Shakespeare on Stage, Screen and Elsewhere (18:30)

You may well be right kc, but one thing I would do to Shakespeare is censor him - cut out all those late sixteenth and early seventeenth bits that are too crude for modern souls.

What do you find too crude, Sydney?

Why would it be that? Between what things might you perceive such contradiction to exist?


Some societies already do, or did (as indeed you note later), but then how would a 21st century offical arts censor be expected to address literature, drama et al from four centuries ago or thereabouts in terms of its perceived "suitability" and "acceptability" or otherwise for contemporary audiences? Moreover, not everyone will agree with certain items of censorship and not everyone will in any case respond in the same way to this play, that poem, the other novel &c.; what might upset or offend some won't do so to others, just as has always been the case.


But who should be charged with responsibility for the appointment (and, for that matter, replacement) of such officials and how will they themselves be appointed and by whom? Furthermore, you mention only men, thereby introducing your own notion of censorship in leaving the appointment to such positions open only to members of less than half of the population - and presumably you would advocate that only men would appoint the censors, thus exacerbating that censorship (not that either would be allowed or allowable in Western society today, fortunately) - so I don't think that you'd qualify as the most appropriate arbiter in this!


There's no such thing as "mob opinion"; all in democratic societies and entitled to their own opinions and, whilst some people might share certain opinions, others' opinions will differ widely, including censors and those who would appoint them and regulate and oversee them and their work.

Trustworthiness? Trust you to try to fall back on the implausible concept of robotics when you can't think of a better solution and regardless of the fact that robots are designed, manufactured and maintained by humans! How in any case could a robot impose censorship? Can you imagine such a machine entering an opera house hall and managing to order, for example, the cast, conductor and orchestra to cease and desist in its presentation of a production of Die Soldaten? The amused and bemused audience would probably mistakenly assume its presence to be part of that production!

But to return to the specifics of the topic, namely Shakespeare (and perhaps some of his dramatist contemporaries), "society" (which you believe should appoint artistic censors appropriate to and for the benefit of all, as if that were possible) was so different in Shakespeare's time to what it is today and the same must be said for the English language and its use even in England alone, let alone anywhere else where it is the principal language; likewise, the very manner in which Shakespeare's plays are presented to audiences is very different to the ways in which they were acted when new

In music, the HIPP movement has sought to address the ways in which many composers from before Bach up to Elgar would have been performed when their music was newly composed, in terms of instruments used, playing techniques and other performance traditions; leaving aside the question of the ways in which this has been explored over recent decades, it is clear that the very existence of this movement is predicated upon recognition of these differences and seeking to preserve aspects of an history tht might otherwise risk being overlooked. There are obvious paralllels beteen this and an understanding of Shakespeare in performance, even if no one is necessarily suggesting that his plays should be presented as they might have been in his own time.

It is true, Sydney, that every society, and every generation, has to determine its stance in relation to the shifting lines between the acceptable and the unacceptable. As far as Shakespeare is concerned, King George III suffered bouts of insanity so all performances of any version of King Lear were banned from the stage during his reign from 1810 to 1820. At roughly the same time, Thomas Bowdler published The Family Shakspeare, an expurgated edition of William Shakespeare's work, edited by his sister Henrietta Maria Bowdler, intended to be more appropriate for nineteenth century women and children than the original. The verb, to bowdlerise, has associated his name with the censorship not only of literature but also of motion pictures and television programmes.

Wikipedia - Thomas Bowdler

It is clear, too, that Sydney Grew worries overmuch! I would be tempted to avoid bowdlerisation wherever possible, Sydney. Ian McKellen was a great success at the BFI last night, you can see him there on Twitter, as we were unable to get in.

Twitter - BFI

As for Shakespeare on Film, on stage, in music, or elsewhere, what would you recommend?

No. Not "too". "Instead". See my last post for an explanation of that.

It's that amorphous "we" again, seeking as usual to bolster the value of an individual opinion by trying but failing to make it sound as though it is widely shared.

"It is undeniable"? In whose opinion? Who's unable to do such denying and where's the evidence in support of this assertion? What on earth is "an audience of nice ladies"? and who decides how "nice" they might be and on what grounds?; same question goes for a ditto of "nice gentlemen". Moreover, how often would Shakespeare's - or, for that matter, anyone else's - plays be acted before a single-sex audience in any case?

If he does indeed have a point, I am uncertain as to precisely what it might be, not least because I am unclear as to what he means by "Shakespeare in the raw"; as to his suitability for contemporary audiences (Shakespeare's that is - not Sydney's!), I have endeavoured to respond to that question as best I can by asking which actors, directors, literary scholars and the like would even think to question such suitability.

Incidentally, I have only ever set Shakespeare twice; once, more years ago than I care to remember, one of the sonnets for tenor and piano and, on the other occasion, not Shakespeare himself per se but a reference to him in Walter Savage Landor's sonnet To Robert Browning which contains the lines

Shakspeare is not our poet, but the world’s,
Therefore on him no speech! and brief for thee,
Browning! Since Chaucer was alive and hale,
No man hath walkt along our roads with step
So active, so inquiring eye, or tongue
So varied in discourse.

The composer Alan Bush begins his essay The Greatness of Beethoven (In my eighth decade and other essays, Kahn & Averill, London, 1980; chapter V, pp. 49-61) with the words "The greatness of Beethoven has never been in question"; by the same token, one might say the same of the ubiquity of Shakespeare who was admired by many composers from his own time to today, not least Shostakovich (a fact which will surely persuade Sydney of his "suitability for modern audiences" if nothing else will!)...