Have you ever noticed how some people apparently just can’t bear to leave a work of art alone; they just HAVE to do something to it in order to be happy? Now I have to admit that this often annoys me, sometimes quite a lot. If you don’t care for someone else’s work, be it literary, visual, musical, whatever, that’s okay, it’s even your right. But, changing it can very quickly get into questionable territory, especially if you don’t have permission to do so. I find this sort of thing acceptable pretty much only when it’s what I would call a “loving parody,” or, if the changes can be reasonably argued to be an honest attempt to provide some sort of different perspective, or point of view, as in a “cover” of a popular song.
This sort of thing probably bothers me the most, when it’s done with theatre pieces. No, I am not such a “purist” as to insist that “cutting” a script is unacceptable, nor is placing a play in an historical period other than the one used by the author, nor using what is referred to as “non-traditional” casting (casting without consideration of skin color, body shape, sex or gender), provided that it doesn’t change the meaning of the play! I know some will disagree with me, but there are cases where this form of casting seems to me to be a violation the playwright’s ownership of HIS/HER script, even if the play IS out of copyright. I have heard, for example, that the Samuel Beckett Estate would not give permission for a proposed production of Waiting for Godot starring Ian McKellen and Judy Dench, although they approved of Patrick Stewart teaming with McKellen (I KNOW that, I SAW that production!). I assume that they didn’t want what Beckett conceived of as a male character to be played by a female. Personally, having seen an all female amateur production of this play, I think I understand their thinking. I felt it just didn’t “work” all that well, and suspect that it might well be even less successful with a “mixed sex” cast. To me at least, the use of such practices simply introduces issues into the production which are unnecessary and unrelated to the author’s intent.
Somehow, I find making Hamlet into a struggle for the leadership of “The Denmark Corporation” (a business) in the present day of much less importance (and interest), than having the same sort of struggle involve the fate of an entire country, even set in the historic past. Having a mixed colored cast for Othello looses something if Desdemona’s father is Black, she’s Oriental, and Othello is Caucasian. I always figured that part of the issue of the play was that Othello was of a race different from the rest of the people (or was at least some form of “OTHER”) and the larger group of characters (the Venetians) were having difficulty dealing with a relationship between him and a prominent member of THEIR group (Desdemona). The same is true of saying you are doing Romeo and Juliet (even calling it “William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet”, which is not the original title, but seems to be just using Shakespeare’s name as advertising), when you have chosen to set it amid the gun-toting, “gangland” struggles in the hip, modern suburb of Verona Beach, with the feuding families being “gangland” business rivals. I don’t see how that can be seen as true to Shakespeare’s vision, or the tradition of his time, or his intent.
On the other hand, I thought that Joss Whedon’s contemporary setting for Much Ado About Nothing probably worked as well as Kenneth Branagh’s, 17-18th (?) Century one. And, I’ll be frank, I liked them both, a lot! While one COULD quibble about some of the specifics of their interpretations, I thought both good and valid.
So, I really don’t object to adaptations and I’ve been involved in a good number of them, (including a post-apocalyptic Romeo and Juliet which, I thought, was quite close to what Shakespeare may have had in mind). I would suggest that, even with the change in historic locale, it seemed to me that the basic vision for the show captured the author’s intent quite well. I think that “doing” a playwright’s play obligates us to at least try to interpret it in a fashion which is sensitive to the author’s vision, even as we adapt it. If we want to do OUR OWN play, let’s have the honesty to admit that OURS is “based on” the original author’s work, and not try to pretend that it’s the original.
Music, is much harder for me to address, as I am, really, not all that knowledgeable about it. I do understand that, sometimes, composers will have fun with someone else’s themes, etc., and I admit to enjoying a CD we have of popular Christmas songs entitled “What If Mozart Wrote ‘I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus’,” on which a string quartet performs some popular Christmas songs in a style reminiscent of Mozart’s. I also have enjoyed The Swingle Singers versions of more “serious” music using human voices as the sole instrumentation. They are, obviously, having fun, while, in my opinion, showing respect for the original work.
I confess, however, that, I get a bit upset when people feel they can “rip off” works of visual art, especially for commercial purposes, but I CAN also enjoy a clever adaptation, or parody, when it’s done in good taste and seems to demonstrate respect and admiration for the original.
I saw a piece on PBS a while back about Edward Hopper, which I enjoyed, although I was annoyed, as I frequently am, by “art critics” apparently believing that for one to enjoy a work of art, it needs to be explained by an “expert.” While admitting that greater knowledge CAN lead to greater appreciation, it’s always bothered me that it doesn’t seem to be enough for one to just like what they like. For many “critics;” we, “non-educated,” people have to have the work explained to us, so we will understand why OUR simple enjoyment isn’t “right,” or “adequate,” if we don’t like it for the reasons some critic says we should. I consider that to be a form of “pseudo-artistic fascism.” MY taste is MINE, I don’t care what YOU think, especially if we can’t discuss our different likes without you insisting on telling me that I’m “wrong!”
A case in point; I have always been fond of Hopper’s Nighthawks, which is located in The Art Institute of Chicago and I have seen it there a number of times, in addition to frequent reproductions. You know the painting I mean:
This sort of thing probably bothers me the most, when it’s done with theatre pieces. No, I am not such a “purist” as to insist that “cutting” a script is unacceptable, nor is placing a play in an historical period other than the one used by the author, nor using what is referred to as “non-traditional” casting (casting without consideration of skin color, body shape, sex or gender), provided that it doesn’t change the meaning of the play! I know some will disagree with me, but there are cases where this form of casting seems to me to be a violation the playwright’s ownership of HIS/HER script, even if the play IS out of copyright. I have heard, for example, that the Samuel Beckett Estate would not give permission for a proposed production of Waiting for Godot starring Ian McKellen and Judy Dench, although they approved of Patrick Stewart teaming with McKellen (I KNOW that, I SAW that production!). I assume that they didn’t want what Beckett conceived of as a male character to be played by a female. Personally, having seen an all female amateur production of this play, I think I understand their thinking. I felt it just didn’t “work” all that well, and suspect that it might well be even less successful with a “mixed sex” cast. To me at least, the use of such practices simply introduces issues into the production which are unnecessary and unrelated to the author’s intent.
Somehow, I find making Hamlet into a struggle for the leadership of “The Denmark Corporation” (a business) in the present day of much less importance (and interest), than having the same sort of struggle involve the fate of an entire country, even set in the historic past. Having a mixed colored cast for Othello looses something if Desdemona’s father is Black, she’s Oriental, and Othello is Caucasian. I always figured that part of the issue of the play was that Othello was of a race different from the rest of the people (or was at least some form of “OTHER”) and the larger group of characters (the Venetians) were having difficulty dealing with a relationship between him and a prominent member of THEIR group (Desdemona). The same is true of saying you are doing Romeo and Juliet (even calling it “William Shakespeare’s Romeo + Juliet”, which is not the original title, but seems to be just using Shakespeare’s name as advertising), when you have chosen to set it amid the gun-toting, “gangland” struggles in the hip, modern suburb of Verona Beach, with the feuding families being “gangland” business rivals. I don’t see how that can be seen as true to Shakespeare’s vision, or the tradition of his time, or his intent.
On the other hand, I thought that Joss Whedon’s contemporary setting for Much Ado About Nothing probably worked as well as Kenneth Branagh’s, 17-18th (?) Century one. And, I’ll be frank, I liked them both, a lot! While one COULD quibble about some of the specifics of their interpretations, I thought both good and valid.
So, I really don’t object to adaptations and I’ve been involved in a good number of them, (including a post-apocalyptic Romeo and Juliet which, I thought, was quite close to what Shakespeare may have had in mind). I would suggest that, even with the change in historic locale, it seemed to me that the basic vision for the show captured the author’s intent quite well. I think that “doing” a playwright’s play obligates us to at least try to interpret it in a fashion which is sensitive to the author’s vision, even as we adapt it. If we want to do OUR OWN play, let’s have the honesty to admit that OURS is “based on” the original author’s work, and not try to pretend that it’s the original.
Music, is much harder for me to address, as I am, really, not all that knowledgeable about it. I do understand that, sometimes, composers will have fun with someone else’s themes, etc., and I admit to enjoying a CD we have of popular Christmas songs entitled “What If Mozart Wrote ‘I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus’,” on which a string quartet performs some popular Christmas songs in a style reminiscent of Mozart’s. I also have enjoyed The Swingle Singers versions of more “serious” music using human voices as the sole instrumentation. They are, obviously, having fun, while, in my opinion, showing respect for the original work.
I confess, however, that, I get a bit upset when people feel they can “rip off” works of visual art, especially for commercial purposes, but I CAN also enjoy a clever adaptation, or parody, when it’s done in good taste and seems to demonstrate respect and admiration for the original.
I saw a piece on PBS a while back about Edward Hopper, which I enjoyed, although I was annoyed, as I frequently am, by “art critics” apparently believing that for one to enjoy a work of art, it needs to be explained by an “expert.” While admitting that greater knowledge CAN lead to greater appreciation, it’s always bothered me that it doesn’t seem to be enough for one to just like what they like. For many “critics;” we, “non-educated,” people have to have the work explained to us, so we will understand why OUR simple enjoyment isn’t “right,” or “adequate,” if we don’t like it for the reasons some critic says we should. I consider that to be a form of “pseudo-artistic fascism.” MY taste is MINE, I don’t care what YOU think, especially if we can’t discuss our different likes without you insisting on telling me that I’m “wrong!”
A case in point; I have always been fond of Hopper’s Nighthawks, which is located in The Art Institute of Chicago and I have seen it there a number of times, in addition to frequent reproductions. You know the painting I mean:
I admit that I can’t really explain WHY I like it, I just do. It makes me have an emotional response to the situation, some sense of understanding these people, late at night, in a neighborhood diner, downtown, somewhere. I’ve been there, I understand. It resonates with me.
When this piece was being discussed on the PBS show, however, the “critic” went on about it being fascinating because of all the things “wrong” with it, which aroused my interest. The comment which I remember most clearly as standing out to me was her insistence on asking, “Where’s the door?”, as if its lack was of considerable importance. I confess that I had never really thought about it, I just assumed that it didn’t show in Hopper’s painting because he chose not to include it, and wondered, what difference did it make anyway? Its lack certainly never implied to me that the people shown were somehow “trapped” in this situation, as this “critic” suggested. When I thought about it, I concluded that I had simply assumed that it was probably out of the picture to the right (which seemed like a logical location for a door) and that Hopper didn’t show it because his focus was on the people.
Apparently someone else thought so too, as they did a “take-off” of the work showing the door and indicating what Hopper might have chosen to include (and might have excluded). Here it is:
When this piece was being discussed on the PBS show, however, the “critic” went on about it being fascinating because of all the things “wrong” with it, which aroused my interest. The comment which I remember most clearly as standing out to me was her insistence on asking, “Where’s the door?”, as if its lack was of considerable importance. I confess that I had never really thought about it, I just assumed that it didn’t show in Hopper’s painting because he chose not to include it, and wondered, what difference did it make anyway? Its lack certainly never implied to me that the people shown were somehow “trapped” in this situation, as this “critic” suggested. When I thought about it, I concluded that I had simply assumed that it was probably out of the picture to the right (which seemed like a logical location for a door) and that Hopper didn’t show it because his focus was on the people.
Apparently someone else thought so too, as they did a “take-off” of the work showing the door and indicating what Hopper might have chosen to include (and might have excluded). Here it is:
What Hopper actually painted is indicated by the black outline. Somehow, I think he was right in not bothering with the rest of the view, if that, actually, was it. Of course, Hopper said that he “made up” the painting based, loosely, on a diner in Greenwich Village, near where he lived, that he didn’t just “paint what he saw,” he painted what he wanted to paint. I would suggest that this, revised version of Hopper’s work makes the painting much more about the building, whereas the original is, at least mostly, about the people. I think the difference is of considerable significance. I like the original better, no matter what the “critics” might think.
Still, as I have indicated, I’m not totally against adaptation for a useful point. I ran across THIS version during the recent COVID pandemic, which amused me, while suggesting that “social distancing” might not be a bad idea under the circumstances.
Still, as I have indicated, I’m not totally against adaptation for a useful point. I ran across THIS version during the recent COVID pandemic, which amused me, while suggesting that “social distancing” might not be a bad idea under the circumstances.
It would help if the copy were better, I suppose, but the point does seem appropriate for the times, as does this, second, “pandemic” version, which takes Hopper’s view and extends it into a “possible” future, and a not very pleasant one.
Speaking of possible future versions, I (it’s amazing what you can find, if you look a bit) found this one somewhere on the internet, which suggests another, much more amusing possibility for Hopper’s scene “A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away. . . .”
I also discovered THIS variation, which I thought amusing for Christmastime.
As a final thought, I confess to finding THIS, contemporary version to have SOME appeal,
but I still like the original much better, as this one seems, perhaps, to put more emphasis on a depressing mood. I think it lacks something of the sense of hope I get from Hopper’s original. This one, just seems to be a bit bleak, to me.
See, although I confess to not having a lot of sympathy for critics (who often seem to be too “snooty” to suit me), I’m not above having some “fun” with art. Shakespeare doesn’t HAVE to always be done in Elizabethan, “original” practices (which WOULD be outlawed, at least in some places, today as “drag” shows, after all). Paintings, all forms of art, I would suggest, CAN be played with (although just sticking funny eyeglasses on portraits and having Mona Lisa smoking a cigarette seems MUCH more like just stupid vandalism, than even, mildly, amusing satire).
I think that ART should be enjoyed for whatever you get from it, not used as a means to try to prove that “I’m BETTER than you are, because I understand the art, while you are just a foolish, insensitive peon!” I think most good artists really WANT their works to be enjoyed and would be happy to see their work appreciated, even if that appreciation might lead to affectionate copies, adaptations, and variations.
I’ll be back in a couple of weeks. In the meantime, stop by an art museum, read a book, take in some sort of play, movie, or concert, if you can. You just might find it enjoyable, amusing and/or inspirational. I find it’s usually worth the trip!
🖖🏼 LLAP,
Dr. B
See, although I confess to not having a lot of sympathy for critics (who often seem to be too “snooty” to suit me), I’m not above having some “fun” with art. Shakespeare doesn’t HAVE to always be done in Elizabethan, “original” practices (which WOULD be outlawed, at least in some places, today as “drag” shows, after all). Paintings, all forms of art, I would suggest, CAN be played with (although just sticking funny eyeglasses on portraits and having Mona Lisa smoking a cigarette seems MUCH more like just stupid vandalism, than even, mildly, amusing satire).
I think that ART should be enjoyed for whatever you get from it, not used as a means to try to prove that “I’m BETTER than you are, because I understand the art, while you are just a foolish, insensitive peon!” I think most good artists really WANT their works to be enjoyed and would be happy to see their work appreciated, even if that appreciation might lead to affectionate copies, adaptations, and variations.
I’ll be back in a couple of weeks. In the meantime, stop by an art museum, read a book, take in some sort of play, movie, or concert, if you can. You just might find it enjoyable, amusing and/or inspirational. I find it’s usually worth the trip!
🖖🏼 LLAP,
Dr. B
RSS Feed