Artsculture

Really, Why Is Shakespeare Still Selling?

Blasphemous question, I know. But help me here. Why aren't more bored by the Bard?

By Steve Burgess, 25 Aug 2011, TheTyee.ca

Shakespeare with sunglasses

Never out of fashion, he keeps pulling them in.

Text size:

Rate this:

Login/Register

Related

Long before the sun sets on a beautiful summer evening in Vancouver's Vanier Park, Bard on the Beach is already underway. Tonight it's The Merchant of Venice on the main stage and Richard III in their smaller venue, but there's plenty of pre-show activity. Concessions are bustling and, in satellite tents, dinner service is finishing up for corporate clients treating staff and guests to an evening of cultural entertainment. Twenty-two years into its life, Christopher Gaze has transformed Bard on the Beach into a remarkable success. It's really quite a puzzle.

That's not to disparage the efforts of Gaze and his team -- quite the opposite. They have defied the odds to create a durable theatrical enterprise that has enriched the Vancouver art scene and provided invaluable opportunities for the local thespian community. It's just surprising, is all. By rights Shakespeare ought to be a very tough sell in the 21st century. And The Merchant of Venice has always been the toughest bauble to peddle.

In some ways The Merchant of Venice feels remarkably contemporary. With its blend of frothy romantic mix-up and life-or-death drama, it's a template for the modern date movie. And if your date hates Jews, all the better.

Shakespeare's plays are always lauded for their timeless quality, which is why Shylock makes so many Shakespeareans squirm. Any production of Merchant must tiptoe over the same eggshells, making sure that Shylock is sympathetically portrayed to balance his dramatic role as the unchristian villain. (Casting is crucial, and Bard on the Beach's Richard Newman does the role credit.) Defenders of the play and its author point to the famous, plaintive speech in which the Jewish moneylender pleads for the humanity of his despised minority -- "If you prick us, do we not bleed?" There's little doubt that Shakespeare was ahead of his time with his well-rounded and sometimes sympathetic portrayal of Shylock.

But there's only so much we can expect of Shakespeare. The man never knew he would someday come to be the global face of the humanities. He just knew he had an audience to please. And for me the proof of the play's attitude comes at the end of the trial, with Shylock's forced conversion to Christianity. No late 16th-century crowd would have groaned aloud at the hateful injustice of it, as the Vanier Park audience did. The scene was surely intended as a crowd-pleaser -- the long-anticipated payoff when the villain finally gets his deliciously just desserts (delivered, tellingly, by the wise, virtuous, utterly un-villainous Portia). It was only in the early 19th century that actor Edmund Keane is said to have played the first sympathetic version of Shylock -- previously the role was frequently cast with clowns.

Huh? What did they say?

Merchant may be the trickiest of Shakespeare's plays for a modern audiences. But unless your scholastic studies are fresh in your mind or you are a lifelong admirer of the Globe's resident playwright, any Shakespeare play can be a grind. Saying so will not win you points at a dinner party or literary bun toss. But how could it be otherwise? These are plays written in a language only half understood by untutored 21st century audiences -- and the necessary tutoring is nowhere near as common now as it was a half-century ago.

Universities in North America have moved away from mandatory study of the Shakespearean canon, part of a general dethroning of Western literary tradition. That's a three-hour argument in itself, but the upshot is that knowledge of Shakespeare is no longer a given for post-secondary graduates. I suspect there is a sizable minority of university students whose clearest knowledge of Shakespeare is that he slept with Gwyneth Paltrow.

Movies have arguably become the primary Shakespearean medium for mass audiences (Shakespeare in Love not included). Cinema allows greater visual freedom to demonstrate and underline the meaning of Shakespeare's words and amplify the action of his plays. Some movies and plays take the West Side Story approach and hang a new work on the Shakespearean frame. That can work but it can also fall flat -- Shakespeare is after all more renowned for his words and his characters than for his borrowed plots. But then 10 Things I Hate About You surely found a larger and younger audience than a film called Taming of the Shrew would have done.

For stage productions like Bard on the Beach, the challenge is to keep an audience engaged rather than frustrated. New flourishes must be added to keep things fresh and, perhaps, keep audiences from wondering what the hell that joker was blathering on about just then. Some sections are cut. Even a faithful Shakespearean company like this one knows not to push its luck -- one sequence involving a comic character Launcelot and his long-lost father Gobbo is mercifully skipped over here.

Thou dost grab thy crotch too much

The Bard production of Merchant is set in the 1870s and begins with characters Salarino and Salanio (Shawn McDonald and David Marr) singing contemporary Italian arias, which is a lovely bit of embellishment. Many productions underline the bawdy humour of the plays, this version included, with crotch-grabbing and leering inserted here and there. But the plays were witty too, and much of that wit simply does not come through without knowledge of late 16th-century English. So the broad physical humour can seem forced -- compensation for the audience's incomprehension.

Still, the performance of The Merchant of Venice closed with long and hearty applause. If I suggest that Shakespeare is a tough sell, 22 summers in Vanier Park are there to gainsay my argument. In the cool night air with a glimpse of English Bay visible behind the stage, Gaze's players will continue to hold a mirror up to nature for many summers to come. All's well that ends well. [Tyee]

Steve Burgess writes about culture and travel for The Tyee.

17 Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • bontano

    38 weeks ago

    Maybe because so much of

    Maybe because so much of contemporary popular entertainment is so dismal and dumb, and people, whether they realise it or not, want to to feel challenged in some way, even if only through the strangeness of the language? Or perhaps not. Maybe it's that the critical mass of people with money and pretensions to a perceived higher class mean that you can sell anything. Especially in provincial Vancouver, where an actor can defecate in his or her hat and get a standing ovation.

  • zalm

    38 weeks ago

    when the option is

    ...vapid mainstream TV, should we not be grateful that so many people are willing to use their heads to get an evening's entertainment instead of being narcotized by flickering images on the wall?

    Crisply-drawn characters, shades of grey in every motive, twists and turns in the plots of most of his dramas... how could one not find entertainment in Shakespeare? Having plowed through Marlowe's Dr. Faustus (albeit with an unsympathetic grad student leading the class that week) there's much to recommend Shakespeare over his contemporary, even if the quotes are equally famous. Remember?

    "Was this the face that launch'd a thousand ships,
    And burnt the topless towers of Ilium
    Sweet Helen, make me immortal with a kiss.
    - of Helen of Troy

    No, when one sees what passes for repartee in modern entertainment these days, one can only chortle over and over again as Beatrice and Benedick slag each other for the faults of their respective genders in Much Ado About Nothing

    Why are we not bored with the Bard? Provocative question, Steve. But one that fails to acknowledge the struggles of those who appreciate life and are willing to give everything they have to live it fully. And it's not restricted to the Great White Hope - the Caucasian race - either. Every background, every ethnicity can be found at Bard struggling to master the nuance, the couble-entendre.

    As well to ask why so many Asians are still lugging cellos and violins or hobbling off to piano masterclass - they know that nothing worthwhile comes without a bit of struggle.

    Would that all four of my neices and nephews could learn that lesson. They've all quit taking piano lessons in the last year.

  • Geof

    38 weeks ago

    Audiences project onto Shakespeare

    Shakespeare, like any cultural work, is subject to interpretation.  What audiences get out of Shakespeare is strongly shaped by meanings developed outside the text.  If we are schooled in Shakespeare, for example, we will read in meanings from our schooling, whether or not we are able to derive those meanings ourselves, and regardless of whether those meanings were intended by him.  To the extent that Shakespeare is still relevant, this not only because the text is open and complex (clearly it is) but also largely because of the activity of audiences who over centuries have invested the plays with meaning.

    The plays themselves are inseparable from the myth and icon that Shakespeare has become.  People watch them partly because of what the act of identification with Shakespeare means to them.  Just as certain cars are have become associated with youth and sex, and just as people identify with their cars and other cultural objects, so they identify with Shakespeare.  Shakespeare is associated with a certain cultural continuity, sophistication, and tradition.  It is often used as a marker of distinction to divide the sophisticated from the great unwashed.

    Personally, I can't stand the stuff.  I have attended performances in London, in Stratford (Ontario), and at Bard on the Beach here, never mind assorted film versions.  Certainly the language is difficult.  But for me,  being taught symbolism and interpretation strips any magic from the work.  For those who appreciate Shakespeare, great:  love of culture is a wonderful thing.  Engaging with and interpreting culture is essential to growth as a human being and as a citizen.  Shakespeare itself, however, is not essential.

    Some here seem to be calling for more Shakespeare in school.  I found the compulsory teaching of Shakespeare in school is abusive.  It destroys the mystery of art.  Like a form of forced reeducation it denies students the essential intellectual and creative independence to construct their own interpretations.  This is not a criticism of Shakespeare itself (the same would apply if the text was Mao's Little Red Book), nor is it an attack on my teachers, whom I liked.  And I am sure there are some brilliant teachers out there who could overcome my objections.  On the whole, however, I think it's clear that Shakespeare education is driven not chiefly by a desire to foster joy in art, but rather through rote and ritual to perpetuate a tradition and a myth and attempt to force an identity on students.

    David Simon, creator of The Wire, once commented that Shakespeare is the model for most Western tragedy, which centers on the tragic flaws of individuals. He contrasted this to The Wire, which he says follows the model of Greek tragedy. It is not the flaws of individuals that bring about their downfall, but the will of untouchable gods: and the gods in The Wire are human institutions and bureaucracies.

  • Geof

    38 weeks ago

    Shakespearean vs Greek tragedy

    David Simon, creator of The Wire, once commented that Shakespeare is the model for most Western tragedy, which centers on individuals' tragic flaws. The Wire, he said, follows instead the model of Greek tragedy. It is not the flaws of individuals that bring about their downfall, but the machinations of untouchable gods: and the gods in The Wire are human institutions and bureaucracies. I think Simon is right, that this is is a significant weakness in the dominance of Shakespeare as a model for the world today.

  • Steve Burgess

    38 weeks ago

    Simon and Greeks?

    Great discussion Geof, thanks! And a shout-out to the best show ever on TV! As for David Simon's Greek tragedy comment: the received opinion that I was fed as a youth proclaimed that Greek tragedy was about fatal flaws in individuals, rather than the implacable will of the gods.

  • Birch

    38 weeks ago

    One of the appeals

    of Shakespeare's plays (for me, at least), is their combination of the strange or alien cultures therein interpreted with the universal human motives of love, hate, revenge, ambition, greed, jealousy, desire, etc.
    These may also be found in Greek tragedy (and perhaps in Noh theatre or Chinese opera--I don't know), but their portrayal there is even more alien. Shakespeare is just far enough away in historical provenance to provide a linguistic challenge and to wed that to gripping plots or to ironic, chattering comic situations.

    Another appeal (although it often does require tutoring to appreciate) is the amazing invention and artistic turn of Shakespeare's poetic language. I attended a performance of LOVE'S LABORS LOST at Shakespeare on the Saskatchewan in Saskatoon this summer, a presentation recast into 20th c. costume but retaining most of the original script (with a few inserted jibes at the Saskatchewan Roughriders). The dialogue fairly rocketed along but was filled with wordplay and wit that was marvelously amusing.

    It's true that many graduates from high school (where I read at least three of Shakespeare's plays) and university somehow miss or avoid his work, and it is something of an acquired taste, but Shakespeare education need not be "rote and ritual in the perpetuation of a myth." It can be very much alive and speak directly to many forms of contemporary joy and/or angst.

    Bard on the Beach could easily continue for another 22 years.

  • frank2

    38 weeks ago

    I happened to be in

    I happened to be in Vancouver and saw the Bard on the Beach Merchant. Super production. Also, a wonderful reminder of how words can indeed communicate a whole of range of thoughts and emotions which are as contemporary today as 400 years ago (even if some of them are definitely out of date). As for the play's anti-Semitism, that also is contemporary, especially if we apply the term more generally to our human tendency to demonise certain minorities, not always Jews.

  • VoltairesDistan...

    38 weeks ago

    The premise of the article

    The premise of the article is flawed in my opinion. Mr. Burgess frames the article on why Shakespeare is selling. He writes about whether Shakespeare is boring. These two words, "selling" and "boring" indicate to me that the author really doesn't understand why Shakespeare is important in our culture.

    Firstly, the word "selling" carries with it an implicit assumption that Shakespeare is just another product, that its purpose is largely to entertain us, rather to enlighten us, to build character, to make our civilization better. Similarly, the word "boring" has connotations of entertainment. Put together, these two words seem to imply the author believes the purpose of literature in general is to entertain us. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why people still love Shakespeare, that it gives us something that transcends our largely vapid modern popular entertainment culture.

  • Steve Burgess

    38 weeks ago

    VoltairesDistan

    Just to reiterate a point I have made before: the display copy on these articles is not written by the authors of the articles. The headlines and sub-headlines are written by Tyee editors. In this case they ran the headlines by me and I approved them so perhaps the point is moot. Still, I hope readers who discuss the articles will look at the articles themselves rather than reacting to the headlines.

  • David Beers

    38 weeks ago

    Administrator

    Well, Steve doth protest too much, methinks

    Why not just say forthrightly to VoltairesDistantCousin that the headline I wrote is perfectly apt for the article, since people pay to come see Shakespeare, either at Bard on the Beach or in film forms, and they are therefore making a choice to spend their entertainment (or social uplift) dollar on Shakespearean products rather than others. And Steve does wonder aloud in his piece why people don't find the difficult language and other aspects of Shakespeare's centuries-old plays more boring. Come to my aid Steve! "Cowards die many times before their deaths. The valiant never taste of death but once."

  • firefox007

    38 weeks ago

    Why Shakespeare?

    "And Steve does wonder aloud in his piece why people don't find the difficult language and other aspects of Shakespeare's centuries-old plays more boring."

    The archaic language is the single biggest turn-off imaginable; there's just NO WAY for an average kid, being introduced to Shakespeare for the 1st time, to understand what they're saying. Most of it is lost. High School teaching is stupid this way, to just force this on the kids, without all the descriptive help a teacher could give.

    Anyway, enter the movies, the incredible height of Kenneth Branagan's career in the *Saint Crispin's Day* rousing speech, before a titanic struggle to the death.

    Those few moments made me understand what human leadership was all about. Nothing more need be said, across the centuries even.

    The reason Shakespeare is popular, and will always be, was his genius for displaying the truth of our most elemental emotions in a universal language.

  • Steve Burgess

    38 weeks ago

    A touch! I do confess it!

    Yes, I have weaseled once too often for Dave Beers' liking! There's a bus every ten minutes and I'm there to throw him under!

    The headline is apt and I did approve it. But I wanted to make the point anyway, since it's an ongoing pet peeve of mine. VoltaireDistans specifically attributed two words to me which were not in the article, only the headline and sub-head. So my point this time was just to remind readers that the article is what the author wrote, not the headlines. I had no intention of complaining about the suitably of this eloquent headline. But of course, there's always another bus coming, Dave.....

  • David Beers

    38 weeks ago

    Administrator

    Fair Steve doth confirm

    I am a man / More sinn'd against than sinning.

  • jvbrooks

    37 weeks ago

    Proof?

    I have to ask -- other than anecdotal observations / thoughts about 16th century life, what proof do you have that Shylock's conversion was a "crowd-pleaser"?

    Surely, in the Renaissance and during a time of great political AND religious upheaval, it is a LOT more nuanced than that. One could -- and rightfully so, I think -- make the argument that the scene is instead supposed to make the audience think critically about conversion and religion. Our reaction today -- a mix of disgust and contempt, maybe -- could hold true for the 16th century, could it not?

  • DNA

    37 weeks ago

    Shakespeare is not quite dead yet...

    In our post-historical age, where if it's not found on the Internet it probably didn't happen, I'm not surprised Mr. Burgess fails to understand why people still see Shakespeare. However, Mr. Burgess carries with him in his assumptions what Shakespeare created, in the main: the assumptions about what it is to be a human individual. He created not only hundreds of sayings and idioms in use, and dozens of words, but the actual way we think about the social world around us. Shakespeare and the King James Bible made modern English - which developed since, but slowly - and language allows thought. If you want to understand why we think the way we do, you have to know the works of the Bard, plus the Bible. (That doesn't mean you have to agree with the values of Shakespeare's world, or the weirdness in the Bible - I'm talking about understanding words and concepts.) Otherwise as a modern (or postmodern) person, you simply run with assumptions of which you are unaware.

  • Fii

    37 weeks ago

    Shakespeare makes me

    Shakespeare makes me smile... whether it's struggling over that "difficult language" or enjoying the comedy "The Complete Works of William Shakespeare" at Jericho Arts Centre which wouldn't have been nearly as entertaining if I had no reference to the actual plays.

    And lately, while reading a short bio about Shakespeare in English Smart 7 with a student and coming across the line "He married Anne Hathaway in 1582" I got a huge chuckle over the startled expression on my student's face- "Anne Hathaway?! He married her?" and had to explain no, not THAT Anne Hathaway... of course he couldn't have married her...!! hehe

  • Victoriana

    37 weeks ago

    I got hooked on Shakespeare

    I got hooked on Shakespeare at age 14, when I read Romeo and Juliet at school. The next year almost turned me off, because Julius Caesar is a godawful thing to make teenagers read. And that, I think is key. I really don't think we should force Shakespeare on kids. Encourage, introduce, yes, force, no. I started taking my kids along with me to plays when they were very small, but only when they wanted to go.

    Now, years later, two of them are professionals in theatre, and two more are as addicted to Shakespeare as I am. My third son "completed the canon" with great joy on his 14th birthday. We have seen Shakespeare all over the world, and I am still amazed at how his work moves people. It is genius. Which is not to say he is the only genius, but he is certainly one. His work will last as long as people love it. My 10-year-old played Dromio in a Young Shakespeareans production of Comedy of Errors this summer, and it was one of the highlights of his young life.

    The language isn't tough if you don't make it a struggle. Letting kids just enjoy the drama, without making it a chore, seems to work best. Some start with stories, some with movies, others just go to the plays and explain when the kids ask questions. I run a Shakespeare group for teens, and we read a new play every session. They have been showing up at my house every month or so for two years, and a lot of laughing happens.

    Sure, some aren't going to enjoy Shakespeare. I myself cannot stand the writing of Thomas Hardy. That doesn't mean it isn't good, or that others won't love it. I'm not too worried about the future of Shakespeare. And Shakespeare can lead to so many other things--other early modern writers, a general interest in theatre and film, the middle ages, the Hundred Years War and the War of the Roses, Dante, Chaucer, poetry, the Reformation...the list is really endless.

    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.