The Play's the Thing 2.0

People love to to adapt Shakespeare. There’s tons of movies that have been based off of his plays; like Kiss Me Kate, Ten Things I Hate About You, She’s The Man, and many others. In theaters all over the world, you can find uniquely adapted versions of his plays; set in different time periods, playing with different ages, races, contexts, and so forth. I personally love seeing how the versatility of Shakespeare manifests itself in the individual performances of his plays, and experiencing the liberties taken by the actors and directors of the shows.

I’ve seen two completely opposite productions of Much Ado About Nothing. At Cedar City, this classic comedy was placed in the Elizabethan era, and the actors chosen for Beatrice and Benedick were a little over middle-age; with graying hair and wrinkles. They focused a lot on middle-aged issues and humor relating to that specific time of life. The eavesdropping scene was funny, as always, but because the two were older and not quite as limber as they used to be, there were only so many places they could hide. At one point Beatrice tried to climb a tree, but couldn’t pull herself up and had to hide behind a bush instead (which was hilarious to watch). The chemistry between the two was unique as well, because you could sense that there was something lost between the two. This deepened the relationship between them, and the audience could feel that. They were both middle aged, unmarried, and had known each other for a long time. There was more tension because of the amount of time they’d spent together, and they knew almost every pressure point to the other person. The jokes had more weight to them, and the liberties the actors took showed the audience that.

Naturally, the approach to this play was quite different than its counterpart; in this case, the performance I saw at the Globe here in London. It was set during the Mexican revolution, and the actors for Beatrice and Benedick were in their mid twenties -- young and energized with a lot of life ahead of them. Their jokes were a lot more flirtatious rather than direct insults (if you’re comparing it to the older couple). Benedick acted more like a teenage boy, such as with the picture he has of Beatrice and when Claudio takes the letter he writes to Beatrice to give to her. Beatrice is similar also; a lot of her actions are more juvenile, as opposed to the older Beatrice who had more life experience and understanding.

Both sets of actors had specific chemistry onstage that was completely different from the other. Like I mentioned earlier, the older Beatrice and Benedick had more of a deep, seasoned relationship, while the younger two felt a bit more like young love; like a romance novel. They were both well done, and I don’t think that one superior to the other -- it was just different. I love that I was able to get two opposite perspectives of this play, showcasing how the story would have happened in two unparalleled settings. Not only were they set in different time periods, but the fact that two couples of different ages could be chosen to play these characters and the story remained the same shows how versatile Shakespeare is. In either case, I found both productions beautifully done, and thought it was a perfect example of how completely unique every performance is.

Reading Shakespeare is a different experience entirely. I create my own voices and personas for the characters and have only my perspective to go off of. I love reading Shakespeare, as difficult as it can sometimes be, but I love seeing the plays put into context and performed, like they were always meant to be. Seeing the different performances of the plays has built on my understanding of Shakespeare, and overall makes it more entertaining for me rather than listening to the voice in my head.

I was also able to see King Lear at the Shakespeare Festival and the Globe. The Cedar City production was, like Much Ado, set in the Elizabethan period and fairly straightforward. I had read Lear previously, and I didn’t really notice many liberties the actors took with their characters. Although the overall production well done and the actors did a wonderful job portraying their characters, there wasn’t anything uniquely spectacular about it. It was grim and dark, and the whole tone was very brooding (which makes sense, it is King Lear after all). I came away without thinking much of it -- I understood what was going on, and the actors and ambience were true to the script, but it didn’t really resonate with me. However, the production of Lear at the Globe was entirely different. It was set in a modern period, with the characters dressed as though they were homeless. The choice of music, props, set and costumes helped me make certain connections within the play that I hadn’t noticed before. For example, the entire play, characters were ripping off parts of the tarp that covered the stage. It could have been symbolic of many things, but to me, it was like they were showing that as the play progressed more was being revealed. It could also be symbolic of Lear losing his mind; the longer the play goes on, the more delusional he becomes. Combining this with my previous experiences of this play, I felt that I came away from the performance understanding a lot more about Lear than I had before. I liked having the chance to compare the liberties taken by the actors and directors of each of the plays and what they focused on. It helped me to expand my knowledge of the play and I found myself enjoying it a lot more. It may be that I’m a little older and wiser -- emphasis on “a little” -- and perhaps when I first saw Lear I wasn’t totally prepared to take in the message and understand the deeper meanings of the play. I think after having been exposed to it once and given it a few years to marinate, I went into and came from the Globe understanding and appreciating it more than years prior. Watching this new, fresh performance only added to the layers of understanding I’m creating for Lear. It was like having the play reborn or seeing it through a new set of eyes.

This is what I love about Shakespeare; the fact that you can plop any of his plays into whatever time period, pick any actor (within reason) and it’ll make sense. You can have two completely different performances of the same play and they can be equally as exciting and enjoyable. I love the understanding I gain from each performance I see and that my knowledge of Shakespeare is expanded with every interaction I have with his writings.