Warning lights at the National Theatre by Griselda Heppel
 |
| The National Theatre Photo by M N on Unsplash |
Half-way
through last month, an announcement came from Rufus Norris, director of the
National Theatre (The Times, 14th June), that sent my heart into
freefall. No longer would the Theatre put on “fairly straight adaptations” of
European classics, as it seemed these only appealed to ‘theatre aficionados’
(people who go to the theatre?). Instead, historic plays would be remodelled
to appeal to a ‘broad audience’ (ie the general public) who apparently have
demanded that, for instance:
1. Ibsen’s Peer Gynt
should morph into David Hare’s Peter Gynt
2. Chekhov’s Three
Sisters become a new play by Inua Ellams set in 1967 Nigeria
3. Sheridan’s The Rivals be rewritten by
Oliver Chris and Richard Bean as Jack Absolute Flies Again.
Really?
The general public has demanded this? How does Norris know?
 |
| Goldoni's original 1746 play |
 |
| 2011 updated version by Richard Bean |
It
all started with the huge success of One Man Two Guv’nors (2011), a new
version of Goldoni’s The Servant of Two Masters, created by Richard
Bean. The 1746 farce had to be rewritten as no one found its quickfire humour
funny anymore (actually, they do), and slowing the pace to a standstill to
allow James Corden’s character to ‘improvise’ ad nauseam about sandwiches was
apparently much funnier (it wasn’t).
 |
| The Light Princess - a fairy tale by George MacDonald |
 |
| Treasure Island by R L Stevenson |
But
the production proved a hit, encouraging the NT to ‘update’ other classics: turning
Jim Hawkins, the hero of Treasure Island, into a girl, and creating a Christmas
show called The Light Princess which, while grudgingly crediting the Victorian writer George MacDonald for the original idea, ended up telling a
different story altogether.
Gradually, over the last few years, new season’s brochures
began to describe more and more plays as ‘a reimagining of....’ (a warning light if
ever there was one). Meanwhile wonderful, traditional productions of
‘unimproved’ plays like Hedda Gabler, She Stoops to Conquer, Man and
Superman and several by Terence Rattigan gave reassurance that, while a few
might get the ‘updating’ treatment, the classics in general were safe with the
National Theatre.
Not
anymore. From now on, we can’t be sure that, for any famous theatre piece put
on at the NT, the words spoken are actually what the playwright wrote. Norris
has effectively given the NT leave to update all plays, taking into account the
sensibilities of our current age.
To
be fair, he’s not alone in this. For its 2018 Christmas Show, the Royal Shakespeare Company put on A Christmas Carol, ‘adapted’ by David Edgar; and in his
current production of A Midsummer Night’s Dream at the Bridge Theatre,
Nick Hytner has swapped Titania’s and Oberon’s lines, thereby making Oberon lovesick
for Bottom the Weaver. Ye gods.
 |
| Nahum Tate - anonymous engraving, 1685 |
The
funny thing is, we’ve been here before. Nahum Tate, anyone? The 17th
century poet and dramatist is now chiefly remembered for his excruciating
‘improvement’ of Shakespeare’s King Lear. Deeming the tragedy too harsh,
he rewrote it to provide a happy ending, with Lear restored to life and health
and Cordelia marrying Edgar, who exults that ‘truth and virtue shall at last
succeed.’ We laugh about it now; but because Tate’s The History of King Lear
(1681) suited the sentimental mood that blighted drama for much of the
following century, it chased Shakespeare’s play off the stage for – wait for it
– more than 150 years. Not until 1845 was King Lear performed
again in its original Shakespeare text.
By
chopping and changing plays written generations ago to suit the sensibilities
of our age, these directors and writers are doing nothing new. Whether they’ll
wish to go down in theatre history as so many 21st century’s Nahum
Tates is another matter.
Comments
On the other hand, they do very well indeed with many of the little-known plays they put on, and I was completely gripped by a brilliant production of 'Touching the Void' a few months ago, so maybe it is worth it for these.
Several years ago, I was invited to the University of Rhode Island as a visiting prof and part of the deal was that I provide translations of 3 Molière plays of my choice. They'd be performed by students of the drama department and I was to direct one of them myself. I chose 3 very different plays - a farce, a prose comedy of manners and a verse comedy.
As you probably know, unlike Shakespeare's, Molière's comedies are still funny so there was little need to 'update' his gags. However, the director of the prose comedy, (Les Précieuses Ridicules, which satirises pretentiousness in taste and language) realised that it would have more impact (and get bigger laughs) if she set it in contemporary Providence (Rhode Island’s capital) and made its characters members of a specific social layer renowned for their intellectually aspirational clumsiness. This required altering some of my translations by using a terminology which clearly identified its targets and the comedy was more relevant, and funnier, as a result. So mea culpa, but unashamedly so.
I think I have to side with Bill here -- I've no doubt there have been some dreadful updates, but everything can be done well or done badly. Take the film Clueless, a clever, witty updating of Jane Austen's 'Emma' to an American High School.
But even so... Decades ago, I went to see the Birmingham Rep's Christmas Show. That year it was 'The Servant of Two Masters.' It was brilliant, funny and much enjoyed by the audience. Full house. No updating: just translation.
Using classic stories as inspiration to write a witty, modern version of the same themes is a different matter because you’re writing a new story, in your language and with your ideas (like Umberto, I’ve done this myself, with children’s books based on Dante’s Inferno and the Faust legend). Some readers will,recognise references to the great work inspiring it; others won’t and will just enjoy the story for itself. I loved Clueless and Tamara Drew; spotting Jane Austen’s Emma behind the first and Thomas Hardy’s Far From the Madding Crowd behind the second added to the fun but the films stood up by themselves.
And Bill - WHAT was that you said? Shakespeare’s comedies no longer funny? the rude mechanicals play in Misummer Night’s Dream, the hilarious confusion of the Comedy of Errors, Dogberry in Much Ado About Nothing wishing to confer all his tediousness on to the Prince, the laundry basket in the Merry Wives of Windsor - do none of these raise a ghost of a smile? Capons at Dawn it is!