I see the BBC are doing 4 modern versions of the Bard's play. Now I can see why they would modernise the language (as many won't watch it otherwise) but the setting? Why on earth? I'd much rather see it in the traditional setting.

Its modern interpretation I think so the point is to set the story in the current age to show that the basic essence of Shakespeare is as relevent now as when it was written.

Besides they have to justify the licence fee and this way the bbp can claim to be 'educating' and helping us all become more rounded, informed and culturally aware.

Or something

Most of Shakespear's plays were just modernised versions of Greek ones anyway. It's the story that's the important part.

I think the BBC modernised Chaucer brilliantly last year, and I'm really looking forward the the new Re-Told series. What's wrong with modernising the settings? As someone else has already said, it just shows how good Shakespeare's stories were that they are still applicable today. And look at Baz Lurhman's Romeo & Juliet - he kept the original language but modernised the setting, and it worked brilliantly.

[No comment]

I've seen some Shakespeare plays done with 21st century slang and settings (with ppl wearing tracksuits) - It was awful!! :(

Oh dear, that was a comment... :suspect:

I'm not keen on the 'new' versions but I guess it makes it more accessible to younger people?

Why do such things need to be made 'accessible'?

This is usually a euphemism for dumbing down. I studied 'the Scottish Play' at O Level and realise now that I only undesrtood a portion of it, but it was exciting stuff. I've watched different versions - modern dress, set in Roman times, set in big business - but usually the language remains. The problems for me start when they tinker with the language. It's not that difficult - look at the film version of Romeo and Juliet. That had some modernisation of language, but the meaning was retained, and it was fantastic.

Sometimes I think these stunts are less to do with accessibility for people and more to do with producers and dircetors showing how 'cool' they are.

The tragedies, especially, deal with eternal issues - the language and characterisation is what makes them great. The period part of stuff can be flexible because of the eternal nature of the tragedies. Not sure it works so well on the comedies.

Whoops....guess I've just outed myself as a cultural snob! :)

Joe

Its' odd, with shakespeare they usually try and 'modernise' it by getting rid of the language, but they seem to forget that the language is exactly what makes shakespeare so good.

The Romeo and Juliet film was amazing, because it retained a lot of the original language, whereas all these 'modernised' versions keep the story, lose the language and so lose the whole point of them. The Shakespeare stories are pretty standard, as said before, they are often not even original, it is the language that sets shakespeare apart.

I'm not keen on the 'new' versions but I guess it makes it more accessible to younger people?

why does everything have to be made more accessable, how about they put some effort in and learn to appreciate it for what it is, not what it is dumbed down to their level.

Yes - it's the language rather than the story line that sets Shaky apart - can you imagine Hamlet without "To be, or not to be" or Julius Caesar without "Friends, Romans, Countrymen" for example?

I do not think that anyone has the artistic 'right' to tamper with the language, and if they are vulgar enough to do so, should not be allowed to pretend that their production of the play is authentic. Frankly, I agree with dear Joe P in that attempts to make the wonderful works 'accessible' usually equate to a reduction in the intellectual content.

There must be some leaway re 'artistic licence' [outside of tampering with the text], but one shudders to imagine Hamlet as a 'revenge Western' or Hotspur brought on in a wheelchair. I am surprised that Steven Berkoff [is the consonant 'b' the most appropriate for this appalling pseud?} has not put on some grotesque version of King Lear set amongst the drug dealers and whores of Hackney's 'Murder Mile', or Romeo and Juliet as a tragic love affair between a club-footed, Rastafarian dwarf and his transsexual 'partner'. Or perhaps he has already done so?

Originally posted by rrwholloway
Its' odd, with shakespeare they usually try and 'modernise' it by getting rid of the language, but they seem to forget that the language is exactly what makes shakespeare so good.

The Romeo and Juliet film was amazing, because it retained a lot of the original language, whereas all these 'modernised' versions keep the story, lose the language and so lose the whole point of them. The Shakespeare stories are pretty standard, as said before, they are often not even original, it is the language that sets shakespeare apart.

why does everything have to be made more accessable, how about they put some effort in and learn to appreciate it for what it is, not what it is dumbed down to their level.
My 10 year old son thinks Baz Luhrmanns version of Romeo and Juliet is excellent. So much so that he went away and tried very hard to read the play afterwards. He keeps saying he wishes the same director would do Midsummer nights dream. So the modernisation of the play but retaining a good part of the original text has encouraged one small person to try out the Bard.

I thought the re-vamped romeo and juliet was spot on. They kept the original text (mostly) but updated the props, eg they had gun fights instead of sword fights and went to a rave instead of a masqued ball. It was great, retained all the excitement of the original play with awesome attention to detail!

I have to admit I enjoyed the films "O" (modern Othello) and 10 Things I hate About Her (Taming of the Shrew) but am quite stumped that the BBC (which I have to pay a licence fee for) seems to be intent on dumming down everything. Is this a public service?

surely the best thing about Shakespeare is the language?

I must be missing somethin here:confused:

If you dont like the modernised stuff,dont watch it.Whats the point in bleating about how the BBC is dumming down Shakespeare-for a sizable proportion of people,reading shakespeare or seeing one of his plays in its original form is about as appealing as eating vomit.

If the modernised stuff leads a few people to Shakespeare's work then wheres the harm in that?Unless of course youre an elitist snob-which im sure none of you are...... :rolleyes:

I am equally sure that nobody on this thread is a vulgar little reverse-snob either.

Oh i am,timo:thumbsup: But at least ive the balls to admit it.....

That's not what I've heard, Annoni-mouse. I was told that you'd had yours 'shot off' in the Cod War.

Thats a painfull memory,timo.And here was I thinking id forgotten that fateful day.........:P

Now then children, play nice, or I'll have to call in Sierra's Flying Monkeys to sort things out.

Joe

Originally posted by JoeP
Now then children, play nice, or I'll have to call in Sierra's Flying Monkeys to sort things out.

Joe

Hope they're the original monkeys,Joe,and not some ghastly,dumbed down,modernised marmosets;)

:)

I just fancy being able to write a Forum 'stage direction' :

Exit, pursued by a Flying Monkey...... :)

Marmosets! Good lord, did I really struggle through Panto in Peterborough, 'Little Eyolf' in Goole and The Man On The Next Table in an episode of Eldorado for marmosets to triumph! [tears Equity card in half etc].

I would have found it very interesting to see these plays promoted on their own merit (without reference to the Shakespearean source).

We could have then enjoyed them (or not) without all the hype etc.

Many people still enjoy "West Side Story" without knowing the background!

If you dont like the modernised stuff,dont watch it.Whats the point in bleating about how the BBC is dumming down Shakespeare-for a sizable proportion of people,reading shakespeare or seeing one of his plays in its original form is about as appealing as eating vomit.

but its not just shakespeare, its most things the main channels get hold of these days.

anything done must appeal to the maximum audience....there have been some notable exceptions...the office...blue planet etc, but the majority just pander to the lowest common denominator.

im all for updating shakespeare, but not at the expence of the language in an effort to get vicky pollard to think it's "wicked".

Originally posted by rrwholloway
but its not just shakespeare, its most things the main channels get hold of these days.

anything done must appeal to the maximum audience....there have been some notable exceptions...the office...blue planet etc, but the majority just pander to the lowest common denominator.

im all for updating shakespeare, but not at the expence of the language in an effort to get vicky pollard to think it's "wicked".

..and to an extent I agree with you.But maybe we should give the play a chance,its not even aired yet,after all,and it may just suprise some people-in the same way Baz Luhrmann's film did:)

Now then,on to serious matters-does anyone know how to get marmoset fur out of a ruff?:help:

Why not watch them before making a judgement?

If they are anything like the Chaucer ones, it's likely they'll be very good entertainment.

Let's wait and see what they're like.

It's impossible to praise them, or write them off, before they've been aired.