Shakespeare in Modern English (Why I Burn No Fear Shakespeare)

Today we discuss the Oregon Shakespeare Festival and their "translations" of Shakespeare.
For those not in the know here is the article proposing the OSF's intentions.
For those who don't have time:
">

• 36 plays
• 36 playwrights/dramaturgs
• 3 years
• translations of Shakespeare into contemporary English

"> What am I hearing?
Three years of employment for 36 of the country's best playwrights and dramaturgs?
Each of them gets to mess around with Shakespeare's text?
A new play is produced?
I love all of this!
There is one thing though...the word "translation" (hashtag appropriate use of quotation marks)
Shakespeare is already in English!
Granted: Shakespeare is written in Early Modern English, which differs greatly from Contemporary English.

Translation:  
an act, process, or instance of translating: as

a :  a rendering from one language into another; also :  the product of such a rendering

However, I do like what the OSF's literary director says:

< font-family: inherit; font-size: 13px; line-height: 20px;">'Translate’ is an inadequate word because it implies a word-for-word substitution, which isn’t what we’re doing. I’m going for something much more subtle. But I like the rigor that ‘translate’ implies. What excites me the most about this is who will dig into these texts.

There are differences between the early modern English of Shakespeare and contemporary English. 

So the intention is not to "translate" the texts.


Here is some contemporary English (2015):

The question is: is it better to be alive or dead? Is it nobler to put up with all the nasty things that luck throws your way, or to fight against all those troubles by simply putting an end to them once and for all? Dying, sleeping—that’s all dying is—a sleep that ends all the heartache and shocks that life on earth gives us

Good? Understandable? Not exactly the height of poetry.
Mostly because it isn't.
Here is some Shakespeare/Early Modern English (1623):

To be, or not to be, that is the Question:

Whether 'tis Nobler in the minde to suffer

The Slings and Arrowes of outragious Fortune,

Or to take Armes against a Sea of troubles,

And by opposing end them: to dye, to sleepe

1715No more; and by a sleepe, to say we end

The Heart-ake, and the thousand Naturall shockes

That Flesh is heyre too?

Same speech.
Spelling is a bit weirder
Some Middle English (1100-1450)

Ye seken lond and see for your wynnynges,As wise folk ye knowen all th'estaat Of regnes; ye been fadres of tydyngesAnd tales, bothe of pees and of debaat.

Almost completely incomprehensible.
Translation:

You seek land and sea for your winnings,As wise folk you know all the estateOf kingdoms; you be fathers of tidings,And tales, both of peace and of debate.

And Old English (5-11th Century):

Hwät! we Gâr-Dena in geâr-dagumþeód-cyninga þrym gefrunon,hû þâ äðelingas ellen fremedon.Oft Scyld Scêfing sceaðena þreátum.

Translation:

Lo! the Spear-Danes' glory through splendid achievementsThe folk-kings' former fame we have heard of,How princes displayed then their prowess-in-battle.Oft Scyld the Scefing from scathers in numbers...

It is commonly believed that Shakespeare is written in Old English.
Clearly it isn't.
As a written text it can be dense, which can be confusing.
Why?
Because it has been manhandled by everyone since its printing.
All spelling and punctuation in Shakespeare's text has been added or changed over the years

Here is the Folio text of Romeo's speech as printed in 1623: 

But soft, what light through yonder window breaks?
It is the East, and Iuliet is the Sunne,
< font-family: inherit;">Arise faire Sun and kill the enuious Moone,

< font-family: inherit;">Who is already sicke and pale with griefe,
< font-family: inherit;">That thou her Maid art far more faire then she:800 

< font-family: inherit;">Be not her Maid since she is enuious,

< font-family: inherit;">Her Vestal liuery is but sicke and greene,
< font-family: inherit;">And none but fooles do weare it, cast it off:
< font-family: inherit;">It is my Lady, O it is my Loue, O that she knew she were,
< font-family: inherit;">She speakes, yet she sayes nothing, what of that?

< font-family: inherit;">Pay special attention to the punctuation.
< font-family: inherit;">Here is a contemporary edition:

<; color: black; font-family: inherit;">795

< font-family: inherit;">But soft, what light through yonder window breaks?
< font-family: inherit;">It is the east, and Juliet is the sun.
< font-family: inherit;">Arise, fair sun, and kill the envious moon,
< font-family: inherit;">Who is already sick and pale with grief
< font-family: inherit;">That thou her maid art far more fair than she.< color: black; font-family: inherit;">800 

< font-family: inherit;">Be not her maid, since she is envious;

< font-family: inherit;">Her vestal livery is but sick and green
< font-family: inherit;">And none but fools do wear it. Cast it off.
< font-family: inherit;">It is my lady. Oh, it is my love!
< font-family: inherit;">Oh, that she knew she were!
< font-family: inherit;">She speaks, yet she says nothing. What of that?

And another:

But, soft! what light through yonder window breaks?
It is the east, and Juliet is the sun.
Arise, fair sun, and kill the envious moon,
Who is already sick and pale with grief,
That thou her maid art far more fair than she: 

Be not her maid, since she is envious;
Her vestal livery is but sick and green
And none but fools do wear it; cast it off.
It is my lady, O, it is my love!
O, that she knew she were!
She speaks yet she says nothing: what of that?

So even at a literary level people have taken liberties.
But, Shakespeare is a playwright, a dramatist.
His work is meant to be performed, staged.
The work that OSF is doing is better defined as adapting Shakespeare's original text

Adaptation:

make (something) suitable for a new use or purpose; modify.

Now, mind you, I am in support of this.
Let the record show that.
However, I am deeply interested in the words that we use, especially when dealing with Shakespeare.
Because the buzz line:

Shakespeare to be translated into Modern English 

on every website and streaming news outlet is inaccurate and a lie.
Because it is already Modern English and translation is inappropriate usage.
So let us be clear

The OSF is adapting Shakespeare's canon into Contemporary English

 Now, I am left to wonder if it is necessary to do so...
Subject of another post.

Adapting Dracula (Why Epistolary is a Four Letter Word)

Today we talk about what I love best:
Little known works. Adapting.
So I have been working on a number of projects.
One of them is Turn of the Screw by Henry James.

(He looks surprised to be here too)

Now, I have attempted some devised work out of whole cloth before.
I have tried what I term experimental theatre.
I have never tried my hand at adaptation.
Because too often it looks like this:

And not like this:

Or this:

Point being:

There is a way to do adaptations. And a way not to do adaptations.

So adaptations have always been a thorny, sticking place for me.
Recently, I saw a production of Dracula at Taproot Theatre.

Fun? I know!
The performances were masterful.
The script was wonderful.
Themes developed/explored

• sacrifice
• devotion
• good vs. evil

The character of Mina had a spine-tingling monologue about the nature of sacrifice that produced chills in the whole audience.

Mina's character was surprisingly forthright and domineering, which is a wonderful change of pace.

Dracula's characterization did not tip over into the caricature that plagues so many productions. 

van Helsing was superb in his affectionate, father-figure role.

So all in all a very fun filled night.

So why wasn't I floored?

Why didn't I love it?!

I think it was the adaptation.

It wasn't effective.

The script lifted pieces of text directly out of the book and the actors spoke them, much like the style of reader's theatre or radio drama as they enacted what they spoke.

This created a remarkable tension in the awakening of Dracula and the travel sequences. 

The opening was also particularly effective with passing of time and the devolution of Harker.

But, in "action" scenes where the primary motivator is spectacle, blood and gore, lengthy prose spoken at pace to get to the stabby bits feels clunky.

Why do it?

Well, it is a choice. 

And like I said, very effective.

At times.

So why doesn't it work all of the time?

I look to the original text.

Dracula is an epistolary novel.

So we have:

• A novel written by Bram Stoker
• In said novel we have a number of documents (I like to say artifacts)
• These documents are compiled to give an account of Dracula, the vampire
• These documents come from many sources, most of them primary characters in the action and the plot

So the question is: 

What does this do? Why does it work so well as a novel? 

Because a novel is an artifact!
Therefore, it makes sense as a medium for letters.
Therefore, the story is possible (however, unlikely).
Possibly many times removed, but still, an accurate account of factual events.

This is a sticky point.
We may need a modern parallel.
Have you heard of this little number?

 You should, it was one of the biggest phenomenons in movie history.
All because they added a couple words before the trailer:

This story is based on true events.

That is all it took.
And the audiences went wild.
People flocked to this movie.

Before the film was released, the three main actors were listed as "missing, presumed dead" on the IMDb.

It was fun!
People wanted to believe!
And why? Because they could.
This was a film compiled from clippings of a "found" student film.
It was "possible" if not necessarily "real".
Dracula works in its medium because of this effect.
It is "possible" if not necessarily "real" as a novel.

Now, theatre is an immediate medium.
We see everything.
Our imaginations are bound up with real bodies really doing things onstage immediately in front of us.
Therefore, what we love about Dracula (i.e. the urban legend nature of it) is lost onstage because it is happening in front of us.
Who ever heard of an urban legend in the present tense?
Theatrical performance can span thousands of millions of years, but it is always in present tense.

So how does an adaptation work?
Well by transferring a story from one medium to another, concessions have to be made.
Most often concessions are made regarding time (Just mention Tom Bombadil to Alec Barbour and see what happens).
However, there are stories that are suited to multiple mediums or are readily adaptable.
A novel like Lord of the Rings is well suited to a trilogy: 3 books=3 movies
A novel like The Hobbit is not well suited to a trilogy: 3/4 book < 3 movies.

My personal favorite is anyone who says a "faithful adaptation"
What I think they mean is taking verbatim from the book.
My favorite adaptation of Dracula:

Exempting Keanu Reeves: Bram Stoker's Dracula.
This thing is visually a feast

Ladies *tips hat*

And Gary Oldman's performance is just masterful.

The best part about the adaptation is it was wonderfully done: meaning there was almost no lifted text.
All of the scenes involved dialogue and not a character recounting what they had already done or were currently doing in front of us.

Another of my favorite adaptations:

You guessed it: The Muppet's Christmas Carol.
In this case they embraced the narrative style by having Gonzo portray the aptly named narrator character: Charles Dickens

For your viewing pleasure:

Perfection. Oh and this:

Christmas Carol is probably one of the best stories of all time.
Why?
Because it works in any medium.
It has worked as reader theatre, radio drama, theatre, film, television, etc.
There is nothing to which it does not lend itself.
It is the most popular show of all time.
It needs its own special category when calculating what show is most produced in theatre seasons!
What makes it such a good story for adaptation? And why do I love the Muppets so?

Well for one, Muppets.
But, two, I think because of what Gonzo's character Charlie Dickens illustrates so masterfully:
It is a description of events as they happen.
It is an exploration of a life with flashes and glimpses of the past and future.
It is fantastical.
All of these elements are present or possible in every medium!
It just plain works!

This is not to say all present tense or "happening" stories are universally successful in all mediums.
Take a look at this steaming pile:

Hold onto your butts.
I actually don't mind Hunger Games.
I think they are a fairly well made series that features some not so subtle social commentary.
And the movies are really good as well.
The problem is they are not very effective.
Why?
Well what makes the books work so well is the isolation of Katniss Everdeen.
First person, present tense makes it a very limited story view.
We only know the world through the lens of Katniss.
Literally.
Entirely.
So why don't the movies work as well?
Because they didn't put a camera inside Jennifer Lawrence's head.

Insert picture here. (I wish I could find this picture!)

Therefore, we get to watch and see the social interactions outside of her.
It lends a sense of objectivity to the whole thing.
To change pace and flavor, we even get exposition from the commentators

And who didn't fucking love these guys?
They provided necessary exposition that we couldn't get directly from Katniss.
They made the film work!
But, they also pulled away from the isolation and desolation that is Katniss's story.
Therefore, what made the story work in the medium also detracted from what made it meaningful: Katniss's struggle to understand the world she lives in.

A Practical Approach to Locomotion on the Stage and Life (Or: How I Learned to Walk Good)

Let me share what use to be one of my worst fears:

This is a performer.
On a completely blank stage.
For those who are not performers it feels something like this:

I think everyone has stared at a blank page at some point in their lives.
I think this might be universal.
It is that moment of dread.
Sheer terror of having to create something from nothing.
Write a speech, a lit critique, a persuasive essay.
Whatever your poison, you have probably felt crippling fear at some point and thought "I am not enough."
Am I right?

You bet your ass I am.
So, I am going to share some of my favorite techniques, namely what has worked for me in the past.
But, before I get to the exercises:
STORIES!

Just Stand There

This is a very fun game I like to play.
It is called Just Stand There because that is the only rule.
It is the only instruction that I give.
I say, "Just stand there" and we do just that.
A minute passes.
The student retakes their seat, I ask them what the experience was like and what the audience perceived.

The intention is realizing that how we stand onstage is, of necessity, an artificial act.
So much about art these days is about truthiness and naturalness and realness.
Actors say they want to be natural, to just exist onstage.
I hate that.
Because art, stage, theatre is so often about the artificial about what is abnormal and subnormal and internormal.
Okay, I made up a word, the point is:
Just Stand There is a loaded phrase. A loaded activity
And the students are meant to realize that and embrace it and find freedom in spite of it.

So why relevant?
I had one student say during the discussion period:

"He stands better than I do."

...........
Let that sink in....I had to.
I had one precious, beautiful, artistic soul believe in his heart that another person could stand "better" than him.
I almost had to sit down.
Then, I tried to hug him.
But I didn't tell him I was going to do that, so....
Awkward.

It was the fear.
The fear of being wrong, of doing poorly, of believing that we are not enough.
(I'm building a theme here).

Next STORY!

Evolution

Evolution is a fun game I play with large ensembles of people.
You start as a single cell organism.
Flat on your back, with everything frozen, except your pointer finger.
And you begin by exploring all of the ways it can move.
We do this for at least a minute.

Why?
Because your finger is surprisingly mobile.
Surprisingly dexterous.
Try it. Right now. At your computer or tablet.
Take a minute and move just your finger.
Find all the variations.
Explore how far it can move in one direction, then another.
Make circles, patterns, undulations.
Can you move a single knuckle?
How quick? how slow?
There are so many combinations we either don't try or simply don't think about.
Bring some awareness to it.

Add another finger. Then all the fingers.
Explore all of the digits.
Then, the whole hand.
Then, the arm down to the elbow.
Then, the shoulder.
Then, the other arm.
Then, the legs.
Then, the whole body.

I love this game because it puts the emphasis on the body and the body is actually remarkably varied.
Remarkably interesting to watch on its own.
It is only when we rely on conventions that we/the audience become bored.
But, realizing that everything, including just standing there (see what I did there), is a choice, we become better artists.

Now, I played Evolution with non-theatre makers once.
It was painful. (I didn't set it up very well)
But, eventually the goal is to have the organisms move on the floor.
They start as quadrupeds, become tripeds, then bipeds.
So four to three to two points of contact with the floor.
The moment we got to two everyone was on their two feet.
I said: Switch which meant another two points of contact.
Most people stayed standing.
They were confused.
Switch!
Nothing.
Switch!
Nothing.
We ended the game.

They didn't understand what else could be on the ground.
So I explained that anything would work.
I showed my head and a hand.
My shoulder and a foot.
They complained that they couldn't move like that, they weren't flexible enough, etc.
But, it was fun, it was funny, it was compelling to see people try! To see people struggle.
So then I told them that they weren't even using their feet to the fullest extent.
They didn't understand so I showed them what I am about to share with you.

The foot is not a flat plane.
What on earth do I mean by that?
Look at any shoe.
For example:

(This shoe)

It is essentially a vehicle for padding the underside of your foot.
This is an important function, especially with most modern surfaces (concrete, asphalt, glass)
But, look how we treat the foot: it is essentially one big, flat block or unit.
When in reality it is something more like this:

The foot is multiplanar.
It has flexion and depth and width.
But, so much of contemporary culture treats it like a flat block

(for reference)

So the students were completely baffled when I said the foot can have multiple points of contact.

So here are what I have affectionately termed as Gaits.

The different gaits that a person may use (onstage, off, wherever)

The Gaits:

1. Stamp in place: this is meant to give a sense of driving through the ground. The upper body should remain immobile throughout all of these exercises. 
2. Stamp in motion: walk any number of paces you desire in a straight line, circle, doubling back. Move with the whole surface of the foot. Do not let the upper body tremble
3. Walk on the balls of your feet
4. Walk on the heels of your feet
5. Walk on the outside edge of your feet
6. Walk on the inside edge of your feet
7. Walk with your toes turned out (splayed)
8. Walk with your toes turned in (pigeon toed)

All of the previous exercises involve walking solely with your feet.

Introducing the hands can create new avenues of physical exploration.

1. Walk with your whole foot hands grabbing your toes
2. Walk with your whole foot hands gripping the outside of your foot
3. Walk with your whole foot hands gripping the inside of your foot
4. Walk with your whole foot hands gripping your ankles
5. Walk with your hands underneath your feet
6. Walk on your hands and toes
7. Come into a bridge/wheel posture and walk on your palms and flat of your foot

These are various ways that one can locomote without relying solely on the feet.

This list is not exhaustive.

In fact it is limited entirely based on direction.

Simply by changing direction one creates a number of new ways for the gaits to be utilized.

1. Walking forward
2. Walking backward
3. Walking side to side
4. Walking diagonally

Creating patterns:

1. Straight lines
2. Curved lines
3. Variations (zig zag/circles)

By combining or varying these different gaits one has a vocabulary with which to work as well as an inexhaustible list of ways to move.

The blank/empty stage is suddenly less terrifying.

Because we are enough.

There are hundreds of ways to move with this list using only our hands and feet.

The rest of us is just as mobile, just as creative, just as powerful.

We need only embrace it.

I hope to find new and interesting relationships with the ground in my personal artistry.

I love it when directors/projects allow for this type of exploration.

Even in a relatively conservative/choreographed rehearsal hall are you able to perform at least some of these gaits.

You can always change with what part of your foot you lead with.

No one in the audience need know.

But, if it affects you or changes your psychic/emotional space, then, I say, more power to you.

And this can apply to anything.

If you discover 

• back pain, 
• foot pain, 
• leg pain, 
• nervousness, 
• anxiety, 
• stress, 
• anger, 
• aggression 

in your daily life or in performance settings

• You need to give a presentation
• You are going for an interview
• You need to make a public speech
• You are meeting the in laws

Then try some of this work.

If you discover that you rely too heavily on one stance or gait more than any other in times of stress, try changing it.

You may discover that stress is tied to the gait and without it, everything becomes easier.

You may find yourself more 

• relaxed, 
• confident, 
• happy,
• able.

And that is a good thing.