What I read
In "Why Margot Robbie is taking on Shakespeare", Steven Macintosh tells us that although there is disagreement from academics to the idea that Shakespeare's plays, where the cultural limitations of the time are reflected in women characters speaking far less than the male leads, are told from an exclusively male perspective, they welcome Margot Robbie's coming TV series that will explore the untold stories of female characters in several of his plays (2018).
___________________________________
My response
Putting aside such interesting recent topics in the BBC News as the alien-like mummy and Poland's morally wrong laws against easy abortion for women, this article in the entertainment section raised a couple of points that interested me. First, I've loved Shakespeare since I was introduced to his violent, action packed plays and poetry full of murder, rape, sex, the supernatural, betrayal, and other elements that still excite video-gamers today. Macbeth, which was my introduction to Shakespeare's violent world, is the bloody story of a greedy nobleman who kills his king so he can take the throne for himself. And it opens with witches singing around their boiling pot as they throw in bat's wings and other gross things to make their magic, or perhaps just supper from the resources available.
As I read Macintosh's report, I was also pleasantly surprised to see academics largely agreeing for once. We don't expect academics to agree, since progress is largely the result of disagreement with the past and present ideas, but in this case, the competing academics did agree that Shakespeare's women are strong figures whose voices are not weak or turned into male imitators. In Macbeth, for example, it is his ambitious wife who actually drives her husband to kill the old king so that she can become queen. The way Shakespeare develops her character is a powerful female story. But my favourite play in high school was Antony and Cleopatra. Antony's name might come first in the title, but it's really the story of the Egyptian queen Cleopatra seducing the Roman leader, which brings about the destruction of herself and her ensnared mate as Egypt is reduced to an imperial province of the Roman Empire. Had the sea battle of Actium turned out differently and Cleopatra gone on to reign not only over Egypt but to also exert great influence over Rome, what might the world be like today?
But much as I love the original Shakespeare, I also like the idea that his works should be adapted and re-purposed by modern artists. That makes the ideas more accessible to modern audiences, and creates new works of art that build on the old, just as modern science is built on the often discredited theories of earlier scientists: we would not have had Einstein without Newton, and scientists know that the things they are sure about today won't all survive critical review in the future.
As I read Macintosh's report, I was also pleasantly surprised to see academics largely agreeing for once. We don't expect academics to agree, since progress is largely the result of disagreement with the past and present ideas, but in this case, the competing academics did agree that Shakespeare's women are strong figures whose voices are not weak or turned into male imitators. In Macbeth, for example, it is his ambitious wife who actually drives her husband to kill the old king so that she can become queen. The way Shakespeare develops her character is a powerful female story. But my favourite play in high school was Antony and Cleopatra. Antony's name might come first in the title, but it's really the story of the Egyptian queen Cleopatra seducing the Roman leader, which brings about the destruction of herself and her ensnared mate as Egypt is reduced to an imperial province of the Roman Empire. Had the sea battle of Actium turned out differently and Cleopatra gone on to reign not only over Egypt but to also exert great influence over Rome, what might the world be like today?
But much as I love the original Shakespeare, I also like the idea that his works should be adapted and re-purposed by modern artists. That makes the ideas more accessible to modern audiences, and creates new works of art that build on the old, just as modern science is built on the often discredited theories of earlier scientists: we would not have had Einstein without Newton, and scientists know that the things they are sure about today won't all survive critical review in the future.
___________________________________
My question
What classics of your culture have been turned into modern stories to explore new perspectives that might not have been possible earlier? Do you like them?
___________________________________
Reference
- Macintosh, S. (2018, March 25). Why Margot Robbie is taking on Shakespeare. BBC News. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-42418367
No comments:
Post a Comment
Before you click the blue "Publish" button for your first comment on a post, check ✔ the "Notify me" box. You want to know when your classmates contribute to a discussion you have joined.
A thoughtful response should normally mean writing for five to ten minutes. After you state your main idea, some details, explanation, examples or other follow up will help your readers.
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.