You cite Shakespeare plays as being acceptable to change settings in. It's been acceptable practice to rework Shakespeare as a means of articulating the universal themes and nature of the plays. The same with the Greeks. Part of what kept those plays in the cannon was their adaptability. Also, as their events are long out of recent memory they are less likely to push buttons in and of themselves, so buttons are pushed by the interpretations.
Shakespeare's histories would also be rather difficult to classify as documentary plays, whereas the Anne Frank story, or The Laramie Project to use another example, are much more married to their settings.
Anne Frank is a Holocaust story, and that is a touchy, touchy subject. Any messing with the memory of the Holocaust is generally believed to be profane. This is an event in living memory. I had relatives with numbers tattooed on their arms. I suspect that taking a documentary play on that subject and changing it around would alienate me in ways that aren't aesthetically productive.
I don't think that just because a play is modern means it can't be messed with. I saw a pretty out there production of A Streetcar Named Desire in New York back when I still lived there, and it was really accessible and got a fair amount of critical acclaim.
All that said, I am curious what time period and location you would have moved it to. There aren't all that many viable parallels to Nazi occupied Europe. I can see setting it under Stalanist occupation but that isn't much of a temporal stretch. I can also see pulling some magical realism stuff with the design but I'm not clear about the details of the assignment.
Let me see if I can respond (also in not much of an order)
I hadn't even considered The Laramie Project as a viable similiarity; but it's a good one.
So, what would happen if you take The Laramie Project and change Mathew Shepard to a Muslim instead of a homosexual. Not to say that homosexuals aren't still being persecuted, (or for that matter that there isn't still anti-semitism in this world)but that this would update the play to an issue that is being addressed very much here and now on the front page of newspapers. Isn't the theme and essence of The Laramie Project (as well as Anne Frank) overcoming persecution and ignorance, and holding on to hope in the face of death? Aren't these themes relevant to more than one specific people and place?
As a writer how would you feel if someone took one of your scripts and completely changed the context of its presentation to the point of putting a completely different slant on the material, so long as they maintaned the theme?
I personally wouldn't have a problem with it at all, but I'm interested to see how others feel.
Basicly, I think this comes down to playwright's intent and to what degree do we uphold that original voice. For me, the thrill of theatre, as opposed to most other artistic endeavours, lies within the essence of collaboration, and the many different ways we can take one particular set of writings, or events, or spaces, and transform them collectively, making it a unique experience every time.
I realize that because of its historical context this offers a whole other set of problems, but where do we draw the line exactly?
Arthur Miller shut down The Wooster Groups LSD Just the High Points, the Becket estate is notorious for suing anyone not abiding by directions mentioned in the script, but yet, as you said, there are 100's of productions of Tennesee Williams plays, Shakespeare's, Greek plays, etc. that open to mass critical acclaim based on the interpretation or spin a director, or theatre places on their work.
I just think it's much more exciting to use the text as a basis or starting point to create new, exciting work, and that Anne Frank shouldn't be excluded because of the touchiness of it's subject matter.
You cite Shakespeare plays as being acceptable to change settings in. It's been acceptable practice to rework Shakespeare as a means of articulating the universal themes and nature of the plays. The same with the Greeks. Part of what kept those plays in the cannon was their adaptability. Also, as their events are long out of recent memory they are less likely to push buttons in and of themselves, so buttons are pushed by the interpretations.
Shakespeare's histories would also be rather difficult to classify as documentary plays, whereas the Anne Frank story, or The Laramie Project to use another example, are much more married to their settings.
Anne Frank is a Holocaust story, and that is a touchy, touchy subject. Any messing with the memory of the Holocaust is generally believed to be profane. This is an event in living memory. I had relatives with numbers tattooed on their arms. I suspect that taking a documentary play on that subject and changing it around would alienate me in ways that aren't aesthetically productive.
I don't think that just because a play is modern means it can't be messed with. I saw a pretty out there production of A Streetcar Named Desire in New York back when I still lived there, and it was really accessible and got a fair amount of critical acclaim.
All that said, I am curious what time period and location you would have moved it to. There aren't all that many viable parallels to Nazi occupied Europe. I can see setting it under Stalanist occupation but that isn't much of a temporal stretch. I can also see pulling some magical realism stuff with the design but I'm not clear about the details of the assignment.
Reply
Let me see if I can respond (also in not much of an order)
I hadn't even considered The Laramie Project as a viable similiarity; but it's a good one.
So, what would happen if you take The Laramie Project and change Mathew Shepard to a Muslim instead of a homosexual. Not to say that homosexuals aren't still being persecuted, (or for that matter that there isn't still anti-semitism in this world)but that this would update the play to an issue that is being addressed very much here and now on the front page of newspapers. Isn't the theme and essence of The Laramie Project (as well as Anne Frank) overcoming persecution and ignorance, and holding on to hope in the face of death? Aren't these themes relevant to more than one specific people and place?
As a writer how would you feel if someone took one of your scripts and completely changed the context of its presentation to the point of putting a completely different slant on the material, so long as they maintaned the theme?
I personally wouldn't have a problem with it at all, but I'm interested to see how others feel.
Basicly, I think this comes down to playwright's intent and to what degree do we uphold that original voice. For me, the thrill of theatre, as opposed to most other artistic endeavours, lies within the essence of collaboration, and the many different ways we can take one particular set of writings, or events, or spaces, and transform them collectively, making it a unique experience every time.
I realize that because of its historical context this offers a whole other set of problems, but where do we draw the line exactly?
Arthur Miller shut down The Wooster Groups LSD Just the High Points, the Becket estate is notorious for suing anyone not abiding by directions mentioned in the script, but yet, as you said, there are 100's of productions of Tennesee Williams plays, Shakespeare's, Greek plays, etc. that open to mass critical acclaim based on the interpretation or spin a director, or theatre places on their work.
I just think it's much more exciting to use the text as a basis or starting point to create new, exciting work, and that Anne Frank shouldn't be excluded because of the touchiness of it's subject matter.
Reply
Leave a comment