Shakespeare should his plays be protected from modern slants?

I was watching something on the tv about Shakespeare; and on it was Shakespeare done as a rap, his plays done in a jamaican accent. As I very much doubt that Shakespeare would have wanted his work done like this; based upon the time he lived in. Should therefore great works be protected from modern day people wanting to up their reputation by playing and/or playing with great works? A producer or director doing it straight may not stick out as much as one doing their version, and therefore be better for their career.Should the dead like Shakespeare be protected from the less talented living? My opinion is they can do what they want with their works but should leave others alone.

They're 500 year old works. It's about like somebody taking the Bible and doing that weird Vegetales stuff with it. Let people be creative with it; it's really about the only way to make it interesting to most of us.

reply to post by s12345


It's not as if someone took the painting of the Mona Lisa, and cut it up, and made a collage out of it! Shakespeare's work is well into the public domain. Heck making a spin on Shakespeare's work is one of the most common things done in the film industry! Here's a small list of movies taking elements from Shakespeare.

A Double Life (1947) Othello
A Thousand Acres (1997) King Lear
All Night Long (1962) Othello
Catch My Soul (1974) Othello
Forbidden Planet (1956) The Tempest
King of Texas (2002) King Lear
Kiss Me Kate (1948) The Taming of the Shrew
Let the Devil Wear Black (1999) Hamlet
Men of Respect (1991) Macbeth
My Own Private Idaho (1991) Henry IV and Henry V plays
Ran (1985) King Lear
Romeo Must Die (2000) Romeo and Juliet
Scotland, PA (2001) Macbeth
She’s the Man (2006) Twelfth Night
Strange Brew (1983) Hamlet
The Boys from Syracuse (1940) Comedy of Errors
Tower of London (1939) Richard III
Were the World Mine (2008) A Midsummer’s Night Dream
West Side Story (1961) Romeo and Juliet
Yellow Sky (1943) The Tempest

SOURCE


Some of the these movies are great.....Some not so great. The problem of this would be, you would have to have someone in charge of determining whether a work of art based on Shakespeare had any Artistic Merit......and such a thing would amount to Censorship. Remember all of the trials about great works of art that had to go to court in the past to prove they had artistic merit? Naked Lunch by William Burroughs......Ulysses, by James Joyce.....Big Hairy Woman by 2 Live Crew! (Ok that last one wasn't a GREAT work of art.....but I think I've made my point anyway)

Come on, rap version of Shakespeare. It's better to do and read something nearer to current english, than take a mans life work and piss on it. How about Oscar Wilde, Agatha Christie, or Beuwolf, or something more classical like The Illiad. Next time someone comes to see the Sisteen Chapel, put some emulsion on it, hell it's old anyway.

Shakespeare's work should be open to ALL interpretations...

if anything he wrote was of actual value...it will survive.

as have the thoughts and ideas of countless artists that existed far longer ago than he did.

Exactly my point it has became an easy way of producers and directors getting a reputation by cannibalising his plays than do work more their own.

Originally posted by s12345
I was watching something on the tv about Shakespeare; and on it was Shakespeare done as a rap, his plays done in a jamaican accent. As I very much doubt that Shakespeare would have wanted his work done like this; based upon the time he lived in. Should therefore great works be protected from modern day people wanting to up their reputation by playing and/or playing with great works? A producer or director doing it straight may not stick out as much as one doing their version, and therefore be better for their career.Should the dead like Shakespeare be protected from the less talented living? My opinion is they can do what they want with their works but should leave others alone.

The language of Shakespeare may belong to another age but the stories are universal. Characters react to circumstances much the same way as they would today. I think that whatever gets somebody to notice his plays in whatever form is only a good thing. As for using a Jamaican accent to recite his words many scholars agree that in Elizabethan England pronunciation of English was different to today. No-one can be 100% certain but many experts believe that the Elizabethan English accent was similar to modern American pronunciation and would have been quite familiar to listeners today.
I thought that Baz Luhrmann's interpretation of Romeo and Juliet was a triumph while keeping the original play intact but modernising the setting.

Nobody gets to stop someone's remake of Shakespeare. What, do you want a "law" against Shakespeare parodies? It's not going to happen. If you want a law against Shakespeare remakes, then I want a law stopping "Dancing with the Stars." Then I want a law against Bertolt Brecht in general because I can't stand "Waiting for Godot."

if whatever point Shakespeare was attempting to make was worth being made...it doesn't matter about accents and ethnicity...

none of those things will stand the test of time.

but his message will.

its important for people to understand that they will never survive...but someone in the future may enjoy their story.

You said," Shakespeare's work should be open to ALL interpretations...

if anything he wrote was of actual value...it will survive.

as have the thoughts and ideas of countless artists that existed far longer ago than he did."

ANSWER Not after countless mediocre ill favoured interpretations. If they were his equal artistically then perhaps, but they aren't. It becomes a sounding board for peoples social issues: to make social points. To make a racial point put racial accents in it that weren't there before. To make it about being trendy dress everyone like chavs and get a rapper in.

reply to post by s12345

I can dig it...

To be or not to be, do you see?
Not a question to you but a question to me.
Would I rather be bling bling or flung from a bridge
Climb the tallest mountains or just jump off a ridge
Fight with all me worth and cast enemies down
Or just give in and sit here and drown...

Well, I'm sure you get the idea. I think he would like it and I think I just found me a new career.

Actually elizabethan english, like all older english was nearer to northern english: that spoke in the north of england.
O.K so if I represent a play of gandhi is it O.K. if I make him english.

I agree that it's a great shame. But doing something about it is where we get in trouble. Think "censorship."

Our choices in a free society (as IF!) are limited. For example, we espouse free speech--but that means free speech for everyone, not just those we agree with. (That's the part of free speech that people have a problem with, apparently.) So our choices are to make our voice heard above theirs; to shut up and forget about it; or to not listen (or try not to).

Sentiment has nothing to do with it. Others have the right to do with those works as they like--to practice free speech as they wish; indeed we'd have no art at all without imitation and emulation. That it's horrid and shrivels the soul is beside the point....

Originally posted by s12345
You said," Shakespeare's work should be open to ALL interpretations...

if anything he wrote was of actual value...it will survive.

as have the thoughts and ideas of countless artists that existed far longer ago than he did."

ANSWER Not after countless mediocre ill favoured interpretations. If they were his equal artistically then perhaps, but they aren't. It becomes a sounding board for peoples social issues: to make social points. To make a racial point put racial accents in it that weren't there before. To make it about being trendy dress everyone like chavs and get a rapper in.

seriously...some of the things we read that are very ancient survived because the people saved them.

the Epic of Gilgamesh was written in cunieform...Akkadian and Sumerian.

It made it to the 21st Century, 4600 years...because it has social value...and the guys at the print shop made sure it survived.

in the year 6000 A.D...will Shakespeare prove his value.

As with all imitations, parodies, homages or tributes you'll get varying degrees of quality, some of which may seem insulting due to poor replication or missing the 'point' of the original or just butchering it into low-grade entertainment but others lend fine worth to the original and I guess it's all down to personal opinion.

But every weak imitation does nothing more than strengthen the original piece.

But his works are hundreds of years old and thus in the public domain.

Originally posted by s12345
Exactly my point it has became an easy way of producers and directors getting a reputation by cannibalising his plays than do work more their own.

Then that should be decided on the merit of the production itself and that's why we have critics to roast such pompous individuals

Zephaniah won the BBC Young Playwright's Award.[1] He has been awarded honorary doctorates by the University of North London (in 1998),[1] the University of Central England (in 1999), Staffordshire University (in 2002), London South Bank University (in 2003), the University of Exeter and the University of Westminster (in 2006). On 17 July 2008 Zephaniah received an honorary doctorate from the University of Birmingham.[21] He was listed at 48 in The Times' list of 50 greatest postwar writers.[2]

The message and quality is what counts. People like this guy would do Shakespeare proud methinks.

Source
Jah Bless.

I suppose we have to remember than In victorian Britain only some of Shakespeares plays were thought worth reading or putting on. The concept of Shakespeares being seen as the greatest writer in english is more a part of our times than we care to admit. Eventually it will become so different from modern english that it will cease to be played with any frequency: becoming as different as old english is now.

If I read Benjamin Zephaniah's poetry in received pronunciation, altering the calocial english to the accepted writted word, he would be pissed off. He would have every right, it is his work. After he has gone it should still be read as he wrote it.

I HATE SHAKESPEARE....OR THAT BACON GUY. WHICHEVER WROTE THOSE AWFUL PLAYS!!! I hope to God I never see another work taken from Shakespeare and put on where I have the bad fortune to accidentally see a bit of it. What trash!

Anyone that has to "borrow" from Shakespeare must be creatively bankrupt.

I think that artistic impression is the basis of all art.

As soon as the works of Shakespeare are changed (however slightly) they become a conglomeration of two(or more) artists work.

IMHO it is personal taste/perception as to whether the changes improve the storyline or make it worse.

Of course there is always the exception.