More on Oregon Shakespeare's "translations"

I tried to add this to last year's conversation, but BWW seems glitchy today...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/theater/oregon-shakespeare-festival-play-on.html?hpw&rref=theater&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region®ion=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well

I can't help coming to the conclusion that this entire project (and the way it's being discussed) is a reflection on how "stupid" is the new "smart."

Favorite quotes:

"“Just once, I want to see Shakespeare in my native language and understand it at speed, without having to work that hard,” he (the project's funder) said." (Work? We don't work. The show is supposed to do the work!)

"Mfoniso Udofia, who is translating “Othello,” recalled how the two dramaturges she is working with, Ayanna Thompson and Alex Barron, pressed her on why her first draft left the word “Moor” untouched." (Has "Moor" really become incomprehensible?)

“Anyone who claims they understand Shakespeare without the help of frequent readings is not being honest.” (Anyone? Really? I wonder what it feels like to be so certain about 100% of the population...)

Perhaps there can be additional projects in other fields: La Boheme without the music (which is pretty but really dull); Swan Lake where they talk more than dance, so that we can figure out what's going on; The Rite of Spring with an added chorus making hip hop beat box sounds; repaint all of Picasso's works so that they actually maybe look like what they're supposed to represent.

Updated On: 10/4/16 at 09:30 AM

I was the OP of the other thread about this back when it was first announced last year, and I expressed a similar sentiment as you, Newintown. I still don't like it on principal - I still agree with most of your comments. Shakespeare IS difficult to understand at first, but the more you put into it the more you get out of it. These audiences will not be required to put as much into it, therefore they will no doubt get less out of it.

However, I think I've come to realize that it's honestly not that big a deal. It's not like we're getting rid of the original works - they'll still be here and they'll still be performed all over the world, and for many years to come. This is just one project that one company is doing. Granted, it's a significant project by a significant company, but in the grand scheme of things, Shakespeare's words will continue to endure as they have for the last 400+ years. And part of what I like about Shakespeare is how adventurous you can be with the text since it's public domain, and also unstable in its own rite, given the nature of the folios and quartos, etc. This new project is an adventure, I think; it may fail or succeed, but it won't change much in the long-run.

In assessing this, it may well be worth considering that translation of Shakespeare into other languages often results in contemporary foreign audiences having a much easier understanding of the language than contemporary English-speaking audiences have with the "untranslated" language. I also wonder how often the classical Greek plays are adapted into modern Greek for modern Greek audiences.

Beyond which, it should go without saying, that translating/"translating" Shakespeare (whether into a foreign language or into more accessible/modern English) is a phenomenal undertaking. Doing it well presents great challenges.

I love Shakespeare as it is. But if it can be transposed well into more accessible English by those who know what they are doing, so that contemporary English-speaking audiences can enjoy Shakespeare in the way similar to that which some contemporary foreign audiences do, that might not be such a bad thing.

http://bloggingshakespeare.com/shakespeare-in-translation

Updated On: 10/4/16 at 02:06 PM