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/
Recommended