Oregon Shakespeare Festival doing modern "translations" of Shakespeare

And what about the verse? Will that be lost?

Seems like this would only be good for Children's theatre.

As pointed out above, Shakespeare isn't considered great just because of his story lines and characters. Most of the dialogue is poetry. Heightened language. Not mere colloquial jabber.

Do we need to provide contemporary vernacular versions of Byron, Shelley, Keats, Frost, cummings, etc., too? And for prose, how about translations of Dickens, Austen, Eliot, Melville? They can be difficult to understand, too. And why should a reader/audience member ever be expected to do anything that smacks of "work?"

I do admit that it might be fun to hear Hamlet spit out "Should I live, or not? That’s the question – am I better off if I just take whatever life throws at me? Or should I open a can of whoop-ass on all that crap and give it the KO?"

That's almost as poetic as the original, and so much easier to understand, right?

I agree, Kad. I'm a professional Shakespearean actor and teacher, and even I still find much of his language confusing. But that is part of the fun - looking up all the archaic words, deciphering the poetry...to "modernize" his texts would completely destroy the point of doing them. I am, however, very much in favor of cutting things in his plays (lines, words or even complete scenes that are either way too archaic or just plain unnecessary). Cutting Shakespeare's plays for the stage is common practice. But TRANSLATING them? Save No Fear Shakespeare for the page, not the stage.

This idea is completely ridiculous, irresponsible, and disrespectful - both to Shakespeare and to the American public.

JBroadway: They of all people should understand that Shakespeare is pointless without his language.

Kad: it's always been about the depth, the emotion of the language

I certainly understand the points both of you are trying to make. But don't these statements, at least in such a strong form, imply that Shakespeare's plays have little value for non-English speaking audiences? And that, once English has changed enough to render Shakespeare as difficult as Beowulf, they'll be little more than historical curiosities?

As someone whose native language is English, and as someone who has never read a translation of Shakespeare's work, I can't claim to know whether non-English speaking audiences enjoy Shakespeare as much, or whether faithful translations exist.

But to answer your question based on my own personal opinion: That's correct. I don't think Shakespeare would be any more than a "historical curiosity" if not in his own language. I think that's probably true for many non-English poetic texts as well.

As for the evolution of English? Once again, I can't know for sure, but I think the scenario you mentioned could very well come to past, if people don't continue to accustom themselves to Shakespeare's style of language.

EDIT: I admit I'm kinda talking out of my ass in this post to some degree. I'll probably think about this issue more, as I'm currently in a Shakespeare course at my school. But the bottom line is that I think Shakespeare's plots and stories have very limited value, particularly his comedies. It's the language and the verse that makes Shakespeare Shakespeare, and I'm not talking out of my ass when I say that.

Updated On: 9/28/15 at 06:54 PM

JBroadway said: "As someone whose native language is English, and as someone who has never read a translation of Shakespeare's work, I can't claim to know whether non-English speaking audiences enjoy Shakespeare as much, or whether faithful translations exist.

They do-not surprisingly. THe only one I really know specifically is I had a Russian lit prof who I loved, and she said that there most audiences are obsessed with the 19th Century translations edited and compiled completely by Nikolay Gerbel which some claim are surely better than the originals. So, according to her anyway, for those audiences those specific translations are held up as classics (though, of course, there have been other translations into Russian.)

I agree with Namo here--there's no danger of these supplanting the original texts... I'm more curious about whether they're getting well known playwrights to do the translations, new playwrights, translators who aren't playwrights, or? That said, I also agree with others that if you modernize the language completely it really seems to become more of an adaptation and in that case there's nothing new... (Also, why set out to do ALL of his plays? Will there suddenly be increased demand to perform The Two Noble Kinsmen? )

And while I agree that a large part of the appeal of Shakespeare is his language, certainly his best plays also are great examples of dramatic (or comedic) construction.

Shakespeare's writing is arguably some of the most perfectly articulated literature of all time. His words have such complexity that even today cannot be found in most writing. The fact that so many people can interpret his works in so many different ways just goes to show how versatile and well versed he was as a playwright. Someone butchering this will take away everything that makes Shakespeare so timeless and so loved. There's a reason that his plays are still constantly produced, hundreds of years later. Had he been born a couple centuries later and written in what we consider to be more "modern" prose, his works would not have stood the test of time, even with the same characters and plots that we all know so well. Anyone who takes away from his writing should be ashamed of themselves.

I adore Shakespeare. I love reading/studying/acting/directing/watching Shakespeare.

That being said, I'm not actually opposed to them taking a stab at it. Will it REPLACE Will's work? Methinks not.....but it might just work. Would I be interested, maybe out of curiosity for one or two.

Here are the assigned playwrights and dramturgs. Some interesting names, but I still question the intellectual/artistic value behind the project.

If they called them"adaptations" rather than "translations," it would make a universe of difference, I suppose...

https://www.osfashland.org/playon

It's unfortunate the Wall Street Journal ran an article about this before the OSF officially announced the project. Here is a link to FAQ about the project which is called Play On.

https://www.osfashland.org/experience-osf/upcoming/play-on/play-on-faq.aspx

Taylor Mac is doing Titus Andronicus!!

I bet there'll be food.

Amy Freed is doing Taming of the Shrew.

The Playbill article makes the project seem more sensible. Especially because OSF is performing the whole Shakespeare canon over the next decade.

If it brings a bigger audience to the Bard or into the theater in general, I'm all for it. The original texts will always be there.