Scottish Play interpretations
I found that the Throne of Blood was the interpretation I enjoyed the most. It was interesting to watch someone else’s interpretation from a totally different culture. The director did a really good job on the aspects of the set, and making it simple but entertaining for the audience. The mood of the play was also very similar to the mood of the actual Scottish Play. My least favorite adaptation was probably uMabatha. I think if I had read the entire play it would have been a lot easier to understand, but it was a bit too confusing with the African tongue. I thought the characters were also very confusing, and almost scattered. I’ve actually scene a production of Travesties at BAM, so I think it he does a good job with the wit of the play, and making it somewhat more interesting to hear or watch. However, I understand how that can seem a bit strange, and repetitive. These adaptations made it a lot more interesting to understand why Shakespeare made certain scenes, and characters a specific way. As the reader, I think it got a bit boring at times to read over these certain adaptations, but it did intrigue the mind to focus on the reasoning behind why Shakespeare wrote the Scottish play the way he did. I think the specific way Shakespeare uses the language was missing in all three adaptations. He really plays with his text, and creates these subplots and interesting ways to interpret things. However I aslo think a very cultural perspective was gained from each of the adaptations. It was interesting to see how Throne of Blood and uMabatha handled a play as powerful as this.
I think they all were interesting to read and it was nice to get other interpretations, but I still think Shakespeare’s original was the best.
I agree, to see how a completely different culture portrays a film. It is very interesting how they portray the characters in The Throne of Blood as they would do in The Scottish Play. The set was good. It had Japanese culture but Scottish Play twist to it. The subtitles were difficult at first but you becamse accumstomed to them. The adaptations definitely make it a lot more interesting and clear on why Shakespeare made the scenes he did.
Posted November 8, 2006, 8:43 pmj
Posted November 8, 2006, 8:44 pmEliza (I only respond to clarinet players’ blogs), I agree that Macbeth was better than the adaptations. However, as good as Throne of Blood was, I thought the Travesties were the best adaptations. Yes, they were stupid, but I thought they were hilarious and they actually helped me understand the play little better.
Posted November 9, 2006, 9:37 pmYou wrote that Shakespeare’s language was missing in the adaptations. I think that because of that, the adaptations helped me understand Macbeth better because they were written in a different style.
Eliza- I agree with you that the Throne of Blood was the most interesting to watch and probably easier to understand than the original play. However, I still think that the Travastiest was the best adaptation. I agree with Joe that the Travasties language helped me understand the original play even better. I think that in the Throne of Blood the culture of the film makes it seem so interesting. I think the reason many people choose the Throne of Blood as the best adaptation was because it was a film and had many symbols throughout it. Also the film was very similar and different from the original so it had many twists you wouldn’t expect. I think that in the original play you kind of realize already what is going to happen. It was interesting to read the different adaptations of The Scottish Play.
Posted November 10, 2006, 9:19 am