Download pdf - Suport Curs Anul II

Transcript
  • 8/13/2019 Suport Curs Anul II

    1/168

    Table of Contents

    Introduction: Why Shakespeare?

    Chapter I: A theoretical approach

    1.1 Definition of the key-ters: adaptation! appropriation! representation

    1." Adaptation typolo#y

    1.$ The influence of politics! culture and historical back#round on the process of

    adaptation

    Chapter II: %iterature and theatre

    ".1 Disco&ery of Shakespearean adaptations: chronolo#y and theatic issues

    "." The cultural politics! cate#ori'ation criteria: feinist! aterialist! post-colonial! (ueer

    Chapter III: %iterature! fil and representations

    $.1 Cineatic adaptations

    $.1.1.Macbethin the adaptations of )rson Welles and *oan +olanski

    $.1.". %aurence )li&ier,sHamletadaptation

    $.1.$ The ollo Cron

    $.1./ *oeo and 0uliet adaptations

    $." raphic representations

    Conclusions

    1

  • 8/13/2019 Suport Curs Anul II

    2/168

    INTRODUCTION

    Why Shakespeare?

    The idea of this thesis as born for a ultitude of (uestions! soe of hich ay ha&e a

    clear and doubtless anser! others reainin# in the darkness of ystery! but all of the

    bein# iinent for the understandin# of Shakespearean adapti&e process. If one tries to

    search on the internet the be#innin# of a possible (uestion: 2Is Shakespeare34! three

    ords appear forin# the first three (uestions of people re#ardin# this author: Is

    Shakespeare #ood! #ay or real? Those ho are interested in his ork ha&e stopped

    onderin# about the &alidity of his draa noadays! as he has been fully accepted as a

    conteporary character and author. The three (uestions pro&e that Shakespeare is

    re#arded as a li&in# spirit that raises natural! but cople5 interro#ations in the ind of

    his reader.

    Why Shakespeare? The decision to choose this topic as related to the connections that

    the author ana#es to create throu#hout tie! beteen the past and the present. Another

    reason as his infinite adaptability in any kind of artistic ediu! hich #a&e e the

    opportunity to de&elop the analysis focusin# on se&eral areas such as literature! cinea!theatre! paintin# or opera.

    The literary critic 6rank 7erode touched the sub8ect of Shakespeare,s lon#e&ity! in an

    indirect anner! talkin# about the 9ard,s essential tra#edies:

    2What! then! can Shakespearean tra#edy! on this brief &ie! tell us about

    huan tie in an eternal orld? It offers ia#ery of crisis! of futures

    e(ui&ocally offered! by prediction and by action! as actualities as a

    confrontation of huan tie ith other orders! and the disastrous atteptto ipose liited desi#ns upon the tie of the orld. What eer#es fro

    alet is--after uch futile! illusory action--the need of patience and

    readiness. The ;bloody period; of )thello is the end of a life ruined by

    unseasonable curiosity. The illennial endin# of

  • 8/13/2019 Suport Curs Anul II

    3/168

    critical for prophecy an a#e ore aare that its fictions are thesel&es

    odels of the huan desi#n on the orld. 9ut it as still an a#e hich felt

    the huan need for ends consonant ith the past! the kind of end )thello

    tries to achie&e by his final speech coplete! concordant. As usual!

    Shakespeare allos hi his tock but he ill not pretend that the clock

    does not #o forard.41

    7erode,s onderful speech brin#s to li#ht the perpetual stru##le of the huan bein#

    ith the liitations of this orld and conse(uently our eternal loss and the ine&itable

    aareness of our eaknesses.

  • 8/13/2019 Suport Curs Anul II

    4/168

    Stanley Wells or +aul dondson! Shakespeare scholars as Willia +oel! 0an 7ott! 0ohn

    lso or Andr'e8 =uroski! ho copete ore and ore in the >re disco&ery of the

    HrealH Shakespeare. We find Shakespeare iortalised e&eryhere and anyhere! on the

    iportant scenes of the orld or in the sall orkshops! in abiental spaces or in

    cabarets! in the +apal palaces or on the ancient ruins of the orld. We eet hi ore and

    ore often noadays on sta#e productions in the copany of other playri#hts of his

    tie! older! neer! ore conteporary! classical! forin# &aluable alliances or cheap!

    #audy eant to shock the public and nothin# ore.

    Shakespeare has been transferred to sta#e for centuries! but in the sae tie his ork

    re(uires to be rebuilt. o Shakespearean representation can be considered inappropriate

    or tieless! it is the sta#e director;s &ision that can be &alid or not in ters of interest!concerns and needs of the public. o study about the creation of the draatic act durin#

    Shakespearean ties is superfluous. In particular! the uropean scene is in a continual

    copetition to find ne ansers to the old Shakespearean (uestions. The study of the

    e&olution of Shakespearean perforances in the "@th century! and it appears that in the

    "1st century! also re&eals a siple truth! the connection to Willia Shakespeare is in

    constant etaorphosis and that e&en ore as the reality of our days #i&es Shakespeare

    incessantly ne ar#uents. All! directors! critics! playri#hts! theatre festi&als ana#ers

    ha&e only one ai! to de&elop the yth of Shakespearean draa. This #enerates uni(ue

    e5perients 8ustifyin# the de&elopent of the theatrical art.

    We are itnessin# an e5pansion of the influence and the doination of Shakespeare;s

    draa ithin the theatrical art in both the sho and the critical poleics. The authority of

    Willia Shakespeare as a an of the theatre and playri#ht is on the rise. is philosophy

    or aesthetics of the perforance art and the theatrical art in #eneral! becoes ore and

    ore interestin# not only for the draatic orld! but also for professionals fro different

    fields further surpassin# the tie or the era in hich he li&ed and created. This intense

    interest for Shakespeare is particularly iportant to discuss in pri&ate! not in sall

    circles! occasionally and not chaotic! but in an orderly anner! prepared! or#anised. All

    the ore ob&ious it becoes that this interest is not coincidental! and neither perishable.

    It;s like a Hreturn to ShakespeareH to the indoitable theatrical art! a sort of post-

    4

  • 8/13/2019 Suport Curs Anul II

    5/168

    Shakespearean a#e. This defines a cultural phenoenon that shos the dedication and the

    unfailiarity of the orks of Willia Shakespeare and Shakespearean terinolo#y! as

    ell as any edia based on his orks or any adaptation of the edia of his creation.

    Shakespeare 2is so fle5ible! so abi#uous! and so consistently funny. And 8ust hen you

    think you;&e #ot hi! he slips throu#h your fin#ers. is sypathy for! and understandin#

    of! the basic passions of ankind is e5traordinaryH " ar#ues +eter all! founder and

    Director of the *oyal Shakespeare Copany! ho sta#ed thirty-to plays of the reat

    Will.

    The draatic ork of Willia Shakespeare is today e5treely conteporary for all

    ankind. 9eyond the beauty of its te5ts! it e&okes the huan e5perience in all its

    copleteness and cople5ity about the past and the future! for the present. Shakespeare;s

    draatur#y encopasses the ost iportant discussions o&er the acute probles of

    huanity today: abandonin# the scale of &alues for the postodernist theories! the

    ne#ati&e iplications of #lobali'ation! ne fors of &iolence and the lack of

    interpersonal counication! faily breakup! attacks a#ainst huan nature! as ell as

    intolerance toards se5ual inorities! not to speak about the horrendous cries of

    terroris in all possible fors.

    Throu#h the &ariety of theatrical techni(ues and processes! dis#uisin#! ultiplication of

    the plans! Htheatre ithin theatreH! the actor ho plays the role of an actor! Shakespeare

    puts the basis of draatur#y. 9ecause the n#lish poet addresses draa both fro the

    &ie of the craftsan! as ell as that of the philosopher! his te5ts ha&e the allure of a

    constant challen#e.

    Connected ith all the HipuritiesH! the Shakespearean draa fors another iportant

    copatibility ith the theatrical reality of our days. The succession of epilo#ues and

    prolo#ues that are innin# ore and ore iportance in noadays perforances or that

    fusion beteen the #ood and the e&il so appreciated by +eter 9rook in Shakespeare;s

    draatur#y! hich intertine to confusion! akes his te5ts to be stiulatory for the

    scenic art today.

    " http:EE.#uardian.co.ukEcultureE"@1@EarE1/Eho-rote-shakespeare-8aes-shapiro

    5

  • 8/13/2019 Suport Curs Anul II

    6/168

    The be#innin# of the "1stcentury theatre con&inces us that after all this tie there is no

    fear or denial of Shakespeare and the li'abethan era. The sae! today there is an

    increasin#ly &ibrant feelin# that Shakespeare created characters that say a lot about the

    people of the conteporary era. The heroes and the draa of Willia Shakespeare are

    li&in# Hperfectly le#alH today! only in other fors.

    The n#lish ords are full of eanin#s! and Willia Shakespeare used it in a poetic

    speech. ence the endless interpretations fro hich he lends the ost &aluable passa#es

    in his ork. And any readin# of his ork! in any lan#ua#e! culture or epoch is 8ust one of

    the any possible interpretations. Shakespeare;s draa is e5treely #enerous in this

    re#ard.

    is ork! particularly his draatic te5ts are a peranent challen#e. The lan#ua#e of his

    creation is an ad&anta#e and a disad&anta#e at the sae tie. The precise ords of his

    son#s! fro the poetic to the faous tirade e5pressions of a ediocre! are priceless e&en

    in the orld today! archi&ed and studied! discussed in a8or acadeies and theater scenes

    fro around the orld. And after those ords! e&en ore ords )pen any a#a'ine!

    printed on paper or online! in a forei#n lan#ua#e or in *oanian and find that tenty J

    tenty-fi&e percent of the content of these articles! studies! re&ies! inter&ies are on the

    sub8ect! Shakespeare and the ne sta#in# of his draa.

    Chapter I:

    A theoretical approach

    6

  • 8/13/2019 Suport Curs Anul II

    7/168

    Shakespeare,s ords ha&e been reritten and reade throu#h a ide &ariety of cultural

    eans such as: translation! parody! theatrical or cinea adaptations. In the a8ority of

    these cases! the (uestion arises hether the adaptation or the appropriation is faithful to

    the ori#inal eanin# of the te5t. This ay the reader or the &ieer faces a peranent

    transforation of the ori#inal plays.

    The conflict beteen the Shakespearean te5t and its &arious interpretations! ateriali'ed

    on sta#e or on the screen! opens a discussion of cultural re-creation! e5plorin# ideas such

    as: interte5tuality! cultural politics! the relations beteen literature and theatre or beteen

    the artistic acti&ity and its criti(ue.

    Another aspect hich needs to be considered is ho these appropriations and adaptations

    use Shakespeare and the ipact of these &ariations in the odern orld. Shakespeare and

    his characters sell e&erythin# fro fishin# e(uipent to candy. +opular tele&ision shos

    and o&ies ha&e been inspired by Shakespeare,s plays. This ay! adaptations produce a

    retroacti&e transforation of the ori#inal! as it is used and understood in specific conte5ts

    and instances of counicati&e interaction.

    1.1. Definitions: adaptation, appropriation, representation

    A theoretical approach concernin# the topic of this research could not be based on

    anythin# else! but on the definition of the ain ters in&ol&ed: adaptation or to adapt!

    appropriation or to appropriate and representation or to represent. All these three ords

    are key-ters for the process of Shakespearean recreation in literature! theatre! art or

    fil. The )5ford Dictionary definition for the &erb 2to adapt4 su##ests three eanin#s:

    2-ake >soethin# suitable for a ne use or purpose odify: hospitals

    have had to be adapted for modern medical practice: the policies can be

    adapted to suit individual needs

    - becoe ad8usted to ne conditions: a large organization can be slow to

    adapt tochange

    7

  • 8/13/2019 Suport Curs Anul II

    8/168

    - alter >a te5t to ake it suitable for filin#! broadcastin#! or the sta#e:

    the film was adapted froma Turgenev short story

    >http:EEo5forddictionaries.co

    All these e5press the idea that an adaptation is a inor creation! inferior to the ori#inal!

    ne&er as #ood as the source. To ake soethin# suitable for a ne purpose is to

    deconstruct and try to create soethin# #ood for another conte5t or back#round. The

    result is alays 8ust a second hand 2ite4 hich has to carry the burden of a shado

    ipossible to a&oid or ne#lect.4 To ad8ust4 or 2to alter4 are ters that underline a#ain the

    subsidiarity of any for of adaptation. %inda utcheon analysed in her book ! Theory of

    !daptation the &alue of an adaptation related to the ori#inal or the source creation.

    *eferrin# to the o&e fro literature to fil she enuerated a lon# list of ne#ati&e ters

    used to assault this for of e5pression: 2taperin#! interference! &iolation! betrayal!

    deforation! per&ersion! infidelity! desecration4 >%inda utcheon! "@1$: ".

    The ori#in of adaptation can be traced back to the +lato ter mimesisanalysed in relation

    to diegesis. This initial approach puts in balance the art capacity to restore the positi&e

    odel of reality in an authentic anner. +lato,s &ision that art is the representation of

    nature! of #ood! beauty and truth is enriched by Aristotle,s &ie" The classical

    philosopher points out the idea that a ork of art can be built on the basis of syetry! it

    iplies a certain redesi#nin# of reality! as it #i&es the artist an uni(ue opportunity to

    frae the orld and purify the ne#ati&e eleents. The process of adaptation or mimesis

    in Aristotle ters akes reality ore cofortable! althou#h e ill #et to the conclusion

    that the e&olution to odernity pro&es the contrary. %ater adaptations are eant to sho

    the dark side of huan nature! ith no curtains! eanin# to purify the reader or the

    spectator after a process of painful confession. If Aristotle dras a clear line beteen

    reality and mimesis e5plainin# that ithout it there can be no catharsis! eanin# no

    purification throu#h art! for odernity that line disappears. Mimesisor adaptation and

    reality ha&e to be as siilar as possible. There can be no catharsis ithout a sincere and a

    darin# e5posure of the ost hidden and denied huan nature eaknesses.

    )n the other hand! if e look for the ori#in of the sae ter e ill find in the )5ford

    Dictionary that it coes fro the %atin adaptare,fro ad#;to; K aptare>fro aptus;fit;.

    8

    http://oxforddictionaries.com/http://oxforddictionaries.com/
  • 8/13/2019 Suport Curs Anul II

    9/168

    $it is synony ith healthy! robust! ell! &i#orous! on top for! su##estin# an idea

    contrary to the ain dictionary e5planations of the ter. This contradiction could

    indicate a ron# in&olution of the adaptation alon# the tie. +erhaps the initial purpose

    of this creation process as a positi&e one! ith no ne#ati&e or hidden connotations! 8ust

    an e5perient or an effort to build soethin# ne. This is the idea that lies at the basis of

    y ar#uentation. The philosopher 9ernard of Chartres su##ested soethin# siilar in

    the 1"thcentury: 2We are like darfs on the shoulders of #iants! so that e can see ore

    than they! and thin#s at a #reat distance! not by &irtue of any si#ht on our part! or any

    physical distinction! but because e are carried hi#h and raised up by their #iant si'e4

    >ikipedia.or#EikiE9ernardLofLChartres. soethin# for one,s on use! typically

    ithout the oner,s perission4 or 2to de&ote >oney or assets to special purpose4.

    9oth e5press a lack of ethic &alue! caused by a natural la of e5istence hich resides in

    our sense of property. Also! appropriation coes fro 2late %atin appropriatus! past

    participle of appropriare ;ake one;s on;! fro ad# ;to; K proprius ;on!

    proper;4>http:EEo5forddictionaries.co. The ori#in of this ter brin#s to li#ht an

    opposition beteen the self-seekin# desire to take soethin# for your use and the

    de&otion to ake it your on! in the sense of alterin# it! rebuildin# it for your purposes.

    What first coes to li#ht in the analysis of this ter is its connection to the idea of

    oney. Contrary to the eanin# of adaptation! an appropriation is alays eant to turn a

    financial result out of this initial creati&e process.

    %inda utcheon talks about the eanin# of this ter in her book ! Theory of !daptation:

    2Second! as a process of creation, the act of adaptation alays in&ol&es both

    >re-interpretation and then >re-creation this has been called both appropriation and

    9

    http://oxforddictionaries.com/http://oxforddictionaries.com/
  • 8/13/2019 Suport Curs Anul II

    10/168

    sal&a#in#! dependin# on your perspecti&e. 6or e&ery a##ressi&e appropriator outed by a

    political opponent there is a patient sal&a#er.4 >%inda utcheon! "@1$: F. This

    opposition to appropriate&ersus to salvageshos the a##ressi&eness of the process! a

    ne#ati&e &alue hich is not to be ne#lected. There is an ob&ious condition of inferiority

    for the appropriation copared to the source te5t! as a deri&ation cannot be abo&e the

    ori#inal. This idea raises another discussion topic re#ardin# the &alue proportion beteen

    the to.

    The last ter in&ol&ed in our study is the ord representation. 6or the &erb to represent

    e found the folloin# dictionary eanin#s: 2to depict in a ork of art4! 2to describe or

    portray in a particular ay4! 2to ha&e a particular si#nification! to stand for4 or 2to play a

    role in a theatrical production4 >http:EEo5forddictionaries.co. 9e#innin# fro these foureanin#s e can discern the cople5ity of this ord and the difference beteen it and

    the ters discussed pre&iously. A representation is closer to sta#e than to paper! it links

    literature to theatre. This ay e can talk about se&eral aspects: the transposition of a

    literary te5t to another ediu of e5pression! the translation of ritten to spoken! the

    de&elopent of a deeper relationship beteen the reader! ho is no a spectator or a

    &ieer and the literary creation hich is transfored into a play or a o&ie. All the four

    synonys of the &erb to represent, 2to depict4! 2to describe4! 2to stand for4! 2to play4

    ha&e in coon the eer#ence of a ne eleent to help the sitch fro a ediu of

    artistic e5pression to another.

    Copared to the other to ters! this tie e no lon#er face the sae issue re#ardin# a

    dose of alteration hich occurs durin# the 2transforation4 process. A representation

    should be closer to the ori#inal! it should respect that initial pattern! as it does not

    necessarily in&ol&e a inno&ation. Its uni(ueness lies in the sitch of back#round! not in a

    content alteration. To represent does not ean to chan#e ideas. The ori#in of the ord

    underlines the sae concept. It coes fro the %atin repraesentare! fored of the prefi5

    re#! hich is an e5pression of intensi&e force and the &erb praesentare ;to present;.

    Therefore! this last ter is a for of transposition hich lies on the preser&ation of the

    ori#inal ork of art.

    10

    http://oxforddictionaries.com/http://oxforddictionaries.com/
  • 8/13/2019 Suport Curs Anul II

    11/168

    1.2. daptation typo!o"y

    Adaptin# Shakespeare on paper! on sta#e or on screen has been a teptation for ore

    than four hundred years. is literary creation offers an o&erhelin# treasure of

    inspiration to a odernity or post odernity cra&in# for the success and the a#ic of his

    ords translated in a conteporary conte5t. &en Shakespeare as an adapter ho built

    his orks on the drafts of his predecessors! althou#h critics alon# the tie pro&ed that his

    ori#inality is supree and that all adaptation resultin# fro his creations caries the

    burden of an alteration presuption.

    oin# forard in our analysis e touch the second topic of this chapter: adaptation

    typolo#y. There is a ide &ariety of approaches re#ardin# the ta5onoy of adaptations!

    dependin# on the criteria that e choose to lie at the basis of our study. %iterary criti(ue

    talks about adaptation on screen or sta#e! eanin# a transposin# process of hat is

    ritten to hat is spoken! fro letters to ords. Takin# into account the forer

    e5planations of key ters such as appropriation and representation! e can conclude that

    these to are also fors of adaptation. Another coon ateriali'ation for of this

    process is translation. This passa#e fro a lan#ua#e to other in&ol&es a cople5

    transforation of the ori#inal te5t! ipossible to a&oid! as e are not talkin# only about

    ords! but also about a cultural! political and social conte5t that needs to be adapted.

    The anifestation conte5t of the literary creation is another criterion hich leads to the

    eer#ence of other adaptation typolo#ies: cineatic! theatrical! radio! cartoons! children

    books! coercials and the list could #o on. When talkin# about Shakespeare! the

    situation is e&en ore cople5! as his popular personality de&elops to a lar#er e5tent the

    process of adaptation. In this case e deal ith the deep print of a literary brand. This

    print lea&es its ark on e&ery 2product4 or 2process4 that in&ol&es any kind of

    reinterpretation one of his orks.

    %inda utcheon takes the analysis to another le&el of interpretation: 2A doubled

    definition of adaptation as a product >as e5tensi&e! particular transcodin# and as a

    process >as creati&e reinterpretation and palipsestic interte5tuality is one ay to

    11

  • 8/13/2019 Suport Curs Anul II

    12/168

    address the &arious diensions of the broader phenoenon of adaptation. An ephasis

    on process allos us to e5pand the traditional focus of adaptation studies on ediu-

    specificity and indi&idual coparati&e case studies in order to consider as ell relations

    aon# the a8or odes of en#a#eent: that is! it perits us to think about ho

    adaptations allo people to tell! sho! or interact ith stories4 >%inda utcheon! "@1$:

    "". In other ords! if e think about the dense phenoenon of adaptation as a process

    and not as its result e #et to these three a8or approaches: tellin#! shoin# or

    interactin# ith stories. All of the are rich fors of artistic anifestation copared to

    the source te5ts. The real of ia#ination is replaced this tie by the sphere of strai#ht

    and siple perception! aboundin# in e5pressi&e details and connections re&ealed by the

    sound of usic or &oice or by the aesthetic poer of colours and shapes. Interactin# ith

    the story is possible in the &irtual reality! in &ideo#aes. This final sitch of ediu!

    o&es us into a different for of interaction beteen the &ieer and the adaptation. This

    tie the &ieer becoes a participant in the story! hich needs to be adapted to a

    odern for of perception. 9ein# acti&e in the space of this adaptation typolo#y in&ol&es

    the addin# of a ne character that is not only a spectator! but a part of the tale.

    It is ob&ious that the reader has to face other re(uireents than the spectator or the person

    ho eets a te5t in the front of a coputer! throu#h the ediu of a &ideo#ae. The

    reader is bound to ake a conceptual effort! as the story passes throu#h the filter of his

    ia#ination! the spectator has to focus on his perceptual skills! to decode the essa#e of

    the play usin# his on cultural e5perience and finally the player of a &ideo#ae! hich is

    an adaptation of an ori#inal story! is in&ol&ed e&en ore intensely than the others!

    because the interacti&e edia sphere is a i5ture of all other fors of creation. This

    odern ediu re(uires direct interaction on a psycholo#ical! but also physical le&el:

    2the huan J coputer interface offers yet another kind of en#a#eent in a feedback

    loop beteen our body and its e5tensions J the onitor! the keyboard! the 8oystick! and

    the ouse! and the processin# coputer4 >%inda utcheon! "@1$: 1"B.

    1.2.1. #$ost in trans!ation%

    12

  • 8/13/2019 Suport Curs Anul II

    13/168

    oin# back to the ain topic of our analysis! e #et to another contro&ersial adaptation

    typolo#y: translation. It is disputable hether a translation can be considered or not a

    for of adaptation. The dictionary definition for this ter could be a startin# point for

    this part of our study: 2spoken or ritten ords that ha&e been chan#ed into a different

    lan#ua#e M3N !ost in trans!ation >Onot counicated hen translated4 >

  • 8/13/2019 Suport Curs Anul II

    14/168

    re&ised! challen#ed! re-e5ained! but ne&er cancelled. In theoretical debates! carefully

    docuented! the sub8ect of Shakespeare has been analysed in synchronic and diachronic

    approaches! on the one hand by theatre critics and on the other hand by the lin#uists and

    specialists ho are preoccupied ith punctuation and the Shakespearean te5t. +eople

    rote about Shakespeare ore than anyone could read in a noral life. 9ut there are fe

    studies about Shakespeare! the an and his plays on sta#e that represent #enuine

    reference sources! hich ha&e becoe a kind of 9ibles! te5tbooks for theatre specialists.

    They ha&e had an iportant ipact and an outstandin# iportance to the and alon# the

    passa#e of tie they ha&e becoe inspirin# sources. Aon# these! of course! is the

    faous book of 0an 7ott- Shakespeare#our contemporary! but also &aluable replicas to it:

    %eading Shakespeareby Andr'e8 =uroski or the book of 0ohn lso J&s Shakespeare

    still our contemporary', Shakespeare and the &dea of the (lay by Anne *i#hter or

    )orthrop $rey on Shakespeareby orthrop 6rey! 0ean 0ac(uot,s*e Theatre du monde

    de Shakespeare + alderon and any others. There are thousands of essays about his

    ork! his draa! the theatrical life in his day! about Shakespeare and the li'abethan

    theatre! its orkin# ethods! about his sources of inspiration! studies about the characters

    and thees! otifs! le#ends! superstition and beliefs. There are studies on his orthoepy

    and spell! about the assonance and the dissonance! the epic in his draa! about

    Shakespeare as a prooter of a realistic #ae! etc. Critics spoke about Shakespeare as

    anti-Seitic! about Shakespeare as anarchist! antionarchist or feudal propa#andist!

    about Shakespeare as a iso#ynist and Shakespeare as se5ist.

    9en Crystal! author of the book Shakespeare on Toast! published by 0eon 9ooks! is one

    of those authors ho contribute to the destruction of the yth about a Shakespeare that is

    difficult to understand. e ar#ues that to understand Shakespeare! absolutely necessary

    for the directors ho brin# Shakespeare to sta#e! you need to kno ho they ere! ho

    they looked on sta#e and his te5ts to e5plore the art on sta#e in Shakespeare;s tie. e

    has ritten for theatre! a theater for a hetero#eneous audience! includin# the a8ority!

    about F@ percent! didn;t rite to be read. When e read his te5ts e ust kno that

    Shakespeare;s conteporary &ieers had other habits of beha&ior at the theater than e

    ha&e today. They eren,t used to look at and to listen in silence. The &ieer of

    14

  • 8/13/2019 Suport Curs Anul II

    15/168

    Shakespeare!

  • 8/13/2019 Suport Curs Anul II

    16/168

    9ut the leadin# analyst of Willia Shakespeare;s ork reains still >ith all its

    hesitations re#ardin# the tieliness of interpretation for the early "1st century inner

    0an 7ott. %iterary and theatrical critic 0an 7ott #ained fae throu#h the ne

    interpretation of Willia Shakespeare;s draatur#y. e analysed the te5ts of the n#lish

    riter as bein# influenced by the tentieth century ith all the social! political and

    philosophical probles. 7ott 8u5taposes Shakespeare ith Ionesco and 9eckett. The

    +olish critic rote the faous ork Shakespeare our contemporary -hich appeared for

    the first tie in 1BP! and other ritin#s that refer to the creation of the Shakespearean.

    Throu#h his ritin#s! he influenced Shakespearean literary analysis and stiulated the

    creation of the #reat sta#e directors! such as: Andr'e8 Wa8da! +eter all! 7r'ys'tof

    Warlikoski. 7ott;s interpretations of the te5tHamletha&e influencedHamlet;s sta#in#

    in 1BP by +eter all. e arned that inHamlet>but the stateent is perfectly &alid for

    the entire Shakespearean draa there are se&eral thees: policy! &iolence and orality.

    The essay by 0an 7ott!.ing *ear or /ndgame! ipressed a lot the 9ritish Director +eter

    9rook! ho has sta#ed the play in 1B" for the *oyal Shakespeare Copany! ith actor

    +aul Scofield in the title role. The success of this perforance chan#ed the &ies on ho

    should be sta#ed a *ear! leadin# to nuerous poleics. This as a factor of #reat

    iportance! hich #enerated ne ritin#s on the draatic Shakespearean ork! ne

    searches! ne interpretations for future representations! adaptations or siple

    interpretations of Shakespeare. )n the other hand! the eran director 9ertolt 9recht

    belie&ed that Shakespeare reains ith all its erits only a playri#ht of his tie.

    )ther critics assert that the stru##le to pro&e that Shakespeare is our conteporary

    actually insists on the fact that he as able to incarnate the peranent iutable truths

    about huan nature. Soe critics belie&e that the opposition beteen classical and

    conteporary approaches constitutes a false antithesis. That it is the sae old layout of

    old and ne! of the order of yesterday and today! 8ust as it as durin# Willia

    Shakespeare,s tie the opposition beteen the feudal and the bour#eois ordinance.

    Discussions becoe e&en ore heated hen the debate tackles the translation sub8ect.

  • 8/13/2019 Suport Curs Anul II

    17/168

    (uality of its translation. The translator is the one ho akes the #lue beteen the te5t

    and its reader. In the conte5t of the Shakespearean literary &er&e! the translator is one of

    the ain characters! he incites poleics! and he reconciles conflicts throu#h the ork he

    does. The fidelity of the translation is &ery iportant. And transparency is the ost

    iportant factor in the (uality of the translations. And that;s because its absence can be

    seen ore easily than fidelity. In order for a translation to be considered fully transparent!

    the nati&e speaker of the tar#et lan#ua#e ust not reali'e that the te5t is translated! but

    belie&e it as ritten in his on lan#ua#e. The translation of Shakespeare;s orks! in

    particular! is a constant dispute about hat! ho and for hat did Shakespeare rote.

    Is it preferable a ne translation or an adaptation of the already e5istin# orks? Why? To

    hat e5tent a ne translation can alter the look of a ne perforance for a classicalShakespearean title? What ad&anta#es and disad&anta#es does the re-translation ha&e?

    All these (uestions and uch ore appear hen e open the sub8ect of transferrin#

    Shakespeare into the cultural back#round of another people. The harony beteen

    translations and perforances is &ery iportant. A odern translator ay consider fresh

    aspects of the lan#ua#e hich he speaks.

    It reains the &ery uch appreciated Arden dition! chosen by ost of the o&ieakers.

    Anyone ho has read the Arden dition of the Shakespearean te5t could see to hat

    e5tent the disco&ery of a ne diension of the piece is reflected in the reinterpretation of

    alost e&ery ord! in the spellin# hich is a contradiction sub8ect for the e5perts! caused

    by the lack of clarity of the Shakespearean anuscripts! as ell as by the differences

    beteen the editions in the (uarto and folio. 9ecause the te5t of the draa is an entire

    uni&erse in hich the hole and the detail irror and enli#hten each other.

    Shakespeare in&ents ords! creates! deli#hts ith the ipressi&e &ariety of eanin#s of

    the ords. When he rote the draatic te5ts! he thou#ht about ho the te5t ill sound on

    sta#e! he counted on the coon usa#e of the &ocabulary and on the associati&e lo#ic of

    the lan#ua#e. Se&eral specialists sustain the idea that it is ipossible to translate all of

    Shakespeare;s ords. Soeties the translators! ai to Hipro&eH Shakespeare. It is

    knon that the erans consider thesel&es the best translators of Shakespeare:

    17

  • 8/13/2019 Suport Curs Anul II

    18/168

    undolf! 6riedland! ildeeister! schenbur#! abur#er! etc all ha&e brou#ht a ore

    or less iportant contribution to the de&elopent of the Shakespearean yth on the

    eran territory.

    The difficulties of translation of Shakespeare in different lan#ua#es ha&e different causes.

    In *ussian! for instance! the *ussian lan#ua#e has lon#er ords than n#lish! so the

    *ussian translations are &ery lon#! the lyrics are endless. 6rench re(uires ore ords to

    e5press hat a sin#le ord counicates in n#lish! thus! translations of Shakespeare

    sound laborious! capture the essa#e! but lack the shape! the poetry of e5pression.

    Rn(uestionably the ori#inal lan#ua#e of the Shakespearean #lory ust be kept for the

    future. oe&er you ust not put the si#n of e(uality beteen the conser&ation of a

    lan#ua#e and the preser&ation of art. In a uni&erse in hich the lan#ua#e is not e&ol&in#!

    perhaps such an e(uation ould be accepted. In the orld e li&e in! hoe&er! such an

    e(uation is a blind faith! hich depri&es the public of a onuental ork.

    *e#ardin# the necessity of translatin# Shakespeare into *oanian! any of the

    translations e ha&e a&oided the dan#er of interpretations. Thus! instead of a consistent!

    full of eanin#s n#lish ord! they use a loose ter to satisfy the ori#inal eanin#. At

    the sae tie! soeties the dynaics of Shakespearean &erb as in ost cases hasetaorphosed into a sooth Classicist flo of speech! hich flattens the &erse!

    seantically! syntactically and orpholo#ically. Today these translations ha&e becoe

    HdatedH! as they already contain any archaiss! forced rhyes! o&in# aay fro the

    ori#inal eanin#.

  • 8/13/2019 Suport Curs Anul II

    19/168

    the taboos back then. Shakespeare;s ork is a reality! hen translators do ake her 8ob!

    they do not translate ords! phrases or passa#es indi&idually! they reflect a reality! and

    they recreate ia#es.

    Tryin# to anser the (uestion 2Does Shakespeare translate?4 rich 6ried ansered:

    2Shakespeare coes across to our audiences! despite our translations J or perhaps e

    should con#ratulate oursel&es! because e all kno that a really perfect translation is

    ipossible. &en if you translate the sentence and the eter e5actly! you can,t usually

    ha&e the sae usic of the &oels! or only &ery rarely! and if you try to translate all the

    puns in Shakespeare3ell! it,s ipossible4 >lso! "@@/: $. So this kind of adaptation

    brin#s to li#ht the fact that there is an ine&itable disproportion beteen the ori#inal te5t

    and its adaptation! in our case the translation. The responsibility of the translator is e&enbi##er! as he has the additional task of akin# the ne literary creation pleasant or

    cofortable so to say for the cultural conscience of his copatriots. This idea of cultural

    conscience is &ery iportant for the adoption of the ori#inal literary ork. To sustain this

    ar#uent rich 6ried #i&es an e5aple: 2All the attepts to ipro&e upon Shakespeare

    in eran are! I think ludicrous. When

  • 8/13/2019 Suport Curs Anul II

    20/168

    rich 6ried #i&es another e5aple of his on e5perience in this area: 2)f course! I ha&e

    tried to preser&e both the content and! as far as possible! the artistic for that

    Shakespeare uses. This is not alays possible. In Hamlet! to take a faous e5aple!

    here alet says to )phelia! et thee to a nunnery, e kno that a nunnery is a holy

    house of nuns and! at the sae tie! an e5pression for a brothel. That double eanin#

    does not e5ist in eran and so it cannot be translated. I interpolated there! o to the

    #ood &ir#ins,! to the #uten 0un#frauen, because the #uten 0un#frauen, ere alays

    knon to be prostitutes in erany4 >lso! "@@/: /@. This tie! 6ried pro&es that the

    process of a translation! soeties in&ol&es radical reinterpretations! and e reeber

    that a synony for 2to adapt4 is 2to ad8ust4. To translate eans to ad8ust a literary

    essa#e for a ne lin#uistic conte5t. To talk in *oan 0akobson,s ters! the sender

    needs to adapt the essa#e for the recei&er to the code! channel and conte5t of

    counication. All these coordinates de&elop the cople5ity and the difficulty of the

    translation process.

    1.2.2 daptin" for the sta"e

    Another typolo#y that e are #oin# to discuss in this study is the theatrical adaptation. A

    theoretical approach of this topic could be#in ith the analysis of the transfer fro paper

    to sta#e or fro ritten to spoken. Alfred 9ennett arba#e! a doinant fi#ure in the

    orld of the Shakespearean ork research! ore than a half century a#o ia#ined the

    ipact of his plays on sta#e: 2+eople in thron#s! of all classes and callin#s! #athered to

    see Shakespeare,s plays. They cae in herries! on horseback and on foot! fro

    Cheapside and White Chapel! Westinster and ein#ton! Clerkenell and Shoreditch!

    desertin# for an inter&al their orkbenches! their accounts! their studies! their sports! their

    suits at la and their suits at court. They preferred the pleasures of the lobe to the

    pleasures of 9rentford and Ware! and if they did not pass coldly by the ale-house doors!

    at least they reser&ed enou#h pennies to pay the #atherers4 >A. arba#e (uoted by

    A.6.7inney! "@@$: F. %ater! researchers in this field pro&ed he as ri#ht. Shakespeare

    didn,t rite for readers. e rote for audiences. It is iportant to kno that he earned his

    li&in# as an actor and as an oner of his actin# copany. This could be considered an

    e5planation for the late publication of his plays! or aybe hen published they couldn,t

    20

  • 8/13/2019 Suport Curs Anul II

    21/168

    ha&e the e5pected success on a arket in&aded by literary creations ith reli#ious

    sub8ects. Therefore! e should acknoled#e fro the start that the author hiself as the

    first adapter of his ritin#s to the sta#e of theatre. is attraction for this a#ic orld is

    confessed in 0a(ues, ords in the play!s 1ou *ike &t:

    2All the orld,s a sta#e!

    And all the en and oen erely players

    They ha&e their e5its and their entrances

    And one an in his tie plays any parts4

    Therefore the structure of a draa in #eneral should be discussed before analy'in# the

    specific case of Shakespeare. Conflict in a play is the battle beteen opposin# forces.

    The ain character that e de&elop key relationships ith is the prota#onist. The

    character that he opposes is the anta#onist. Their clash is the conflict of the play.

    Conflict represents hat the play is about! ho the play de&elops suspense. early

    e&ery play! but not all! deals ith a conflict usually beteen indi&iduals! but possibly

    also beteen the prota#onist and society! beteen the prota#onist and circustances!

    or beteen the prota#onist and fate. *einert pro&ides a useful coentary:

    2Conflict is the opposition of forces! of hate&er kind: an &ersus

    ountain! an &ersus od! an &ersus hiself. It ay be as siple as

    that of a fairy tale >bad (ueen &ersus #ood princess! bad #uy &ersus #ood

    sheriff. It ay be as eleental as that of /veryman, as preposterous as that

    of The *esson, as dialectic and abi#uous as that of The 2ild 3uck, as

    #rily ethical as that of(urgatory, as nearly farcical as that of Tartuffe and

    !rms and the Man, as etaphysical as that of three such different plays as

    4edipus %e5, The 6host Sonata, and The 6ood 2oman of Setzuan" Draa

    ithout conflict is unthinkable. 6or the essence of the draatic e5perience

    is the fascination ith the pro#ress of clashin# forces toard resolution:

    the hero;s death or triuph! the &illain;s defeat! the eddin#! the re-

    establishent of order in a pri&ate! a counal! or a uni&ersal cosos.The spoken ord is the ediu of draa! the ob8ecti&ity of the

    perforable its ode or anner of bein#! the surrender of our ia#ination

    to that of the playri#ht the condition for its e5istence for us! but the draa

    itself is the action of huan conflict. This action e itness partly as safe

    and superior deities! en8oyin# the pleasure of draatic irony at the e5pense

    of people ho do not kno hat is happenin# to the partly as

    21

  • 8/13/2019 Suport Curs Anul II

    22/168

    sypathetic obser&ers coiseratin# ith the #ood! relishin# the donfall

    of the bad and partk as fello fools and sufferers.4 >*einert ).! 1B1: G

    The playri#ht ust de&ise eans by hich the characters ill face challen#es and be

    tested in a short space of tie. Audience plays an essential role in any kind of artistic

    representation.

  • 8/13/2019 Suport Curs Anul II

    23/168

    )5ford,s! the %ord Airal,s and di&ers others3 The playhouses are

    pestered hen churches are naked. It is a oeful si#ht to see to hundred

    proud players #et in their silks! here fi&e hundred poor people star&e in

    their streets3 o! e thinks! I see your honour sile! and say to

    yourself these thin#s are fitter for the pulpit than a soldier,s pen but od

    >ho searches the heart and MkidneysN knoeth that I rite not

    hypocritically! but fro the &ery sorro of y soul4 >(uoted by A.6.

    7inney! "@@$: 1$B.

    This sensiti&e and delicate confession is an ar#uentation a#ainst the de&elopent of

    sta#e perforance in a society that #ros under the shado of canonical reli#ious

    beliefs! hich block any sort of freedo of e5pression. The perception of people on

    theatre as not at all a pleasant one in Shakespeare,s tie. This ne#ati&e &ie is

    synthesi'ed in The!natomy of !busesritten by +hilip Stubbes! ho #reatly dislikedplays! statin# that

    2the ar#uents of tra#edies is an#er! rath! iunity Mfro the laN!

    cruelty! in8ury! incest! urder! and such like! the persons or actors are

    #ods! #oddesses! furies! fiends! ha#s! kin#s! (ueens! or potentates of

    coedies the atter and #round is lo&e and badry! cosena#e Mcheatin#N!

    flattery! horedo! adultery the persons or a#ents! hores! (ueans

    MprostitutesN! bads! scullions! kna&es! courtesans! lecherous old en!

    aorous youn# en! ith such like of infinite &ariety4 >(uoted by A.6.7inney! "@@$: 1/$.

    All this se(uence of ne#ati&e! a##ressi&e ters ephasi'es the puritan direction of the

    social conscience! the censorship aied by dedicated clerics and the oral indi#nation of

    the poor. oe&er! he ana#ed to surpass the ad&ersity and the uncofortable reception

    of an iportant section of the society! thanks to the royal support #i&en by li'abeth I

    and 0aes I. 9oth re#al characters ere #reat adirers of sta#e perforance! hich

    ade possible the sta#in# of *enaissance plays.

    Theatrical adaptations inspired a ide &ariety of feelin#s and opinions at all ties.

    Criticis in this field pro&ed that Shakespeare rote literary orks that can be best

    &alori'ed throu#h the process of theatrical perforance. Due to this stable &alue of his

    plays! actors and directors need to fulfill an interpretation task and not a creation one.

    23

  • 8/13/2019 Suport Curs Anul II

    24/168

    Audience,s anser to Shakespearean te5t does not necessarily depend on the historical or

    social conte5t! but it is a constant response to uni&ersal e5istential issues. oe&er! hat

    akes the difference in the reception of his orks throu#hout tie! it,s the sta#in#

    anner! the chan#in# in&ol&ed in the process of adaptation. The ritten te5t suffers

    any ties radical transforations in his transition fro paper to sta#e. Words need to

    be con&erted into a persuasi&e perforance! hich heads to alterations such as: the

    rearran#eent of plot e&ents as in The History of .ing *ear! an adaptation by ahu

    Tate! the cuttin# of characters or an increased iportance #i&en to a secondary character

    as is the case inHamletmachine, an adaptation by einer PG4 >D. 6ischlin! %..

  • 8/13/2019 Suport Curs Anul II

    25/168

    All these e5aples of siple huan nature anifestation pro&e that theatre adaptations

    render to real life hat literary te5ts su##est to the reader,s ia#ination. This leads us to

    another idea! that the te5t hides behind its ords a hole uni&erse that can be created by

    the ia#ination of a director! that te5t is a pro#ression of eleents: 2This idea of te5t as

    process! as an interea&in# of &ariable eleents! reflects a post-odern desire to replace

    the lo#ocentric idea of theatre ith one in hich the perforance becoes the site of

    cultural and aesthetic contestation4 >0.C. 9ulan! 1BB: ". This connection beteen the

    te5t of a play and the anner in hich it is perfored on the sta#e or adapted opens a

    ne debate direction for literary criticis:

    2Colerid#e thou#ht it ould be better if Shakespeare,s plays ere

    ne&er sta#ed at all. The only ay to e5perience the realpleasures of

    the &erbal ia#ination! he claied! is throu#h the silent encounter

    beteen the ritten te5t and the isolated reader. And it reains a

    coonplace! at least aon# the readin# public! that the o&ie is

    ne&er as #ood as the book. 9ut for uch of the tentieth century it

    has seeed possible for serious readers to en8oy Shakespeare on sta#e

    ithout #i&in# up the ore difficult pleasures of traditional literary

    e5perience4 >

  • 8/13/2019 Suport Curs Anul II

    26/168

    2The reconciliation of te5t ithperforance durin# the classic a#e,

    .as fully achie&ed hen theatrical producers deonstrated their

    illin#ness to rely onprofessional redactions of early odern (uarto

    and folio editions. The costly theatrical spectacles of the *estoration

    and Qictorian sta#e disappeared as uch closer attention as paid to

    the fors of poetic lan#ua#e transcribed in the early te5ts. &en

    Colerid#e i#ht ha&e been able to en8oy these productions. M3N

    Shakespeare,s thees of poer! self-fashionin#! and social

    transforation e5press the pathos of Western odernity ith

    e5traordinary &i&idness. At the sae tie his orks represent a

    poerful desire for social coherence and eanin#. 6or the odernist

    theatre! Shakespeare represents the possibility for the celebration of

    odernity,s thees of eancipation and for resistance to odernity,s

    chronic dislocations.4>

  • 8/13/2019 Suport Curs Anul II

    27/168

    Sta#e and screen director! )rson Welles! stated: 2Shakespeare ould ha&e ade

    a #reat o&ie riter4 >(uoted by D. 9rode! "@@@:$. This assertion takes us back

    to the supposition that Shakespeare rote for the audience! for the spectators! the

    &ieers! not for the reader. *esearch in this area has pro&ed it so. 6or a riter

    that creates for the reader it is a sacrile#e to cut ords fro his ork! hereas for

    the riter that creates for the sta#e or the screen ords are placed on a secondary

    place behind their ipact on the audience. In this case hat really atters is the

    eotional! the psycholo#ical essa#e sent to the public! e&en if sendin# this

    essa#e eans to #i&e up ords! phrases! ideas! or to tist the plot. To sustain

    this ar#uent! the actor Charlton Weston says: 2ot e&ery line has #old in it. If a

    line has no poetic treasure and doesn,t ad&ance the plot or character! it should be

    cut. This is sacrile#e to people ho read and rite about Shakespeare. +eople

    ho do Shakespeare! hoe&er! cut hi. I,d bet y soul that Shakespeare cut

    Shakespeare4 >(uoted by D. 9rode! "@@@: /.

    Why is it difficult to ia#ine Shakespeare on cinea screens? Is the literary

    treasure he created too cople5 to be adapted in cineato#raphic orks? Is there

    a copatibility beteen Shakespeare and fil or not? The list of (uestions could

    #o on hich akes us conclude fro the be#innin# that the proble e are

    dealin# ith is &ery contro&ersial. *ussel 0ackson tries to clarify these issues in

    his study The ambridge ompanion to Shakespeare on $ilm: 2In fact the

    nuber of fils ade fro Shakespeare,s plays is relati&ely sall althou#h the

    Shakespeare factor, in cinea has been enhanced by the nuerous offshoots, J

    fils! like Shakespeare in love that dra on Shakespearean aterial ithout

    claiin# to perfor any one of the plays. In the first century of o&in# pictures!

    Shakespeare,s plays played an honorable but hardly doinant role in the

    de&elopent of the ediu. Soe forty sound fils ha&e been ade of

    Shakespearean plays to date! but it has been estiated that durin# the silent, era

    J before synchroni'ed dialo#ue coplicated the business of adaptin# poetic

    draa for the screen J there ere ore than /@@ fils on Shakespearean

    sub8ects. These took their place in an international arket unrestricted by

    27

  • 8/13/2019 Suport Curs Anul II

    28/168

    considerations of lan#ua#e and >conse(uently untroubled by the relati&ely

    archaic dialo#ue of the ori#inals4 >*. 0ackson! "@@@: 1F. This analysis shos the

    real situation hen it coes to o&ie adaptation. 0ackson,s e5aple underlines

    the fact that ost of the popular Shakespearean adaptations anipulate the

    ori#inal te5t! usin# only soe parts of it in order to create ne stories! ore

    appropriate for spirit of tie and for the e5pectations of the public. The detail

    that at the be#innin# of the cineato#raphic history there as a hu#e

    de&elopent of the fil adaptation process! hi#hli#hts that Shakespeare cannot

    be reproduced to screen than under the condition of a release of this connection

    beteen the ori#inal and the ne.

    e&ertheless! plays such as 4thello, .ing *ear, Hamlet, %omeo and 0uliet,Macbeth orThe tempest offered a sprin# of inspiration for the creators of cinea

    adaptations! thanks to their celebrity! their conteporary application! their

    intri#ue or their historical fla&or. 6ranco =effirelli,s The Taming of the Shrewin

    1B and %omeo and 0ulietin 1BF are the first e5aples of odern cinea

    adaptations inspired by the Shakespearean draa. %ater! 7enneth 9rana#h

    de&eloped the belief that the playri#ht can be profitable! throu#h the o&ies

    Henry 8 in 1BFB andMuch !do !bout )othingin 1BB/. 9a' %uhrann had a

    #reat success ith %omeo 9 0uliet in 1BB and the sae did 0ohn

  • 8/13/2019 Suport Curs Anul II

    29/168

    Althou#h the #urus of ainstrea screenplay-ritin# &ary in their

    recoended strate#ies! there is #eneral a#reeent that hat sell

    best in RSA >and conse(uently in ost arkets orldide are

    stories containin# ideas rather than ideas turned into stories4 >*.

    0ackson! "@@@:"".

    This stateent brin#s to front iportant circustances that ou#ht to be created

    for a successful fil adaptation.

    The cinea audience is different than the theatre one and radical opposed to the

    reader. The e5pectations of people aitin# in a cinea are &ery hi#h in the sense

    that they percei&e this art typolo#y as a for of entertainent and not necessarily

    as a heuristic ethod to ipro&e one,s cultural back#round. This eans that they

    anticipate bein# satisfied on a psycholo#ical le&el ithout akin# uch effort!

    recei&in# all the inforation clearly shaped by actors and fil director. +erhaps

    this is the reason youn# people choose a fil adaptation instead of the ori#inal

    book. )n the other hand stays the reader ho e5pects to be directly in&ol&ed in

    the buildin# of the story! throu#h the artifice of his ia#ination. e is bound to

    interpret the ords of the riter! to anser the indirect (uestions and challen#es

    su##ested in the lines of the te5t.

    )ther adaptation typolo#y re#ardin# Shakespearean draa is Manga" This

    0apanese cartoon approach of the ori#inal plays brin#s to#ether #raphical

    representations and te5t. *eleased of the physical liits present in theatre! this

    type of adaptation can reproduce to paper alost any situation no atter the

    details such as &iolence or surreal eleents. Ada Se5ton! the author of the

  • 8/13/2019 Suport Curs Anul II

    30/168

    #raphic no&el ore closely resebles a conteporary fil ith a colossal

    special-effects bud#et than anythin# produced onsta#e in the li'abethan era or

    since4>A. Se5ton! "@@F: B. The author,s stateent brin#s up the &alue of this

    kind of adaptation! an#a artists, skill to e5press throu#h their drain#s the ost

    ysterious and obscure aspects of huan nature. Coparin# fil to an#a

    adaptations! this tie e are not dealin# any lon#er ith the necessity of a

    coproise because of the edius lack. This sort of artistic representations

    and adaptations as ell! brin# to#ether the poer of ords and the

    e5pressi&eness of drain#. 6urther e5aples of

  • 8/13/2019 Suport Curs Anul II

    31/168

    1.&. The inf!(en'e of po!iti's, '(!t(re and histori'a! )a'k"ro(nd on the pro'ess of

    adaptation

    After ha&in# analysed fro a theoretical point of &ie the key ters in&ol&ed in our

    study and the adaptation typolo#ies in the case of Shakespeare! e can assert that this

    reproduction process is a &ery cople5 one and that it depends on the circustances of its

    accoplishent. Adaptations are influenced by politics! culture and the historical

    back#round. In this section of the first chapter! e are #oin# to try to disco&er ho do all

    these factors lea&e their print on the adaptation process.

    A #ood start ould be to identify where and whendoes the adaptation de&elop! as the

    place and the tie are the to ain factors that influence it. Critics talk about cultural

    #lobali'ation! a process in&ol&ed in the transfer of a ork of art to another lan#ua#e! as it

    is our case. %inda utcheon discussed this issue e5tensi&ely:

    2Transcultural adaptations often ean chan#es in racial and #ender

    politics. M3N &en ithin a sin#le culture! the chan#es can be so #reat that

    they can in fact be considered transcultural! on a icro rather than acro

    le&el. In the sae society! political issues can chan#e ith tie.4>%.

    utcheon! "@1$: 1/G.

    The ter 2transcultural4 o&es the discussion on to le&els! national or international one.

    The shift of a te5t such as a Shakespearean play to another lan#ua#e! as e ha&e

    concluded in the case of translations! can lead to radical transforations. +lays like

    Hamletor The Taming of the Shrewha&e been adapted any ties for sta#e or screen! yet

    in a different anner on e&ery occasion. The national identity of a people influences the

    reception of a te5t hich records e&en the sli#htest &ariation to hat is a part of the

    cultural and social tradition.

    The case of Shakespeare raises the difficulty of this proble! as any author ho tries to

    translate his draa becoes a part of his aura! of his popularity. The iportance of

    authorship is crucial in the course of a literary ork fro one lan#ua#e to another! fro

    one cultural identity to another:

    31

  • 8/13/2019 Suport Curs Anul II

    32/168

    2And authorial identity can be si#nificantly linked to the creation and

    sustenance of national identity. Theatre theorist

  • 8/13/2019 Suport Curs Anul II

    33/168

    artists re#ardin# the literary and theatrical practice usual for that tie.

  • 8/13/2019 Suport Curs Anul II

    34/168

    Chapter II

    %iterature and Theatre

    2.1 Dis'o*ery of Shakespearean adaptations: 'hrono!o"y and the+ati' iss(es

    6or ore than four hundred years! history has pro&ed that Shakespeare,s orks are an

    o&erhelin# source of inspiration for odern literature and art. is ords ha&e been

    2reade4! transfored and con&erted into artistic creations adapted to a orld sufferin# a

    continuous process of chan#e. This ay! Shakespeare,s plays ent beyond the border of

    literature! to the sta#e of theatre and cinea.

    A suitable start for this section ould be the analysis of another key ord! 2source4. Why

    is it iportant? 9ecause it shos the ori#in of the playri#ht,s creations. We are talkin#

    about odern adaptations! the ay Shakespeare,s ords ha&e been absorbed by riters

    and directors ho anted to de&elop under the shado of his orks! but hy not onder

    hether the #reat draatur#e hiself didn,t use the sae techni(ue. Was Shakespeare an

    adapter or an appropriator of his tie or not? This (uestion as briefly presented

    beteen the lines of the first chapter hen e opened the sub8ect of authorship. The

    anser is #i&en by se&eral critics such as ary Taylor:

    2Shakespeare! of course! as as #uilty of theft as any author3

    Shakespeare stole ith a clear conscience. e copied plots! characters!

    34

  • 8/13/2019 Suport Curs Anul II

    35/168

    speeches! ia#es! and aphoriss fro classical authors and fro his

    conteporaries! ithout acknoled#eent4 >. Taylor! 1BFB: 1/@. A

    stateent hich sounds like an accusation for the ears of a person ho is

    not aare of the literature transission process. *oland 9arthes coes in

    defense of riters accused of such 2cultural crie4 e5plainin# that 2any

    te5t is an interte5t other te5ts are present in it3 the te5ts of the pre&ious

    and surroundin# culture3 Interte5tuality MisN the condition of any te5t

    hatsoe&er4 >(uoted by D. 6ischlin!

  • 8/13/2019 Suport Curs Anul II

    36/168

    plays built the techni(ues and the #eneral characteristics! typical for the estern theater

    throu#hout the tentieth century! reflectin# as ell the tie they ere created! the so

    called odern era! hich be#an in the late nineteenth century and continues to this day.

    The features of this odern tie ere reflected as alays in the arts that reflect the

    nuerous chan#es occurrin# in the society. In the theatrical uni&erse these e&olutions

    ere irrored in the #reat di&ersity re#ardin# the typolo#ies produced on or off sta#e. In

    this period! theatre has #ained an eclectic &alue! aplified to the le&el of an e5perient.

    We could state that there ha&e been three a8or coponents in the odern theater! one is

    realis! the other concerns the departures fro realis and the last one is a continuation

    of the traditional theater fro the past.

    Steppin# forard toards the core of this thesis! theatrical adaptations can also bee5plored throu#h the real of authorial instance. This adaptation typolo#y occurs as an

    interface beteen the creation and its criticis. In this e&olution fro a literary ritin# to

    its perforance on sta#e and afterard to its reception! ateriali'ed in criticis! brin#s

    into discussion authorship in other ters. This tie e are dealin# ith the link beteen

    different authors! adapters or ori#inal riters of a te5t. In the case of Shakespearean ork

    adaptation there is a contro&ersial position and reaction of potential adapters to the

    ori#inal author: 2adapters of Shakespeare undertake a nuber of responses to

    Shakespeare,s canonical status: soe seek to supplant or o&erthro others borro the

    Shakespeare,s status to #i&e resonance to their on efforts4 >D. 6ischlin!

  • 8/13/2019 Suport Curs Anul II

    37/168

    fe of the eleents that put their print on the theatrical reproductions of hich e are

    talkin# about. In this section of our analysis! e are #oin# to tackle the topic of literature

    &ersus theatre! literature and its theatre adaptations in the uni&erse of Shakespearean

    ritin#s.

    *esearch on this topic deterined the eer#ence of e5tensi&e lists of sta#e adaptations!

    cineatic reproductions or other typolo#ies of representations in the areas of all artistic

    anifestations: usic! paintin#! sculpture or e&en &ideo #aes. An e5aple hich is

    connected to our analysis in this chapter is the chronolo#ical in&entory of Shakespearean

    adaptations on sta#e #i&en by Daniel 6ischlin and D. 6ischlin!

  • 8/13/2019 Suport Curs Anul II

    38/168

    1BG" dard 9ond,s socialist draa*ear"

    1BFG*ear7s 3aughtersby laine 6einstein and The Woen,s Theatre roup.

    1BB@ oard 9arker,s < *ears"

    Adaptations of a')eth

    1G/ Willia Da&enant,sMacbeth.

    1FB Alfred 0arry,s bu %oi! an adaptation for arionettes.

    1B"" 6ruach! by ordon 9ottoley.

    1BG" u#ene Ionesco,sMacbeth.

    1BG" uMabathaby Welcoe

  • 8/13/2019 Suport Curs Anul II

    39/168

    1G@@ The Tragical History of .ing %ichard &&&! Colley Cibber,s restoration

    adaptation >in lark7s Shakespeare Made $it.

    1B/1 The *esistible rise of Arturo Ri! by 9ertolt 9recht

    1BGB Italian director Carelo 9ene,s radical! a&ant-#arde %ichard &&&! coupled

    ith the theori'in# of illes Deleu'e in Superpositions.

    1BB" The ?ueensby orand Chaurette

    Adaptations of Ro+eo and /(!iet

    1F1" 0ohann Wolf#an# oethe,s%omeo and 0uliet.

    1B$@ The (ublic! by 6ederico arcia %orca.

    1BB@ 6oodnight 3esdemona =6ood Morning 0uliet>! by Ann-

  • 8/13/2019 Suport Curs Anul II

    40/168

    1BFF Australian Da&id D. 6ischlin!

  • 8/13/2019 Suport Curs Anul II

    41/168

    thees of the draatic plot in order to #ain the attention and the interest of the odern

    reader. This link beteen the te5t and the e5pectations or the taste of the conteporary

    audience is the key in the understandin# of the adaptation echanis.

    In these ters e can discuss about the rele&ance of nationality in the selection of thees

    chosen by the adaptation authors: 2The Shakespeare industry, J as it ipacts on the

    educational systes! the critical discourses! and the theatrical culture of a society J often

    operates in ays that sustain ideas! &alues! and e&en episteolo#ies hich are forei#n to

    the recei&ers and therefore of liited rele&ance! e5cept in aintainin# the interests of

    iperialis.4>ilbert and Topkins 1BB: 1B Shakespeare as a solid support for the

    propa#ation of the n#lish cultural &alues! for the aintainin# of this people,s superiority

    in the #lobal conte5t of his tie. The ain focus of his ork and conse(uently of theorks deri&ed fro it is on the cople5ity of huan nature! on the interiority ith all the

    stru##les that coe fro it. In Shakespearean draa the outside uni&erse! the conte5t is

    8ust the occasion that leads to a ne inner e5ertion! hich causes the intri#ue of the play!

    hich causes the torent of the inner uni&erse of the characters. In postcolonial

    adaptations! this relation chan#es radically. This tie the inner uni&erse of the characters

    influence! deconstruct the outside uni&erse! the conte5t of the play. The plot is not

    directed by the cultural and historical back#round as in the case of colonialis! but it is

    iposed by the inner e5periences of the ain characters! the sprin# of the draatic

    de&elopent is the indi&idual.

    The theatic topics that a reader can find in the Shakespearean adaptations are

    conse(uently strictly related to the indi&idual typolo#y specific for the tie of the

    adaptation. Soe critics point out that e&en thou#h innocents fre(uently suffer in the

    plays of Shakespeare - characters like )phelia! Cordelia! Desdeona - the icked are

    alays punished. In Shakespeare! a oral la operates to restore finally an e(uilibriu

    to a orld ade discordant and e&il by the alefactions of soe icked character or

    spirit. Soeties a noble action ill destroy the e(uilibriu of a orld! as alet;s

    does in seekin# to re&en#e his father;s urder and brin# soe inte#rity into his other;s

    life. 9ut here! too! order is restored hen 6ortinbras appears after alet;s death. )ne

    ust reeber! hoe&er! that the restoration of #eneral. )rder does nothin# to help

    41

  • 8/13/2019 Suport Curs Anul II

    42/168

    those destroyed durin# the period of disorder. The order in a ork! the or#anic hole

    produced by the esthetic and lo#ical arran#eents of parts! soe critics say! reflects the

    order and purpose that e5ist in the uni&erse. Whate&er the riter;s coent on the

    nature of the orld hether heEshe sees it throu#h a #lass li#htly or darkly! the

    finished product is a coplete and ordered thin# reseblin# the natural uni&erse! hich

    in the author;s &ie is also a coplete and ordered thin# despite its dark and

    seein#ly purposeless eleents.

    Accordin# to pra#atic critics! the orality deanded by a ork;s audience ill ake

    the aare of the ethical essence of life and e5perience. They need to carry aay fro

    the e5perience of literature a sense that a di&ine 8ustice rules the orld and that huan

    bein#s! throu#h the institutions they create and the thin#s they rite! indicate the e5tent

    to hich od;s 8ustice! seen by the as #ood! has becoe an ideal for huan 8ustice to

    eulate. In such a &ie )edipus is to blae for the disasters that befall hi because

    ha&in# learned that he as destined to kill his father and arry his other! he should

    ha&e a&oided any (uarrel ith a an old enou#h to be his father and certainly not ha&e

    entered into a arria#e! hate&er the circustance! ith a oan old enou#h to be his

    other.

    )ne of the eleents necessary to ake a ork of literature tra#ic is that the audience

    ha&e soe fello sypathy! soe psycholo#ical and eotional coprehension of the

    dileas and sufferin# of the prota#onists. Macbeth fails as a tra#edy if the

    audience sees the thane and his lady as unredeeed &illains! dees their sufferin#

    as deser&ed and necessary punishent! and takes pleasure in their a#onies. 9ut this is

    not the response of ost readers or spectators.

    The spectacle of the noble

  • 8/13/2019 Suport Curs Anul II

    43/168

    This is the reason hy soe plays brin# insi#nificant chan#es to the ori#inal ritin#s!

    other replace alost entirely the source ork or others choose to parody it. They use a

    ide &ariety of sta#e con&entions! radically transforin# the transposition of the paper to

    the theatre in relation to &arious factors hich create &arious draatic products: the epic

    theatre of 9recht or the postodernist adaptation of

  • 8/13/2019 Suport Curs Anul II

    44/168

    of #eo#raphical or cultural space! #eneratin# hat critics call a transnational diension

    of the literary te5t. This aspect can be considered throu#h an interdisciplinary approach as

    it in&ol&es different fields of study such as translation! the ori#inal te5t or cultural studies.

    The "@th century re8ected! ore than any other a#e classifications! bein# characterised by

    the dynais of shapes and trends. The dialectic is not an e5tra&a#ant one! but it

    represents the social o&eent of hich art is not! nor can be forei#n. The inner stru##le

    betrays the attention for a ne artistic lan#ua#e! a lan#ua#e able to redefine not only

    specific cate#ories of theatrical perforance! but the huan e5istence itself! hose

    reflection is. The eer#ence of fil directin# at the end of the 1Bth century includes

    fore&er the draatic te5t in a cople5 artistic unit hich is perforance! and considers it

    J soeties as deterinant! other ties as a subordinate factor J a coponent of thetheatrical act.

    )f course the eer#ence of a theatrical direction! assued! deeply personali'ed!

    stiulated interpretation of Willia Shakespeare! readin# his ork differently dependin#

    on nuerous factors: social! reli#ious! political! aesthetic! oral! etc.

    Shakespeare is a test of aturity! a challen#e for all directors! e&en for those ho don;t

    ant to sta#e Shakespeare! a confiration! a tradition or a possible artistic cople5 forothers! but also a flirt! a pleasure. There are a lot of draatic authors ho fail to becoe

    a source of inspiration for filakers! because they rite thin#s that can easily be put

    into scene. And therefore! they are uninterestin# for the orkin# ith their te5ts is

    ne&er a challen#e. In the 8ourney of each #reat fil director there is at least one

    Shakespearean 2editation4.

    0ust because Shakespeare as perfored in abundance! of course ith those lon#

    inter&als of obli&ion! folloed by those of redisco&ery and recyclin#! of reinterpretation!

    especially in the last century! today he is at the centre of artistic and philosophical

    interpretations e&en uch ore. Doubt is a second #reat necessity alon# ith inspiration.

    Translations and the difficulties in&ol&ed by this process lead to so any (uestions

    re#ardin# Shakespeare,s ork. Xou ha&e to ork to the fullest! tryin# constantly to find

    44

  • 8/13/2019 Suport Curs Anul II

    45/168

    the anser: hat akes Shakespeare say! at this point! on this scene! thin#s that he alone

    can tell? o does a director ha&e to perfor his draa? 6or hat audience? o does a

    perforance of Shakespeare ha&e to be to chan#e soeho the rhyth of the odern

    society?

    Willia Shakespeare has #i&en the opportunity to people of the theater to en8oy different

    interpretations of the sae te5t and to assess those interpretations accordin# to socio-

    political and cultural conte5t. )utstandin# scenic (ualities! but also the rich back#rounds

    of Shakespeare,s ork and ideas ha&e ade it resist the erosion of different aesthetics

    throu#hout its history of ore than half a

  • 8/13/2019 Suport Curs Anul II

    46/168

    To perfor Shakespeare ithout usin# a creati&e te5t! is a real crie. The force of the

    sta#in# is entirely another hen the coent is e5pressed throu#h the orld of

    Shakespeare.

    At the sae tie it;s natural to onder hy this constant call for Shakespeare;s

    draatur#y? Conteporary theater sees to ha&e relie&ed the director of the necessity of

    an assiduous searchin# for a conteporary feature of a classic te5t. oe&er the ost

    iportant directors noadays #o back to those te5ts! #o back to Shakespeare. Why this

    attraction for his plays?

  • 8/13/2019 Suport Curs Anul II

    47/168

    3reamJ describe the HanufactureH process of the theatre and its effect on the audience!

    the audience in the play and the audience for theatrical perforances.

    )ne of the pioneers of the otion to reconsider Shakespeare as Willia +oel. When he

    orked at the shoMuch ado about nothing! +oel cae to rehearsals ith a bo5 full of

    nespapers fro hich he had reo&ed the bi'arre photos! drain#s! pictures and #a&e

    the to the actors for inspiration. This apparently childish anner to percei&e the

    classical te5t is not only an inno&ation! but it also #i&es consistency and ori#inality to the

    odern reinterpretations of the draatic te5t.

    The 6rench theatre director and fil director! Ariane 1BF1!)ight of the .ings

    >1BF" and the first part of Henry &8 >1BF/. Drain# inspiration fro traditional

    techni(ues of 7abuki and 7athakali theatres! (uoted by +atrice +a&is! 1BB: BP.

  • 8/13/2019 Suport Curs Anul II

    48/168

    theatrical eans. The draa theorists closely concerned ith the draa of Willia

    Shakespeare today! conclude that hen a director ants to sta#e a Shakespearean te5t! he

    ust editate on three historical oents: the tie Shakespeare as ritin# about the

    second is the tie hen he rote the tie hen #et the result! hen e are a part of the

    audience.

    6ilakers today are usin# the te5ts of Willia Shakespeare in e5actly the sae ay

    that the ancient reeks de&eloped their copendiu of yths! by oer! esiod and

    other authors of the tie. It is an accepted fact that Shakespeare hiself ade use of

    &arious sources of inspiration of his tie.

    There are today deeply conteporary shos ithout abandonin# the Shakespearean te5t

    eanin#! hether the te5t is faithfully adapted or not. A priary conteporary feature in

    the art of theatre is that a theatrical creation is produced dynaically! in a &ery personal

    anner! sub8ecti&e! here the final product! the only one that atters! is the artistic sho.

    oadays! sta#e perforance e5plicitly declines theatre as literature in fa&or of a

    dynaic relationship of an as a person! not as a spectator! ith the en&ironent in

    hich he is placed by the author of artistic e5perient! ho is the director.

    The eran director Thoas )stereier! one of the ost acclaied at the oent!considers that: Y&ery #eneration rites its on Shakespeare! e&ery 'eit#eist

    counicate ith hi in a different ayM3N Actually there as a nice article in a

    eran nespaper describin# 1@ different alets playin# on eran sta#e at this tie.

    And the conclusion as that the youn# audience as listenin# to the te5t and not

    folloin# the director, s &ision on the play! especially if that &ersion as ade ithout

    orkin# on the te5t! only esthetically ade but not concerned ith the eanin# of the

    te5t.4P

    Shakespeare becae an e5perient shoin# alost scientifically that this playri#ht and

    an of the theatre is the source of an endless inspiration. Shakespeare;s draatur#y

    included in its content the ost serious debates about acute probles of conteporary

    huanity! as ell as ansers to (uestions about the theatrical creation. About ho to turn

    P http:EE.re&istascena.roEenEinter&ieEthoas-ostereier

    48

  • 8/13/2019 Suport Curs Anul II

    49/168

    thou#ht into action! the idea! the ener#y into for! keepin# the story and spirit of the

    Shakespearean te5t. is de&eloped an e5treely rich &ariety of infinite scenic discourse.

    All these actions as a hole resulted in a ne readin# of Shakespeare! in the li#ht of ne

    disco&eries about the te5t! but in li#ht of noadays an. The inno&ation coes fro a

    natural inclination toard the disco&ery of ne directions in art! fro a #enuine

    peranent curiosity for the Shakespearean play. The phenoenon associated ith the

    interest for Shakespeare #i&es it ne diensions and ne depths of draatic aterial.

    The uropean theatre is traditionally linked to the te5t. 9ut thin#s ere not alays like

    this. There ha&e been periods in the e&olution of the uropean theatre hen te5t as

    nothin# ore than the ori#in of the sta#e perforance. In the uropean theatrical culture!

    especially after the eer#ence of the printed press! the idea of the theater to the sta#ee&ol&ed throu#h the presence of the actor ho speaks! often accopanied by the presence

    of the printed te5t. It is said that the theater could not create than the present. It;s alays a

    precise oent. Therefore it is natural that the classics! includin# Shakespeare! to be

    played in a #reat ay. The theatre of the present akes Shakespeare conteporary. e

    ust be adapted to the ideas of conteporary spirituality! of essence of life at present.

    There cannot be a ne Shakespeare ithout a ne philosophy.

    0ohn lso stated that 2Shakespeare left behind a rich ardrobe of clothes! props and

    ideas hich e could ear accordin# to our oods and necessities4 >0. lso! 1BFB: $.

    9ut his etaphorical obser&ation underlines an essential aspect! that there is an essential

    difference beteen interpretation and distortion.

    The richness of the Shakespeare,s n#lish te5t! not once blaed for inade(uacies

    because of this e5uberance! parado5ically stands for the &alue of the te5t.

  • 8/13/2019 Suport Curs Anul II

    50/168

    perforance depends in the first place on the force of the ords! on their ipact on the

    audience.

    oe&er! it is necessary to ask hat is a translation ade for? 6or ho? 6or the

    draatic literature or possibly for a sin#le perforance? Its only true &alue is to be a

    natural sta#e of a Shakespearean te5t. A translation betrays the ori#inal in a nice ay. Its

    ad&anta#e is that it can speak the lan#ua#e of the present. With the ne translations

    appear ne interpretations of Shakespeare;s te5t. 9ecause translation is itself an

    interpretation! it casts a ne li#ht on the te5t in (uestion and it;s able to pa&e the ay for

    one or ore ne perforance &isions.

    Adaptation is subordinated ore than the translation to a certain sta#e pro8ect. They are

    created ithout akin# structural chan#es or #i&in# ne directions to the printed te5t!

    ithout fallin# into the trap of e5cessi&e ipleentation to &arious conte5ts. There are

    chan#es in the sphere of tie! skippin# of scenes or doublin# of characters chan#es to

    support the ne approaches of the Shakespearean te5t and to be harony ith the

    concept of the sho. Rsually in such perforances! the lines sound naturally! ithout

    e5a##erations! are coprehensible to the conteporary spectator and at the sae tie

    easy to speak for the actors.

    Xou can adapt the orks of Shakespeare for the ere idea of brin#in# it to the

    conteporary uni&erse or adapt in order to respond to soe (uestions today! here hat

    counts is the &alidity of the essa#e of the draatic ork! able or not to cross the border

    of tie.

    Soe directors used to create parallel intri#ues of those fro Shakespeare;s te5t. As for

    e5aple did 9ertolt 9recht hen he ounted the play oriolanus. The e5perient as

    not entirely successful accordin# to +eter 9rook. The 9ritish director ar#ued that e&ery

    play of Shakespeare has an or#anic sense. )n paper it appears that an episode ay be

    replaced ith another and! in any of his plays scenes and passa#es see that can be

    tried or o&ed" 9recht created a parallel plot J the scene of confrontation beteen

    50

  • 8/13/2019 Suport Curs Anul II

    51/168

    Qolunia and Coriolanus at the #ates of *oe! has been reritten! resultin# in a sli#ht

    fla hich has becoe a deep! re&ealin# error! accordin# to the e&aluation of 9rook.

    oe&er the ost successful perforances of the orks of Shakespeare are those that

    eploy the ori#inal ith ore inspiration.

    The te5t is shortened drastically throu#h the cuttin# of the Shakespearean etaphor! the

    lan#ua#e becoin# ore abrasi&e. The alterations of the te5t are draatic! pursuin# only

    the coherence and functionality of the story! the accents fallin# e5actly here the director

    of the perforance needs support for the adaptation. ere the ain (uality of the script is

    the flo. The director proposes his on &ision of the play! and the relationship beteen

    the screenplay and the ori#inal te5t is still close.

    oadays are &ery in &o#ue the alost cineato#raphic perforances of the n#lish

    playri#ht,s te5ts! hich rise a#ainst the classic rhetorical perforances that ha&e

    ebodied throu#hout the tie the so-called ature &ision. The speech coes fro the

    interpretation of lo#ic in parallel ith other eans of e5pression on sta#e. Shaking

    Shakespeareis a sho that e5eplifies this artistic endea&or. Shaking Shakespeareis a

    theatre sho directed by *adu Ale5andru ica! ounted relati&ely recently at the

    eran Theater in Tii oara. It is a pro8ect that uses interte5tuali'ation as a postodern ay of structurin# draa and spectacular aterial. The screenplay is built on the story of

    alet and his faily-e5istential draa. The *oanian producers used the story of

    alet for this interestin# and ori#inal adaptation. Scenes fro The Tempest! The

    Merchant of 8enice! 4thello! Macbeth! %ichard &&&are 8oined to#ether in an in#enious!

    lo#ical for! bein# aniated by the itinerant actors, troupe.

    9ut the Shakespearean e5perient is not reduced at the te5t. There is also the decipherin#

    of the Shakespearean structures that #enerate solutions! etaphors! sybols hen the

    purpose is to transpose the ne contents. Cancellation of the e5periences! eanin#s! the

    annihilation of fake independence policy! consuerist! #re#arious conditionin#! a

    cineatic approach! all these characteri'e scenic &isions after Shakespeare and leads to

    harsh criticis fro those ho tend to ideali'e the past. The iposition of ne

    51

  • 8/13/2019 Suport Curs Anul II

    52/168

    audio&isual technolo#ies! the addiction to &ideo-inte#rated circuits! filin# represent a

    clear trend of post odernity! but that continues to reain in a sensiti&e area of the less

    successful e5perients. If you ant to brin# Shakespeare on sta#e in an efficient anner!

    you cannot a&oid the specific theatrical lan#ua#e today. Rnder the ters of the present

    society in hich huan counication is put into (uestion! the scenic counication in

    theatres #i&es rise to ne fors. The crisis of the articulated lan#ua#e propted a careful

    e5aination of huan counication! aiin# to eliinate all that is artificial. And

    because counication is a process that is perfored on ultiple channels or plans! and

    usin# all your perception: seein#! hearin#! the olfactory sensations! &erbali'ation is 8ust

    soe kind of coon syste of all. So the ord! lon# tie considered to be the

    e5clusi&e carrier of the essa#e! is no &alued for the tone! the intensity! the &oice and

    soeties replaced by non &erbal counication fors. estural counication! for

    e5aple! is considered ore priiti&e! but ore characteristic of the theatre. The theatre

    becoes ore and ore a space of anifestation of the body e5pression and #esture. 0ust

    as in the &isual arts! there is a transfer fro iitati&e to the sybolic art.

    After his death Shakespeare has been considered present in all fors of artistic

    representation or creation. 0an 7ott,s book Shakespeare, our contemporary! published in

    n#land in 1B/! as considered a pioneerin# approach of the classical critic! ell-

    knon for the rearkable e5e#esis ork. In this case! the idea considerin# Shakespeare

    our conteporary refers to the approach of the draa te5t as a play. The author is present

    throu#h his ords in the representations on the odern sta#e. The result as iediately

    &isible as the interpretation of.ing *earfro the book deeply influenced the production

    of +eter 9rook! transforin# all the usual! traditional sta#e representations before!

    turnin# the upside-don! turnin# the austerity into abi#uity! the heroic into #rotes(ue!

    turnin# the classical into odern. This readin# of.ing *earin ters of the absurd as

    8ud#ed by the public in a double anner on the one hand it as re#arded ith #reat

    interest and appreciation for the rein&entin# of the Shakespearean draa for a different

    audience and on the other hand it as criticised by the puritan audience ho could not

    accept or tolerate such an alteration of the ori#inal #reat literary ork! ho did not ish

    52

  • 8/13/2019 Suport Curs Anul II

    53/168

    for a conteporary Shakespeare! but one that stays a respectable authority! fore&er lost in

    the history of the li'abethan theatre.

    9oth 0an 7ott and +eter 9rook helped the de&elopent of the conteporary &alue of the

    Shakespearean draa! as they e(ually considered that any representation of any theatrical

    te5t needs to be 2updated4 and therefore ine&itably conteporary.

    At first! e should disco&er the reasons hich ake the riters or the producers choose

    the Shakespearean ords as a source of their on productions. %inda utcheon tackles

    this topic in her book re#ardin# the process of adaptation: 2It is ob&ious that adapters

    ust ha&e their on personal reasons for decidin# first to do an adaptation and then

    choosin# hich adapted ork and hat ediu to do it in. They not only interpret that

    ork! but in so doin# they also take a position on it4 >%. utcheon! "@1$: B". This

    stateent brin#s to the core of our attention to essential aspects: the ediu and the

    choice of the adapted te5t. This ediu is a reser&oir of inforation for the adapter ho

    has to fulfill the task of an interpreter before becoin# an author hiself. The data used

    by an adapter in the process of reconte5tuali'ation concern atters re#ardin# the #eneral

    orld &alues such as: econoic issues! politics! race or #ender. Andr %efe&ere discusses

    the iplications of the adaptation process: 2*eritin#! then! in all its fors! can be seen

    as a eapon in the stru##le for supreacy beteen &arious ideolo#ies! &arious poetics. It

    should be analysed and studied this ay4 >A. %efe&ere! 1BF$: "$/. The su##estion #i&en

    by %efe&ere is another key to cate#ori'e the products of the adaptation process. The first

    step is the translation that! as e ha&e concluded in the first chapter! in&ol&es a sort of

    anipulation of the ori#inal ork for attainin# the ob8ecti&e of ori#inality. An e5aple of

    this sort of literary e5ploitation is*ear7s 3aughtersby The Woen,s Theatre roup and

    laine 6einstein that deconstructs the Shakespearean #ender politics! sketchin# a ne

    story! for the e5pectations of a different public. )ther e5aples hich sho that conte5t

    is an essential eleent for the understandin# of any art product! are Hamletmachine! an

    adaptation by einer

  • 8/13/