Thursday, April 1, 2010

You speak a language that I understand not

I've mentioned before how important a few student productions at BYU were in helping me become a Shakespeare lover. Because of those fond memories, I decided a few years ago that it would be a pretty keen idea to go see a production of The Winter's Tale that the theatre department at BYU was producing. BYU + Shakespeare = What Could Go Wrong?

I was never that great at math.

I've seen some pretty horrid Shakespeare, and BYU's The Winter's Tale was it. It was a perfect example of what happens when a director dreams up a concept and then mutates and mutilates the play to fit it.

So when the BYU theatre department announced that its Shakespeare production for this season was As You Like It, I thought "BYU + Shakespeare - The Winter's Tale = What Could Go Wrong?"

I was pretty excited about seeing one of my favorite plays, so I talked various family members into buying tickets for the show as well, and I planned a special trip to Utah. A few days before the performance, Ian showed me an article from the BYU student newspaper. "This makes me kind of nervous," he said, handing me the article. I began to read:

"A new play is opening in the HFAC tonight; but to label it merely as a 'play' simply does not do it justice."

Okay, I can deal with that. That's good. Read on.

"It is a play, a musical, a comedy, an action movie, a concert, a political commentary and a love story."

Okay, okay, that's true. Shakespeare put all that stuff in there. Sort of. Read on.

"[The director] wants audiences to connect to the characters and situations on stage."

Okay, but that's sort of a given, isn't it? Like, what director wouldn't want an audience to connect? Is this director worried such a connection won't happen? I begin to feel a little niggling discomfort. Read on.

"'This is about what would happen in Provo if the government was overthrown and we had to live in the canyons', said . . . the show's music director. . . . 'BYU is a romantically charged school, so this is exactly what would happen if you threw BYU into the canyons'."

Really? Girls would disguise themselves as boys? Everyone would sing Leonard Cohen songs? Grown men would feel bad about killing deer? In Utah?! Read on.

"The cast and crew have gone to great lengths to create a show especially for college-age students. 'The season ticket holders, it's not for them,' [the music director] said."

Okay, now I'm nervous, too. And what does that even mean? A well-acted, thoughtful production of Shakespeare is not for college-age students? Season ticket holders cannot appreciate Shakespearean adaptations? Read on.

"There are no British accents, no Elizabethan clothes or customs. [The director and music director] said they have clothes in their closets just like their costumes. And no one is playing the lute."

Wow. Now that's just snobbery. Read on.

"The cast is hoping the music will help Shakespeare's language become more accessible, and that the story will become more apparent."

And here we have the crux of the matter. There is no need to read on. If a director doesn't think that good acting can make Shakespeare's language accessible and the story apparent, then he or she should not be directing that play. There, I've said it.

Just to be clear, I did not mind the modern setting. I did not mind that the production was aimed at college students. I did not mind the clothes-out-of-your-closet costumes. I did not mind the addition of modern songs, as they were well performed and the cast harmonized beautifully. I did not mind the addition of a violent coup at the beginning (which looked like it was nicked right out of Kenneth Branagh's film version of the play). I did not mind the silly effect of having soft chimes sound to indicate when a character has suddenly fallen in love. I did not mind Touchstone, a character who, more often than not, I find annoying. I did not mind the few truly inspired touches that showed fleetingly like shooting stars; those I appreciated greatly.

What I did mind was the huge - but huge - cuts in the text. (Way to make the language accessible, guys: just delete most of it.) There was no discussion of fortune vs nature, no mustard and pancakes, no "much virtue in 'if'"; only teensy bits of the court life vs country life discussion, and even less of teasing Rosalind about Orlando's poems and "no clock in the forest"; no Pythagoras' rat, no "die by attorney", no "the wiser, the waywarder", no Bay of Portugal, and on and on. I'm not opposed to some cutting here and there, but the thing is, Shakespeare's characters are revealed pretty much exclusively through what they say. There are basically no stage directions, no author's notes. So if you cut out great chunks of dialogue and then fling the rest around sitcom style, or chew at it like it's a cud, or drool it out like an old hippie trying to tell you where he left the phone book, then no one is going to understand you, no matter how many songs you add for clarification.

I also minded the extreme violence added to the play: slapping, kicking, slugging - and that's just between the characters who are supposed to be friends. There was also plenty of senseless shootings, water torture, electric shock, and beatings. Not that I think violence has no part in a Shakespeare production. On the contrary. Take a look at Titus Andronicus, for instance. But this is a comedy, folks. Yes, there should be some sense of danger and peril. Rosalind is threatened with death, after all. But do you have to hold a knife to her throat to make the threat more "accessible"? And when one moment the audience is presented with the comical antics of Touchstone, and the next they're looking at someone being tortured (and not very convincingly) with something like jumper cables, they're probably going to be laughing at both.

Phebe murders Silvius with her eyes
(from the Daily Universe website)

I also minded some of the substandard acting. Halfway through act 1, I found myself ignoring the duke's mumblings and Jacques' (inexplicably pronounced "zhock-wheeze" by one and all) tearful rants - which I ignored because, even though I know this play like the back of my hand (although rather better, because I never have got to know the back of my hand) and knew what they were supposed to be saying, I actually could not understand them. So I instead amused myself till their speeches were over by thinking up alternate titles for this production, titles such as "Like It! The Musical" and "As You Like It . . . Not" and "What the Heck Are They Saying, or Who Even Cares?" I really think if the acting had been better, I could have overlooked a lot of the other stuff I minded.

I minded the addition of a scene of Jacques meeting a fool in the forest because it's repeated a moment later when Jacques tells the Duke he met a fool in the forest in the exact same words. For crying out loud, how dull does the director think the audience is?

I minded having to be told by the little chimy music instead of by the acting that certain characters were falling in love. I minded the sledgehammer delivery of lines like "Sir, you have wrestled well and overthrown more than your enemies" and every time Orlando said Rosalind's name in act 4, scene 1, and there were other instances but I can't or won't remember them. I just know I minded them.

I kind of minded the early reveal of Rosalind's identity. It was an interesting notion, humorously executed, and it helped Orlando to look not so much like a dupe, but it made nonsense of act 5, scene 2, where Rosalind promises Orlando to reveal her own fate and whereabouts.

Oh, and I also minded having to watch Orlando wash his armpits.

Was the play an awful experience? No. Was it as bad as The Winter's Tale? No. Were there audience members who were delighted by this production? Yes. Did I have fun? Ultimately, yes, although I was initially rather concerned about what my family would say about having spent money on the tickets. But . . . . Call me a traditionalist, call me closed-minded, call me a season ticket holder, but if you're going to make a musical adaptation of Shakespeare, like The Boys from Syracuse, or Kiss Me, Kate!, you should come right out and say so, instead of spouting all that blather about trying to make Shakespeare's language more accessible.

PS There are several points from Things I Will Not Do When I Direct a Shakespeare Production that could apply to this show, but especially pertinent are #13, #15, #20, and #160.