The image above this sentence would (and does) make a Shakespeare scholar
cringe, since it erroneously yokes Hamlet’s “To be or not to be speech”
with the scene in which he picks up the jester’s skull and reminisces upon Poor
Yorick. In actuality the speech and the skull happen nearly two acts apart in
the play. Yet, I suspect that this image or its description would look (or
sound) accurate to most people mainly familiar with Hamlet (or Shakespeare)
as a cultural icon from a distant past. Similarly, you are likely to find a
plethora of images depicting Shakespeare himself holding the skull, perhaps
even reciting the mislocated lines. It is perhaps the clearest example in all
of Shakespeare of the process by which a collective intellectual psyche amalgamates
Shakespearean tropes to form a skewed visual emblem that subsequently gains
cultural significance.
But is it wrong?
As mentioned above, there is no scene in Hamlet in which the
melancholic prince holds up a skull and delivers his most famous lines. Yet, all
of its elements do come into play. The image somehow manages to map out the
intricate ballet of death, theatricality, existentialism and tragedy that stand
at the core of Shakespeare’s play. The example speaks to the unbelievable power
of adaptation (indeed, of mutation) that Shakespearean drama displays in remaining
in a state of constant cultural production. The works, their actors, and themes,
manage to connect and stay with us, even for those not familiar with Shakespeare
from a literary standpoint. My father has never read Shakespeare, but when I mentioned
that I was writing on The Merchant of
Venice,[1]
he instantly referred to Shylock asking for a pound of Antonio’s flesh.[2]
A similar channelling occurs (to different degrees) with Romeo and Juliet’s balcony scene, Macbeth’s witches, or even the fairies, Bottom and
the Ass head in A Midsummer Night’s
Dream. To go back to Hamlet’s
example, nothing stops a director adapting ther play to ask his or her Hamlet
to hold a skull while delivering the speech. If the image already holds cultural
significance, why discredit it?
But is it Shakespeare? The world of adaption,
revision, reappropriation, hinges on a precarious balance between fidelity to a
given work and the innovative spirit to take it into new and previously
unimagined directions. Kurosawa’s The
Bad Sleep, Sons of Anarchy, and the
Simpsons’ Hamlet all perform that balance astoundingly well and
indeed, can be enjoyed without any prior of Shakespeare or his plays.[3]
Even Julie Taymor’s The
Tempest, which flips the script considerably by
having a female Prospera, still manages to capture the character dynamics and power
relations of the original playtext. Where I am inclined to protest too much is
when adaptations seemingly veer away from a character for the purpose of shock
value and creative revisionism (wouldn’t it be even cooler if…). I was at a conference
in the spring where colleagues were discussing a Titus Andronicus adaptation in which Tamora, upon being informed of the content of the
meat pies served to her by Titus, stares at him and takes another bite. Yes,
that probably made for a surprising, gasp inducing moment, but it seems to go
against the play in several aspects, devaluing her initial plea to Titus to
save family members at the start of the play while also downplaying Titus’
breakdown dur9ing the climax.[4]
Then again, four centuries after Shakespeare’s
death, I suppose people are free to do what they wish with the works when
adapting them. Hamlet can hold the skull, Romeo can find Juliet on Tinder, and I
can groan and shake my fist and tell those kids to get off my lawn and that
this is not Shakespeare. Then again, I am basing my critique of them on what I think is Shakespeare, and how am I to know that I’m right?[5]
Maybe I should relish in the fact that, four hundred years later, people who
have never read the works still know about Hamlet, a skull, and theatrical gravitas.
Perhaps, when it comes to Shakespeare, there are actually more things in our dreams,
than in heaven and earth.
Excitement:
Halloween is fast approaching and Emily and I are gearing up for our
horror movie marathon (complete with candy and Schwartz’s smoke meat… don’t judge!)
I love this time of year, and we have a nice line-up of films (and Doctor Who
episodes!) ready to go. I look forward to crossing off Ringu from my personal
horror film bucket list (I’ve only seen the American remake). Above all else though,
as we do every year, it will probably end with Wallace and Gromit: The Curse
of the Were Rabbit. Fabulous animation film. Get yourself a kid and see it![6]
What about Shakespeare in this time of terror and monstrosities? Well
tune in next week…
Smooshy:
This is random, specific, and perhaps
pointless, but as a teacher, I am tired of seeing this sequence play out in any
movie, TV show, or sketch that contains a classroom scene: the class is
listening (or not) to a teacher lecturing on who knows what, the bell cuts him
or her off and students rush out as the teacher yells outs reading assignments
and reminds them to learn a life lesson or two along the way.[7]
Do these teachers never plan a lecture/lesson? You know how much time you have
and even if a class is spirited and gets off track, you still take a couple
minutes at the end to cool things down, recap, and deliver assignments! Smooshy
to you media representation of unprepared professors!
Shout out:
Shout outs all around:
Shout out to friends Frederik Byrn Køhlert for nearing the end of
the dissertation marathon (submitted his intro this week!), Stephen Wittek for
securing a book contract for his study of early modern news circulation (can’t
wait to read it!) and to Susan Harlan for braving the streets of New Orleans
while attending the 16th Century Society Conference and flooding my
Facebook with amazing pictures. For those of you unfamiliar with Susan remember
one thing: she has style to burn!
Till next time!
If you prick us, do we not bleed?
If you tickled us---stop it that tickles
hihihihih.
[1] There is a wonderfully understated reference to such
a process in The Sopranos, where Tony makes a comment to his friend (and
moneylender) Hesch that suggests that without any knowledge of Shakespeare’s
play, he somehow associates Jewish, moneylending, and performance. It’s as
brilliant as it is offensive.
[2] Joe Bidden’s recent blunder regarding his use of “shylock”
reminds us of the dangers of this cultural reappropriation,
[3] There are, of course millions of other examples. The
most rudimentary Google search for “Hamlet” returns nearly 8 million examples
of images, videos, articles ready to assault our senses with Shakespeare’s
story. To be fair, the most rudimentary Google search for “Yorkshire pudding”
yields almost 2 million hits, while looking up “beanie hats” floods the curious
researcher with 43 million web links. A search engine alone cannot act as an
accurate barometer to gage the power of Hamlet’s virality.
[4] What really works well in that scene is that Titus
never waits for Tamora to react to the news he delivers, killing her instantly.
It is one of many scenes in Shakespeare where he purposely frustrates the
audience.
[5] Although, to be fair, it is my blog, so I guess I’m
right. You don’t like it? Go away! Scratch that, I need the readership. Please stick
around.
[6] Upon advice from my legal team, I must make it clear
that The Virtual Whirligig Blog does not endorse the kidnapping of random
children simply to watch a Claymation motion picture.
No comments:
Post a Comment