Skip to main content
Shakespeare & Beyond

Whither the Shakespeare purist?

Merchant of Venice
Merchant of Venice

Merchant of Venice

Detail of Byron Company photograph. showing a production of The Merchant of Venice starring Jacob P. Adler. New York : [s.n., late 19th or early 20th century] ART File A237 no.3 PHOTO (size M)

Are you that mythical creature known as a “Shakespeare purist”? Neither am I!

I’m not even sure I know what it means, but I ask because it’s a phrase I’ve suddenly begun hearing again and I thought the idea of Shakespearean ‘purity’ was something we didn’t take seriously any more. (It’s also possible the idea never went away and I’m only now noticing it and taking the time to think about it.) Surely Shakespeare purists don’t believe there’s only one “pure” way to perform Shakespeare, do they?

Or maybe they do. Last summer, after a performance of Othello at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival set in the world of a contemporary army, with guns and muscly men interacting in relatively realistic military environments, I overheard a patron say to his friend, “Do you remember the scene in the weight room?” Then, without missing a beat, he answered his own question, “Of course not! There is no scene in Othello set in a weight room!” [Italics very much his.] He might well have been joking, and I hope he was because as a criticism it seems silly, akin to saying “Do you remember the scene where the female character was played by an actual woman? Of course not! Shakespeare didn’t write female characters to be played by actual women!

Comments

Give me liberty in Shakespeare’s plays! I’ve seen Lear take place in the Congo (worked!), Midsummer’s with the fairies cavorting on bungee cords suspended from the ceiling (really worked!), and Romeo and Juliet on roller skates (not so much). But every production was trying to bring wonder and freshness to stories we’ve all seen many times. I still enjoy seeing Rennaisance costumes, but my version of Much Ado in the roaring 20’s with Don Pedro and Don John being mafia family was extremely well received by cast, crew and audiences. We don’t have to force Shakespeare’s works, most of them, to be accessible to modern audiences, but when a director has a vision for a different place and time, it’s exciting for me to see new ideas and fresh insights to beloved material.

Susan L Edgren — March 22, 2019

I was teaching at a comprehensive school in a poor industrial area and took them to Theatre Clwyd in North Wales to see The Taming of the Shrew, it was staged as a boxing match. The very working class loved it and, to my surprise asked for more Shakespeare. We took them to the Theatre in Chester and saw Romeo and Juliet another success, but not as spectacular as the boxing match.

Rachel Bowen — March 23, 2019

Excellent column. I love Shakespeare, as well as Tolkien. I run into a similar theme when dealing with the latter: I wrote a book on Middle-earth politics, based on Tolkien’s books–NOT the movies–and have been accused of folks who have only seen the latter of being a “Tolkien purist.” This criticism seems to me that I look first (and foremost) to the writer’s canon as authoritative. Guilty as charged, since that person actually created the work(s) in question. Mutatis mutandis, the same applies to the Bard–thus I disagree that his plays are “infinitely transformable.” They are certainly transformable in that many of them can be set in time periods other than Elizabethan England (or ancient Rome), of course. But some (post?)modern presentations of Shakespeare just go off the rails and lose the gist of the play. At least this “purist” thinks so. I welcome responses! And again, thank you for this article.

Timothy Furnish — March 23, 2019

Perhaps it’s a testament to the way that Shakespeare is part of the DNA of modern theatre that so many people who have no desire to direct or act in any plays have directorial concepts of Shakespeare’s plays living in their own heads, and everything else is somehow inadequate.

Tony Tambasco — March 27, 2019

Personally, I don’t mind how people treat Shakespeare to make him more immediate to modern audiences,
but I think we should remember that Shakespeare was first and foremost a poet, and I feel that to change the language not only changes the plot but also the meaning.
So why call it Shakespeare at all?
We may as well change some of the notes in a Beethoven sonata or a Bach fugue in order to make the harmony or notes more appealing to modern audiences or indeed easier to play ( it’s been done anyway ).
I just feel that we don’t take the time these days to think about the language which to my mind is the only really beautiful thing about these plays.
The plots are sometimes daft, the historical backgrounds politically manoeuvred, but the language and the meter often give us a real understanding of the characters psychology – Shakespeare was brilliant at understanding that.
The language also takes us on a fascinating journey into 16th century culture, religious and superstitious beliefs, costume and politics etc.
I feel that to change the language in order to make Shakespeare accessible to modern audiences is to admit that we don’t have the time or the will to look at language and love it.

Louise Saunders — September 3, 2019