Directors Re-envisioning Classics

For some reason, this is a constant debate in the world: what are directors to do with classic texts? They stick around because they reveal something that seems timelessly relevant to our culture. But how do we best present these plays? Is it important to uphold the playwright's intent, even if the play was written over 100 years ago, and that playwright was being true to their own era? Or do we need to ensure that these plays retain their relevance by expressing them in our own time and place? And, when has a director gone "too far" in their production? Is there such a thing as "too far"? How beholden to the text are we, really?

This is something we constantly see in opera. Because the repertoire is so limited compared to theater, the constant recycling of the beautiful classics of Mozart, Puccini, and a handful of other composers has lead to an onslaught of "creativity" among directors. Sometimes I hear about productions that sound absolutely intolerable in their intellectual artsy-ness, but someone must like them. Because they get produced.

And of course, Shakespeare gets put through the wringer for the same reason. There's a limited amount of plays and an even more limited amount of plays that we actually like to see over and over. So the chances of seeing a variety of Romeo and Juliet and Hamlet productions in one's lifetime is pretty high. They are great plays. When we go to see them, do we just want to see the great play? Or do we also want to see the great play done for here and now?

And what about the people for whom it will be their first encounter of the piece? What happens when someone's first production of Carmen is deconstructed in post-modern pastiche? Are these productions geared towards those who have seen five gypsies dance and sing before?

Frankly, I think it's always going to be up for debate. I know what I like, and it's good theater (and I mean either in a theater or opera house), and to me that might be classic or it might be modern, but it better be with compelling performances of people desperately trying to get something from each other, highlighted by some beautiful metaphor. But that's just me. The productions that leave me cold are usually too bogged down in historical recreation, and the characters seem to have no life; or are overly intellectual to the point that the plays/operas to lose their humanity. (Although I do not include things like Robert Wilson's productions in this category, because I have a deeply emotional response to things like this.)

And here are some really great thoughts by other people on the topic from the guardian's website (one of my favorite places to read about theater) some are the same writers in different years, fascinating to see how they continue contemplating this issue:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/theatreblog/2012/sep/27/plays-classic-chekhov-three-sisters

http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2012/jan/03/d-director-s-theatre-modern-drama?INTCMP=SRCH

http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/theatreblog/2009/apr/30/auteur-theatre-director-play?INTCMP=SRCH

http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/theatreblog/2007/nov/29/theclassicswouldbeancient?INTCMP=SRCH

http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/theatreblog/2009/apr/14/auteur-theatre?INTCMP=SRCH