Shakespeare

[wittgenstein]

My wife and I have debated this quite often. I'd like to see Hamlet in modern english. She says that that would be wrong because it would lose the beauty of the language. However, I disagree. For example ," get thee to a nunnery." How many know old english and that its actually saying," get thee to a whore house." Anyway, can anyone tell me of a movie ( Hamlet) in modern english?
It seems that the elite wish to show their "superiority" rather then enjoy a work of art for its intrinsic worth. They take the joy out of a work of art so they can be seen as superior and like the emperor's new clothes ,only they can see the joy in it. The Sistine chapel was recently cleaned. Critics complained because the removal of the soot made it look like ( in their words) a cartoon. Well, thats the style Michelangelo choose. Also, Greek statues were painted so that they resembled a work by Madame Tussaud. Unfortunetly, the elite in their gardens have replica Greek statues that have lost the original intent and intensity. I find it ironic that the elite hate Rambo and yet praise Titus Andronicus.
"That which we call a rose. By any other name would smell as sweet." In other words its the signifieds that make Shakespeare great not the signifiers! More Shakespeare in modern english!!

[mlipo]

Your wife is right. Part (a large part) of Shakespeare's greatness is how he used language. I don't think it is elitism at all to stage a play in original language.

[wittgenstein]

Language is broken down into two subsets.Signifiers are the physical form of a word. The pattern of sound waves or the shape of the letters. Signifieds are that which signifiers refer to, concepts. To me the shape of the letters or the sound of a word pronounced are superfluous. The art resides in the signifieds. Shakespeare was great not because he made interesting sounds but because he came up with interesting and creative juxtapositions of signifieds.

[mlipo]

The art resides in the signifieds. Shakespeare was great not because he made interesting sounds but because he came up with interesting and creative juxtapositions of signifieds.

No. The art is a combination of what is said and how it's said.

One can say, "We are gonna die anyway, so let's ****" or one can say "Gather ye rosebuds..." I might be elitist, but the second is much more artistic. (I know this isn't WS)

[wittgenstein]

I never said that a modern translation of Shakespeare must be crude. A more accurate translation would be, " We will die anyway, so lets gather rosebuds." I'd drop the "ye" . I dont think it adds anything.

[mlipo]

Sorry-either way, I don't think it's elitist to present an author's work in the original language.

[wittgenstein]

If in the original Shakespeare he wrote," Gather ye my mortal flesh in sweet love". Well, OK Im not Shakespeare. A correct translation would be," Possess my body with love." If however, Shakespeare wanted a crude character to say something then," lets F****" would be fine.

[Ulmo]

Language is broken down into two subsets.Signifiers are the physical form of a word. The pattern of sound waves or the shape of the letters. Signifieds are that which signifiers refer to, concepts. To me the shape of the letters or the sound of a word pronounced are superfluous. The art resides in the signifieds. Shakespeare was great not because he made interesting sounds but because he came up with interesting and creative juxtapositions of signifieds.

I think you are projecting some aesthetic view Shakespeare did not have, or most artists for that matter. How you say a thing is as important as what you say, in literature.

The way a word is communicated to you, someone trained in linguistic philosophy – with a call name like Wittgenstein I hope I did not miss-guess, but a philosopher is not an artist. The two can coincide, but not necessarily. That it is why Kant and Locke write so technically and frankly boringly. There concepts are intersting, but couched in unpenetrable jargon. The ideas that Shakespeare communicates are fairly mundane, but if they were reduced to their mundane nature they would loose their beauty.

I don’t know for sure, but your critique of Shakespeare seems to be like the scientist trying to demystify the world and show us its mundane ugliness.

[wittgenstein]

"I don’t know for sure, but your critique of Shakespeare seems to be like the scientist trying to demystify the world and show us its mundane ugliness."
Ulmo
Actually, the opposite. The sound of a word being pronounced or the shape of a letter ( signifier) is far more mundane and materialistic than the ideas ( signifieds) they are trying to convey.

[Lord Ragnar]

I'm inclined to think that Shakespeare would approve of modernization. He was by no means an elitist; his plays are themselves, modernized (by Elizabethan standards) adaptations of older folk stories. He dramatized history and culture so as to present it to the lower classes - and bring them some of the education that the upper classes enjoyed, in an environment of entertainment. The audience of his plays by modern standards has now been reversed - they are now the theater of the educated middle classes, unapproachable by most. I'd like to think that Shakespeare would find satisfaction in the modernization his plays so as to return them to the common man.
But I do enjoy the beauty of his verse. Perhaps a compromise such as Baz Luhrmann's "Romeo and Juliet", in which the integrity of the language is preserved but transposed into a modern setting is the appropriate middle ground?

[Lord Ragnar]

The ideas that Shakespeare communicates are fairly mundane, but if they were reduced to their mundane nature they would loose their beauty.


I can't agree with this. Many of Shakespeare's views were highly progressive, often breaking down stereotype and prejudice in many forms.

[wittgenstein]

Othello! Othello is black in a play filled with white people, plus he is married to a white woman. It seems obvious to me that part of Iago's motivation was racism. However, Shakespeare doesn't make things so black and white. Iago might even lie to himself and tell himself that he is not a racist only an opportunist. I find it amazing that a lot of reviews never even mention the racist angle or even that Othello is black. I have my own theories about that. But I will not go into them now.

[avon]

I'm not convinced that Othello is explicitly about racism. Sure, there's commentary on the inherently racist nature of general society as a sub-theme ... but I feel that one must look for it to see it. Iago's motives are primarily jealous that find expression through certain 'racist' comments but his jealousy is motivated by his admiration for Othello. He only resorts to viewing Othello as a 'racial other' after his feeling snubbed. The extraordinary thing about Othello (the figure) is that he is noble and fair in a society that expects him to be a savage

[Rosicrucian]

There's a movie based on one of Shakespeare's play, Hamlet, I think. Starred Ethan Hawke and all the dialogues were in old English. that sounded really weird, I mean in a 21st century New York setup and all. All in all unwatchable.

[wittgenstein]

"Iago's motives are primarily jealous that find expression through certain 'racist' comments but his jealousy is motivated by his admiration for Othello."
Avon
Perhaps, its like what I have seen at work ( luckily rarely) people tell racist jokes etc and yet admire a particular black person. However, Othello crossed the line when he married a white woman. I am not saying that you are wrong. I am saying that Shakespeare makes his characters complex and they are not compelled by a single motive. Imagine a play written in the south before the Civil War where a black man marries a white woman. Isnt it obvious that the concept "racism" is explicitly explored?

[avon]

I am not saying that you are wrong.

Well, there wouldn't be any harm done if you were, would there?? ;):)

Isnt it obvious that the concept "racism" is explicitly explored?

No. Why would Iago be jealous of a man (jealous of his nobility, bravery, his wife etc. etc.) who was supposed to be racially inferior?? Also, isn't it Iago who is the villain of the work?? He's white.

[Edratman]

My wife and I have debated this quite often. I'd like to see Hamlet in modern english. She says that that would be wrong because it would lose the beauty of the language. However, I disagree. For example ," get thee to a nunnery." How many know old english and that its actually saying," get thee to a whore house." Anyway, can anyone tell me of a movie ( Hamlet) in modern english?
It seems that the elite wish to show their "superiority" rather then enjoy a work of art for its intrinsic worth. They take the joy out of a work of art so they can be seen as superior and like the emperor's new clothes ,only they can see the joy in it. The Sistine chapel was recently cleaned. Critics complained because the removal of the soot made it look like ( in their words) a cartoon. Well, thats the style Michelangelo choose. Also, Greek statues were painted so that they resembled a work by Madame Tussaud. Unfortunetly, the elite in their gardens have replica Greek statues that have lost the original intent and intensity. I find it ironic that the elite hate Rambo and yet praise Titus Andronicus.
"That which we call a rose. By any other name would smell as sweet." In other words its the signifieds that make Shakespeare great not the signifiers! More Shakespeare in modern english!!

I was the Technical Director for two community theater groups and helped the local high school drama club with their productions. Eventually, the time demands became too much of a burden about a decade ago, so I retired.

High School drama club directors love Shakesphere. I always disliked Shakesphere productions because I had difficulty understanding the archaic language. I know there are a lot of people who think it is beautifully written and phrased, but it didn't work for me.

I also once did a modernized version of Hamlet with the community group. That did not work for me either. The script was understandable, but it was too forced it had bad flow and continuity.

Call me a Philistine, but I am not a Shakesphere fan in any form.

[wittgenstein]

“Also, isn't it Iago who is the villain of the work?? He's white.”
Avon
Yes and yes. But I do not understand your point. One can be a villain, racist, jealous and white all at the same time.
I can see why it’s no problem for a racist to be jealous of a black man that has a white wife. His racism would even intensify his jealousy. Its not fair!!!! etc

[wittgenstein]

Human behavior and personalitiies are not logical. One can even hide things from oneself, ( People can repress, deny what they know about themselves) . Of course thats a paradox. People are paradoxes, in the literal sense!

[princessX]

Call me a Philistine, but I am not a Shakesphere fan in any form.

I'm not much of a Shakespeare fan either (he's partly responsible for the damage done to Richard III's reputation with his Tudor bias :mad: but that's for another thread). In our English class at school we studied "The Merchant of Venice" and "MacBeth" - what a chore!!! So much time was spent deciphering what the characters were actually saying and meaning that it was impossible to enjoy it. Maybe we were too young to appreciate it though. Wittgenstein, I understand where you're coming from in that it would maybe make his works more accessible, comprehensible and enjoyable to people, particularly the younger generations :)

[mlipo]

A crappy or dry teacher can ruin Shakespeare. And I would very definitely prefer to read or re-read a particular play before I see it performed.

[avon]

Yes and yes. But I do not understand your point. One can be a villain, racist, jealous and white all at the same time.
I can see why it’s no problem for a racist to be jealous of a black man that has a white wife. His racism would even intensify his jealousy. Its not fair!!!! etc

Well, to return to my original point, racism is not explicitly explored. This does not, however, mean that racism isn't something that can be found in the play. In fact, the more you look, the more you shall find. However, the main theme of the play (IMO) is how heroism and love are incompatible. If you want to seek out racism, then I'm sure it's in almost every play ever written. In fact, now that I think about it, I might even assert that Othello explores the Elizabethan fascination with purgation and anality (how often does Iago think about clysters??).

[Pedro]

Well, to return to my original point, racism is not explicitly explored. This does not, however, mean that racism isn't something that can be found in the play. In fact, the more you look, the more you shall find. However, the main theme of the play (IMO) is how heroism and love are incompatible. If you want to seek out racism, then I'm sure it's in almost every play ever written. In fact, now that I think about it, I might even assert that Othello explores the Elizabeth fascination with purgation and anality (how often does Iago think about clysters??).

Exactly. Racism is more of a concept introduced in the 19th century. Elizabethans had an abundance of reasons not to like someone. Race would be so limiting. However in Shakespeare we can find the theme of 'intolerance' repeated over and over. (He was against it.)
"The more you look..." How true. In fact I am getting the impression that 'racism' is a word that has been so over used that it no longer has real meaning. And if you don't agree with that then you are a racist.

[avon]

Indeed. The lens of PC casts a shadow of its own.


(Not that it is my intent to imply that shadows and the darkness of shadows are in any way negative. Nor do I intend being derogatory to anybody!!)

[Pedro]

Indeed. The lens of PC casts a shadow of its own.


(Not that it is my intent to imply that shadows and the darkness of shadows are in any way negative. Nor do I intend being derogatory to anybody!!)

But on the other hand if you are not irritating somebody you aren't human. :) OMG does that make PC-ers inhuman. :D

[Chookie]

But on the other hand if you are not irritating somebody you aren't human. :) OMG does that make PC-ers inhuman. :D

Wouldn't that mean the buggers were SUPER-human???:eek:

[Belisarius]

Exactly. Racism is more of a concept introduced in the 19th century. Elizabethans had an abundance of reasons not to like someone. Race would be so limiting. However in Shakespeare we can find the theme of 'intolerance' repeated over and over. (He was against it.)
"The more you look..." How true. In fact I am getting the impression that 'racism' is a word that has been so over used that it no longer has real meaning. And if you don't agree with that then you are a racist.

Elizabethans had a simple world view, you were either "English" (one of God's chosen people) or you were "Foreign" (and therefore legitimate prey).The former you tolerated grudgingly; the latter at best you made jokes about, at worst you robbed and killed. Religion was more a driving force of hatred than race.

[wittgenstein]

“Racism is more of a concept introduced in the 19th century”
Pedro
I’m confused. So black slaves were not considered inferior? Was it not the rationalization for their slavery?
I still go back to my original point. If a play were written in the south in 1850 and the central character was a black man married to a white woman, who would say, “ the play isn’t about racism?”

[Pedro]

I knew I was going to get in trouble for putting it that way. "more of a concept" was a phrase designed to give me some wiggle room. I agree completely with you. Slaves were considered inferior, many southerners even went so far as to find biblical justification for this peculiar institution. (i.e the mark of Cain.) When I wrote that phrase I was not thinking of the 'reality' but of the 'concept' the 'abstraction' that developed out of abolitionist thought. And of course your 1850 play would certainly be about racism. Maybe you momentarily forgot 1850 is the 19th century. If someone had written such a play I am sure no theater owner would have allowed its production. Just from fear of riots alone.

[Pedro]

Elizabethans had a simple world view, you were either "English" (one of God's chosen people) or you were "Foreign" (and therefore legitimate prey).The former you tolerated grudgingly; the latter at best you made jokes about, at worst you robbed and killed. Religion was more a driving force of hatred than race.

Very good point. The 'world view' is something that we often forget or are ignorant of. The world picture of the Middle Ages was that of an ordered universe arranged in a fixed system of hierarchies but modified by man's sin and the hope of his redemption. Everything had to be included and everything had to be made to fit and to connect. One could not read the Aeneid merely as an epic of Augustan Rome but had to fit it into the current theological scheme and interpret it as a allegory of the human soul from birth to death. Certain classes of people were associated with the planets. Like the stars that did not wander so were people fixed in the station of their life. The concept is usually refered to as the "Great Chain of Being." A lot of this survived into the Elizabethan age, but it's existence was by then precarious. Recent research has shown that the educated Elizabethan had plenty of text books in the vernacular instructing him in the Copernican astronomy, yet he was loth to upset the old order by applying his knowledge. And how did religion fit into this? Simple: everywhere.

[wittgenstein]

Are there any reviews of Othello from Shakespeare's time? And do they express shock at a black man being married to a white woman? I don't know for sure but I would think that England in the early 1600s would be very bigoted.
I used the 1800s analogy not because I thought that Shakespeare was an american that wrote during the Civil War, but because I wanted to use a scenario from a time that everyone is familiar with, in order to make it seem obvious ( perhaps wrongly so, but by using a familiar enviroment my contention is easier to see) that the central issue of the play is racism.

[wittgenstein]

Pedro, your seperation of concept from reality is in some ways legitimate. However, could not Iago be a racist and not know it? And could Shakespeare be exploring that point?

[wittgenstein]

I guess the best way to see if my 1800s analogy works is by answering the question," was England in the 1600s less bigoted towards blacks then the US in the 1800s?"

[wittgenstein]

I have met people that admire Obama, but if a black man married their white daughter their racism would be obvious. They of course would say," how can I be a racist since I admire a black man."

[wittgenstein]

I think my contention can be resolved by an answer to the following question. When Othello was performed for the first time was the audience shocked? If the answer is no then my contention is wrong. If yes then since Shakespeare was no dummy he would have known that they would have been shocked seeing a black man married to a white woman. It would seem very unlikely that Shakespeare would have used such a shocking scenario without a meaning behind it.

[avon]

I wonder if Shakespeare ever wrote about OCD??

[Pedro]

quote "I wonder if Shakespeare ever wrote about OCD??" unquote

Gentlewoman about Lady MacBeth: It is an accustomed action with her,to seem thus washing her hands: I have known her continue in
this a quarter of an hour.



However don't think I missed your point.

[avon]

:D Beautiful !!

[wittgenstein]

I really dont see how responding to criticisms of my argument is obsessive. If a point is made that one can challenge, I see nothing wrong with responding to it.

[avon]

I really dont see how responding to criticisms of my argument is obsessive. If a point is made that one can challenge, I see nothing wrong with responding to it.


Aw wittgenstein, buddy, it was a little bit of humour and no offence was meant.:) Nonetheless, if you were indeed offended, then I apologise!!

[wittgenstein]

No problem. But instead of obsessive why not "tenacious"? Ya thats the ticket! Tenacious disorder! Or perhaps "dogged" I like that too. It takes me back to my yard dog days.:D

[avon]

Yeah, why not 'tenacious'!!

[Marius]

I'm not particularly big on Shakespeare, or his play Othello for that matter, but wasn't Othello originally generally portrayed as being an Arab, and not "black" in the sense of what we think of as black people today?

I seem to remember something of the sort from my HS English class...

[wittgenstein]

"E.A.J. Honigmann, the editor of the Arden Shakespeare edition, concludes that Othello's race is ambiguous. Various uses of the word 'black' (for example, "Haply for I am black") are insufficient evidence, Honigmann argues, since 'black' could simply mean 'swarthy' to Elizabethans. Moreover, Iago twice uses the word 'Barbary' or 'Barbarian' to refer to Othello, seemingly referring to the Barbary coast inhabited by the "tawny" Moors. Roderigo calls Othello 'the thicklips', which seems to refer to European conceptions of Sub-Saharan African physiognomy, but Honigmann counters that, arguing that because these comments are all insults, they need not be taken literally. Furthermore, Honigmann wonders whether the ambassador of the Arab King of Barbary, who stayed with his retinue in London in 1600 for several months and occasioned much discussion, might have inspired Shakespeare's play, written only a few years afterwards.
However, Michael Neill, editor of the Oxford Shakespeare edition, disagrees, arguing that the earliest external references to Othello's colour Thomas_Rymer's 1693 critique of the play, and the 1709 engraving in Nicholas Rowe's edition of Shakespeare) assume him to be a black man, while the earliest known North African interpretation was Edmund Kean's production of 1814. Modern-day readers and theatre directors now normally lean towards the "black" interpretation, and North African Othellos are rare.
From
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:ZnBU_pG8cecJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Othello+%22othello%27s+race%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us (http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:ZnBU_pG8cecJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Othello+%22othello%27s+race%22&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

[wittgenstein]

Also this site, tho partial is interesting,

http://www.oppapers.com/essays/Iagos-Evilness-Vs-Othellos-Race/143502 (http://www.oppapers.com/essays/Iagos-Evilness-Vs-Othellos-Race/143502)

[wittgenstein]

Just a speculation... It makes sense that Othello would become an Arab. How could Othello be portrayed as black in the pre Civil War south?