Perhaps this is more commentary than a question, but it is in regards to
the classic play "Doctor Faustus" by Christopher Marlowe and ponders the necessities of altering the original work to make it relevant to a
modern audience...

Last year I saw the play "Faust" by a local theatre company. The play seems
to be performed here and there on occasion, just not very often. The play is
in iambic pentameter and the setting is around England in the 16th century, which is when it was written. Because of this, I understand the urge to
update the play to the interests of a modern audience, but I wonder if rewriting a play works as often as people think.

In the performance I saw, the director took from Christopher Marlowe's
play "Doctor Faustus" and, supposedly, mixed with Goethe's "Faust" to
create something new. It certainly was "new", but I'm not sure how I feel
about it.

In the original Marlowe version of Faust, Doctor Faustus sells his soul
to the devil and dreams of changing the course of history with his new
power. By the end of the play, however, he is reduced to performing
magical amusements for the king and queen. Marlowe's point was that by
selling his soul to the devil, Faustus was turning away from God, which
in turn was the wellspring from which great accomplishments are achieved.
Thus, Faustus begins the play as a great man of knowledge and by the end he
is reduced to a kind of jester.

In the version of Faust by the local theatre company, Faust just rapes everybody. I mean that literally. Faust sells his soul to the devil and
his first act thereafter is find a gambler who is willing to sell his
daughter in exchange for winnings. Then he stops a wedding to kill the
groom and rape the bride. After that, he kills a knight who is unimpressed
with him and has sex with a queen while the king is given loads of gold. In between all of this, some characters (I assume they were the Seven Deadly
Sins) come out and talk about how Faustus is damned for his actions.

This is very different from the Marlowe play. In the Marlowe play, Faustus shows off his power in the beginning but becomes more and more of a joke. Further, there are intermittent comedic scenes featuring Faustus' manservant who find's Faustus' book of magic and plays pranks with it on his friends.
This meant as a comedic interlude between scenes of Faustus running around doing his thing. All of this is to show Faustus failing at his ambitions because of his erroneous assumption that gaining power would not change him.

As I mentioned before, I do understand the need to put a modern spin on an
old story. This is especially true for stories written in an old style from
so long ago. I feel in this case, however, the director destroyed the nuance
of the original work and replaced it with something less nuanced and even approaching camp. At the end of the play, the song "Sympathy for the Devil"
by the Rolling Stones came in over the speaker system. I just had to cringe
and how clichéd that has become. It was just hitting all the obvious notes,
if that makes sense. On the other hand, it did receive a number of
nominations for the production, so perhaps I'm the one out-of-step with the audience rather than the director and theatre company.

Can anyone give any thoughts on this?

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 3/3/19 12:12 PM, Anson Carmichael wrote:

Perhaps this is more commentary than a question, but it is in regards to
the classic play "Doctor Faustus" by Christopher Marlowe and ponders the necessities of altering the original work to make it relevant to a
modern audience...

Last year I saw the play "Faust" by a local theatre company. The play seems to be performed here and there on occasion, just not very often. The play is in iambic pentameter and the setting is around England in the 16th century, which is when it was written. Because of this, I understand the urge to update the play to the interests of a modern audience, but I wonder if rewriting a play works as often as people think.

In the performance I saw, the director took from Christopher Marlowe's
play "Doctor Faustus" and, supposedly, mixed with Goethe's "Faust" to
create something new. It certainly was "new", but I'm not sure how I feel about it.

In the original Marlowe version of Faust, Doctor Faustus sells his soul
to the devil and dreams of changing the course of history with his new
power. By the end of the play, however, he is reduced to performing
magical amusements for the king and queen. Marlowe's point was that by selling his soul to the devil, Faustus was turning away from God, which
in turn was the wellspring from which great accomplishments are achieved. Thus, Faustus begins the play as a great man of knowledge and by the end he is reduced to a kind of jester.

In the version of Faust by the local theatre company, Faust just rapes everybody. I mean that literally. Faust sells his soul to the devil and
his first act thereafter is find a gambler who is willing to sell his daughter in exchange for winnings. Then he stops a wedding to kill the
groom and rape the bride. After that, he kills a knight who is unimpressed with him and has sex with a queen while the king is given loads of gold. In between all of this, some characters (I assume they were the Seven Deadly Sins) come out and talk about how Faustus is damned for his actions.

This is very different from the Marlowe play. In the Marlowe play, Faustus shows off his power in the beginning but becomes more and more of a joke. Further, there are intermittent comedic scenes featuring Faustus' manservant who find's Faustus' book of magic and plays pranks with it on his friends. This meant as a comedic interlude between scenes of Faustus running around doing his thing. All of this is to show Faustus failing at his ambitions because of his erroneous assumption that gaining power would not change him.

As I mentioned before, I do understand the need to put a modern spin on an old story. This is especially true for stories written in an old style from so long ago. I feel in this case, however, the director destroyed the nuance of the original work and replaced it with something less nuanced and even approaching camp. At the end of the play, the song "Sympathy for the Devil" by the Rolling Stones came in over the speaker system. I just had to cringe and how clichéd that has become. It was just hitting all the obvious notes, if that makes sense. On the other hand, it did receive a number of nominations for the production, so perhaps I'm the one out-of-step with the audience rather than the director and theatre company.

Can anyone give any thoughts on this?

There are plenty of modern Faust stories. A recent one is one of the
major subplots running through the five years of the TV series “Babylon
5” (you can stream it on Amazon Prime Video). Never answer the question, “What do you want?” before you’ve answered the question, “Who are you?”

A musical-comedy version is "Damn Yankees", about a Washington Senators
fan who'll do absolutely anything to win the American League Pennant.

And then there’s “The Devil to Pay”, by Dorothy L. Sayers, which looks
at some unexpected pitfalls on both sides of the bargain.

Going further into the past, there are the operas. I much prefer “Mefistofele”, by Arrigo Boito, to Gounod’s treacly creation.

Czechoslovak American Marionette Theatre in New York puts on, from time
to time (in English), the old German “Faust” puppet play.

--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <q5h1un$b53$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
Anson Carmichael <noemailexists@example.com> wrote:

Perhaps this is more commentary than a question, but it is in regards to
the classic play "Doctor Faustus" by Christopher Marlowe and ponders the >necessities of altering the original work to make it relevant to a
modern audience...

A more fundamental question, I feel, is this: If you don't think the play is relevant, why are you doing it? This sort of 'updating' often goes hand-in-hand with paying lip-service to the greatness of the play,
even while altering it. How often have I heard directors essentially
say, "We're doing Shakespeare's <whatever>, one of the greatest plays
ever written by the greatest playwright in the English language.
Here are the cuts I've made."

I tend to think that it many cases this sort of production results from a failure to trust your audience and to trust your artists. As you note
later on, it often seems lazy - an attempt to force an interpretation
onto a script, rather than interpret it, via heavy-handed manipulation.

If one is interested in 'updating' a script, that's fine - and as
another poster notes, can result in works which are interesting and
useful in their own right, without claiming to be the 'classic' work
in question. West Side Story, for example, is a very good show.
It is not Romeo and Juliet, even if it is inspired by it.
Too often I've seen plays which were advertised as being by Shakespeare/Marlowe/etc but which bore little resemblance to the
original text.

In this case, if the play was being marketed as Marlowe's Dr Faustus,
I would have been very annoyed when I saw it. If it was being
advertised as a new adaptation, then I might not have been impressed,
but I wouldn't feel cheated or deceived.

As I mentioned before, I do understand the need to put a modern spin on an >old story. This is especially true for stories written in an old style from >so long ago.

I don't neccesarily agree. If we claim that a play is universal, then
it should work without rewriting. If the actors and directors know
their business, Elizabethan/Jacobean drama works very well indeed with
no change to the script. I am of two minds about staging changes.
Sometimes setting the play in a different time and/or place works,
other times it is (as noted above) an attempt to force an
interpretation on the text, or is just being done for the sake of
being 'different.' An Othello in space was an example of the
last - the setting change added nothing to the play, and was
simply distracting.

A completely new play, based on the earlier work, and dealing
with the same themes, is a different beast. If one really feels
that Hamlet doesn't work, but a modern spin might, then don't
jam Hamlet into, oh, a second generation dotcom, do something else.

NB: I was involved in two different theatre companies, one in Colorado and
one in New York, both of whom believed in performing texts such as
these uncut. It wasn't to everyone's taste, but art rarely is.


------------
Jeff Berry - http://www.aspiringluddite.com - food, musings, etc.
"I don't need TV when I got T-Rex" - Mott the Hoople

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

nexus@panix.com wrote:

I tend to think that it many cases this sort of production results from a failure to trust your audience and to trust your artists. As you note
later on, it often seems lazy - an attempt to force an interpretation
onto a script, rather than interpret it, via heavy-handed manipulation.

I'm beginning to get that feeling with this particular theatre company.
It's not that I think they are bad in any way, just that I think there
is a need to be a bit on the nose with some of their productions.

There was a production of Merry Wives of Windsor where the actors were
clearly told to play everything as cartoonishly as possible, along with
some modifications that seemed to say "See? This is funny!"

I have to be careful with what I write, however. I don't want to paint
the company in a negative light. This is really just little things
I've noticed.

In this case, if the play was being marketed as Marlowe's Dr Faustus,
I would have been very annoyed when I saw it. If it was being
advertised as a new adaptation, then I might not have been impressed,
but I wouldn't feel cheated or deceived.

I recall the poster saying "Adapted by..." but that was about it, I
think. Maybe the program had something, but I didn't keep it.

If we claim that a play is universal, then
it should work without rewriting. If the actors and directors know
their business, Elizabethan/Jacobean drama works very well indeed with
no change to the script.

Let me know what you think of this: I've been pondering if the works
of Elizabethan and Jacobean drama, indeed any drama with verse
dialogue is perceived as difficult because of the way language was
approached at the time.

For example, in Shakespeare's day, I suspect people were used to
a more abstract manner of handling language. Much of the population
was illiterate (as I understand things) and new words were appearing
regularly due to the influx of so many different people from
different places coming into London.

I suspect that now language is handled in a much more concrete manner,
largely because now English has more or less be solidly codified.
That is, "we say this, so it must mean this" as opposed to "we
say this, but in context with the rest of the statement, it actually
means that"

I know a writer who says that there's nothing difficult with
understanding iambic pentameter - one just has to read it enough
times. Given Shakespeare's regular use of puns and wordplay,
I find myself wondering about that.

A completely new play, based on the earlier work, and dealing
with the same themes, is a different beast. If one really feels
that Hamlet doesn't work, but a modern spin might, then don't
jam Hamlet into, oh, a second generation dotcom, do something else.

What did you think of the Marowitz Hamlet? I haven't seen it, but
I'm told he rewrote significant portions of the play.

NB: I was involved in two different theatre companies, one in Colorado and one in New York, both of whom believed in performing texts such as
these uncut. It wasn't to everyone's taste, but art rarely is.

How did they deal with the run times? For example, at the theatre
company I've been referencing, I'm told the director (who is also the
artistic director) is devoted to the idea of a two hour maximum with intermission and will cut and modify to make sure it happens. As I'm
told, he is just convinced no one will sit for longer than that. He's
a pretty hyperactive person, though, so he could be considering this
from his personal experience.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <q5kp2k$110c$1@gioia.aioe.org>,
Anson Carmichael <noemailexists@example.com> wrote:

I'm beginning to get that feeling with this particular theatre company.
It's not that I think they are bad in any way, just that I think there
is a need to be a bit on the nose with some of their productions.

It's fairly common, I think. As I say, I think it stems from a lack of trust. If you trust your audience and give them some credit, then you don't feel
a need to force-feed or spoon-feed them the play.

I recall the poster saying "Adapted by..." but that was about it, I
think. Maybe the program had something, but I didn't keep it.

At least it's clear that it's not Marlowe's, then;-)

Let me know what you think of this: I've been pondering if the works
of Elizabethan and Jacobean drama, indeed any drama with verse
dialogue is perceived as difficult because of the way language was
approached at the time.

<snip and rearrange>

I know a writer who says that there's nothing difficult with
understanding iambic pentameter - one just has to read it enough
times. Given Shakespeare's regular use of puns and wordplay,
I find myself wondering about that.

I agree with your writer. However, when speaking of plays, it is the responsibility of the actors to bring the words to life. If the *actor* doesn't know what the words mean, or the line rather, then they can't communicate it, even if they get all the syllables in order. Part of the
work of an actor is to know what you're saying - and if the language is unfamiliar to you, that means working harder earlier and doing your
homework, so that you understand which clauses modify which things.
Likewise, if you understand the joke, then it is delivered as a joke,
and it is sometimes surprising how often the audience will get the joke.
(In my experience, of course, which is not universal.)

People sometimes get scared of 'verse' but I suspect that's because of
their own associations with the word. Iambic pentameter is an extremely natural rhythm in spoken English, and aloud does much to clarify where
the emphasis should be on certain lines. Reading and performing E/J verse
is a skill, to be sure, but that means it can be learned. (People may
also be put off if they have heard verse very badly done - that can leave
a mark;-)

I suspect that now language is handled in a much more concrete manner, >largely because now English has more or less be solidly codified.
That is, "we say this, so it must mean this" as opposed to "we
say this, but in context with the rest of the statement, it actually
means that"

I disagree. I don't think language is particularly more concrete now.
A case could be made that is incredibly fluid just at the minute, with
new words cropping up, new slang and written shorthand, and so on.
Irony is alive and well. Context still matters.

What did you think of the Marowitz Hamlet? I haven't seen it, but
I'm told he rewrote significant portions of the play.

I'm not familiar with it, but a little research suggests that I would have hated it. There's a quote is his obit that Shakespeare was "capable
of some horrifically bad writing" - but aren't we all? My contention
is that if you find the play to be so horrifically bad, don't do it.
In a similar vein, if you believe Shakespeare to be great enough to perform, how arrogant must you be to believe you can improve it?

As an aside, it drives me crazy that people feel free to play fast-and-loose with Shakespeare, 'the immortal Bard of Stratford-on-Avon,' in a way that
would get them sued if they tried it with a living playwright. Shakespeare
(or any playwright) wrote it that way for a reason. As actors and directors, our job is to figure out why, not discard it or rewrite it because it's
too hard. If you are working with a playwright on a play, that's a different animal because the collaboration is still happening and the text is still fluid.

How did they deal with the run times?

We ran them. We did our Shakespeare, for example, uncut from the first
folio. (As another aside, often Shakespeare is performed at a laggardly
pace, which extends the run time.)

company I've been referencing, I'm told the director (who is also the >artistic director) is devoted to the idea of a two hour maximum with >intermission and will cut and modify to make sure it happens. As I'm

What a dreadful thing to be devoted to. Most Broadway shows run over
that. Let me see - https://www.broadway.org/performance-times -
31 shows up, 3 under two hours, 1 more at two hours on the nose.
One season we did Shaw's "Man and Superman" - most evenings we did
either "Don Juan in Hell" (most of Act III if memory serves), or
the rest with DJiH. On Sundays we ran the whole thing, which meant
more or less a full length play, a break for dinner and another full length play. The Sundays sold out.

told, he is just convinced no one will sit for longer than that. He's
a pretty hyperactive person, though, so he could be considering this
from his personal experience.

That may well be the case. Again, he's not trusting his audience. Or confusing theatrical runtimes (which allow for an intermission), with
cinematic ones which no longer do.


------------
Jeff Berry - http://www.aspiringluddite.com - food, musings, etc.
"I don't need TV when I got T-Rex" - Mott the Hoople

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)