Adaptation/Construction/Deconstruction

[Glen Nichols]

On Wed, 14 Feb 1996, Paul Malone wrote:
 
>     In this discussion originally motivated by Richard Sutherland's
> review of Pacific Theatre's _Macbeth_ (which I haven't seen and have
> been warned off of, but that's beside the point), I think we need to
> make a distinction between editing a play for brevity, economy or
> lack of personnel on the one hand, and adapting a play for a
> particular dramaturgical reason (be it ideological, stylistic, or
> just whiz-bang "high concept").
 
You make a very good case for the separation of these two phenomena in
your analysis of the mutant lobster Two Gentlemen, and I think that when
one looks at initial motivation for particular approaches to performances
it holds water. However, once in the process, I really wonder if there is
really such a clear distinction.
When in the case of cutting for technical brevity, one does not simply
drop every 10th word arbitrarily, but rather must make specific choices
about cuts. It is here that the "dramaturgical" reasons must take hold.
The reverse is also true. One may be attempting to make Bill say what he
really meant in a post-modern sort of way, but at some point (unless
you're R.Lepage and have the nerve to make your audience sit through 7
hours of a production) you have to adjust your "dramaturgical" wishes for
the technical realities.
 
>  We've all seen the kind of "adaptation" that makes us ask,
> "Why didn't they just write their own play?"
 
If what I said above is true, then the two phenomena you cite are really
just two points on the performance continuum. Aren't ALL productions of
any play really "adaptations" on some level, anyway? We just give them
that name when they reach a certain intensity of "adjustment".  Likewise,
couldn't one also suggest that any play written is also an "adaptation"
of everything the playwright has read and seen before?  If this is true
than perhaps by adapting the play, they DID write their own... if you
follow my logic.
 
> Not just the actors but, it seems, many directors no
> longer have the training to appreciate older works withough
> putting a thick layer of artificial relevance over top of them.
 
How true, but sad. I'm glad you didn't put the blame on the audiences.The
reality is that media, and theatre included, follows the path of least
resistance by speaking to the lowest common denominator and not
challenging anyone too much. But I believe that if we just treated our
audiences as the potentially intellible factors they are, the
difficulties would be great, but the rewards would be raised stakes for
everyone.
 
> My final summation is that adaptation is a worthy endeavour (almost
> all of Shakespeare's plays are adaptations already!), but in the
> modern theatre, adaptations seem too often to be undertaken because
> it's easier than fighting your way through to the play's emotional
> centre, rather than being undertaken in order to make that centre
> accessible to a new audience.
 
Hear! hear!
 
Glen