on some of the contemporary remakes and adaptations of some of the Shakespeare plays.  Consider this scintilating exchange from the opening of 10 Things, in which the Bianca character expostulates on the true meaning of love:

BIANCA
Yup, see, there's a difference between 'like' and 'love'.
Because I like my Sketchers, but I love my Prada backpack.

BIANCA'S FRIEND
But I love my Sketchers.

BIANCA
That's because you don't have a Prada backpack.

Makes you want to read more, don’t it?  When Shakespeare wrote about his “eternal lines,” I don’t think this is what he expected.

And yet, they do fit into the tradition of adaptation that Shakespeare himself followed by taking previously written material and adapting it for his own purposes.

I’m not saying all adaptations are inherently equal — or that just because it’s based on a play by Shakespeare, ergo it’s good.

Throne of Blood

Akria Kurosawa's "Throne of Blood" is, for my money, one of the greatest adaptations of Shakespeare in film. If you've seen it, then you know what's about to happen in this image. If not, you can probably guess that the Macbeth character is in trouble.

But I am saying those of us who love Shakespeare have to be very careful to not fall into a pattern where we broadly criticize pop-culture riffs on the Bard’s work.  Particularly those of us who are not in the 14-25 demographic at whom these films are targeted.  Part of Shakespeare’s genius was that he wrote for a broad audience in his time period.  I wonder if today he wouldn’t focus exclusively on the groundlings.

In any case, without the tradition of Shakespeare adaptation, think about what we wouldn’t have.  Kiss Me KateAkira Kurosawa’s exceptional films Throne of Blood and Ran — based respectively on Macbeth and King LearA Midsummer Night’s Sex Comedy.  West Side Story.

John Steinbeck, writing in response to criticism of his novel The Grapes of Wrath, wrote that there are “no new plots — and I wouldn’t like them if there were.”

I’m not certain I agree with the core of Steinbeck’s reasoning — but I do see his point.  Some of the greatest works of world are less than original.  They pay respect to the knowledge of the past by putting it in language of the present.

I suspect that’s something Shakespeare himself would appreciate.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “In Defense of the Shakespeare Remake

  1. I know that we’re never going to see eye-to-eye on this issue Ted, and I do appreciate your sensitive unpicking of various Shakespeare re-makes…

    But…

    You’re not honestly putting ’10 Thinks I Hate About You’ on par with Kurosawa are you?

    I revere ‘Ran’ – but I revere it because it was inventive, deftly directed and stayed true to the emotional turbulence that is at the heart of ‘King Lear’.

    And I think that your (very well observed) point about Shakespeare pinching material and then improving upon it rather nails down the basic problem with Shakespeare re-makes, don’t you?

    He stole stuff and made it immortal. These days directors steal Shakespeare and make it ephemeral.

    Rather the wrong way round, no?

    • Thanks for your comment. Certainly I’m not saying that “10 Things” is on the same level as Kurosawa’s work with “Ran” and “Throne of Blood.” There is more “ephemeral” stuff coming out these days, to use your word. But I like to give the broadest possible leeway to directors to interpret Shakespeare in their own terms. What they come up with may not be what you or I’d like, but it does keep Shakespeare moving, in a sense.

  2. You commented on mine, so I owe you one back. This way we know we’re connecting with someone, which was one of the goals to begin with, yeh?

    I just wanted to let you know, the Oregon Shakespeare Festival is {at some point in 2010} bringing Ping Chong to direct an adaptation of “Throne Of Blood”. — As I understand, they intend to bring it to B.A.M. as well.

    All the best,

    -J.P.

    • Cool! I’ve wanted to go to Ashland for some time — had a few friends who did the NIH institute there. Won’t happen this summer, though, but with any luck I might be able to knock down to the city for the day. Thanks for the tip!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s