Are plays too long-winded?

[Eric]

I read in the Swedish press (DN) that Teatr Weimar (whatever that is) has cut Ibsen's play "Ghosts" down to one hour. Is this modernisation, or attention-span conformity?

Source: ?Ibsendekonstruktion I. Geng?ngare? p? Teatr Weimar, Malm? - DN.se

Why are people too untalented to write their own original plays instead of adapting the classics and then getting credit for their 21st century genius?

What about a one-hour "King Lear"? Or a thirteen-minute Pinter?

[Bjorn]

How many of Shakespeare's plays were not adapted from an older source text?

[Eric]

Sorry, Bj?rn, I didn't quite get your point. No one is sure which Shakespeare texts are the originalest of the originals, but I was talking about some 21st century know-alls cutting down a two- or three-hour play to one hour so that the audience wouldn't get bored.

Shakespeare stole all sorts of ideas from previous authors, especially Holinshed, as I believe. But he added drama. Are these abridgers of Ibsen actually adding anything except a feel-good factor that "I've sat all the way through a whole Ibsen play, without falling asleep"?

Why don't they cut down Lars Nor?n to a twenty-minute series of soundbites?

[Bjorn]

Why are people too untalented to write their own original plays instead of adapting the classics

How many of Shakespeare's plays were not adapted from an older source text?

Sorry, Bj?rn, I didn't quite get your point.

My question was, "Why was Shakespeare too untalented to write his own original plays instead of adapting the classics?"

What about a one-hour "King Lear"? Or a thirteen-minute Pinter?

What about a 2-minute Macbeth?

Reduced Shakespeare Company

Shakespeare stole all sorts of ideas from previous authors, especially Holinshed, as I believe. But he added drama. Are these abridgers of Ibsen actually adding anything except a feel-good factor that "I've sat all the way through a whole Ibsen play, without falling asleep"?

Maybe they add a whole lot of things to make the play more relevant to our times, but since I haven't seen or read that adaptation of the play, I wouldn't know. Is anyone actually saying plays are being shortened because people keep falling asleep, or is that just your assumption? (BTW, what's your opinion on Olivier's abridged take on Hamlet?)

I'm glad it's no longer popular to add happy endings to classic plays as it was among 19th-century knowitalls, though.

Why don't they cut down Lars Nor?n to a twenty-minute series of soundbites?

I've often wondered that myself.

[Mirabell]

Oh this is just ignorant.

Plays are very often shortened, and they have always been. Look at the textual history of almost any play and you'll find multiple versions from the get-go, of dramatically different length. Including Shakespeare's plays. Plays are not meant to be performed word by word. They adapt to the exigencies of stage, audience and company. They always have.

[Eric]

You have a point, Mirabell, but there are no hard and fast rules. In Britain it is almost sacrilege to bowdlerise, abridge, censor, adapt, or do anything else to our national-international super-icon William Shakespeare. That's why I was surprised that it was alright for someone to do the same with Ibsen who, like Chekhov, Goethe, Moli?re, or Strindberg, is a pretty big name.

The original version, in the case of Shakespeare, is much in dispute. But there is a difference between fusing two late 16th century versions and making one whole out of them and, on the other hand, doing a modern adaptation in modern language.

With Shakespeare, the staging and costumes have been experimented with almost ad nauseam, but the words have been kept the same. Whether or not Shakespeare's plays were meant to be performed word-for-word, they have been in England for literally centuries. Brits shy away from a Reader's Digest attitude to Shakespeare, but the negative side of that is that there is an element of fetishism by an audience of people who don't actually understand what is being said, but are thrilled to bits to be watching Culture.

[Mirabell]

In Britain it is almost sacrilege to bowdlerise, abridge, censor, adapt, or do anything else to our national-international super-icon William Shakespeare.

So that's your problem then, is it.

Personally, I doubt that Shakespeare is only produced unabridged on British stages. But you're the expert on old Blighty here, so if you say so...

[Amoxcalli]

The last play I saw was a four-something-hour dramatic rendition of Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov. I personally thought it was very interesting and it never failed to hold my attention, despite its length.

On the other hand, any longer wouldn't have worked, I think. And anything longer than two hours could do with a small break in the middle. One can only concentrate for so long, after all.

As for modern renditions of old plays, I normally don't go and see them. I like modern plays and I like classic plays, but modern renditions of classic plays have been disappointing so far, in my experience.

[lenz]

With Shakespeare, the staging and costumes have been experimented with almost ad nauseam, but the words have been kept the same.

Your wrong about that, Eric. The words get fiddled with too - cut and changed. I recently saw a gorgeous production of the Dream that was performed in several languages - Hindi, Tamil, Urdu, English (I'm not sure of the languages, but something like that). Hamlet has short versions and long ones. The Director John Barton was affectionately known as "the slasher" for his tendency to cut anything that got in his way. I can't think of any director of Shakespeare who claims to hold the texts sacred.

[Amoxcalli]

Just returned from a Flemish rendition of Euripides' The Bacchai. That's to say, I wish I had gone to Euripides' version, because this modern 'translation' was god-awful. They cut half the text and abused the rest with references to pop culture, ill-considered Flemish proverbs ('wild as an Apache', now what Ancient Greek would say that?) and poor pronunciation. The rest of it didn't help either. The acting was poor, the scenery non-existent and the costumes just as non-existent (well, alright, three quarters of the cast was dressed).

But what they did to the script. The horror.

They cut it to barely fifty minutes. FIFTY MINUTES! They were silent for HALF of it too. Too long? Too short! I wish they'd left some more of the original script intact, instead of just standing there doing nothing, before continuing after five minutes.

Too cut a long story short, which should never be done to good plays, modern renditions should be banned. Perform the original play, or think of something new, but don't abuse a good script.

[lenz]

modern renditions should be banned

That's going a bit far! The piece you saw may have been as bad as you say, but that doesn't always happen. Sometimes a play can be either improved, e.g. in tempo or comprehension or given a twist of topical relevance (sometimes a dangerous move, one way or another). As for thinking of something new, well, sometimes there isn't time or any real point in renaming characters and setting when a well-known "classic" play cries out to be re-interpreted.
Another gross example of a badly shortened play is Olivier's film of Hamlet; as one critic said, it is half the play and a millionth of the idea. Olivier says he felt compelled to make "easier to understand" for the sake of wide distrubution - big mistake.

[Igu Soni]

What about a 2-minute Macbeth?

Reduced Shakespeare Company

There's also a 4-second hamlet on youtube.

[vvisas]

I did Nyamndi's The Will two years back at the university of Buea- after having worked on Watenberg's the corpses comedy earlier on- the truth is you always, as director, want the outcome of your play to suit,audience, finance and cast. when we did Prof. Zemzi's last rehearsal three years ago, my late director(whose memory i am currently celebrating on my blog), had to skew the play in many ways- including killing of characters and rephrasing dialogue.

Point is, every director has his/vision for the production and they do all to achieve that,that's why they give credits to the original author even when the former can no longer recognize his/her play.

my bog: viterature.blogspot.com

[waalkwriter]

I love Ibsen. It's a shame to see his work slashed up to keep people interested.