The Lion King- A pseudo-Hamlet

My knowledge of Shakespeare has been, until this class, incredibly limited. Due to my school’s reading list, I read the staple of all 9^th grade classes, Romeo and Juliet, and then the next year followed up with The Taming of The Shrew. And so, as I viewed the blog and saw the increasingly varied and interesting adaptations of Shakespeare’s works, I decided to instead take a turn towards the familiar. Prior to a few days before our first meeting, I had never read Hamlet. And, interestingly enough, I started to see that the play was far more infectious than I had thought. I gradually began to see parallels between Hamlet and a story that had been with me since childhood- The Lion King. I saw the popular Disney film several times between the years of 7 and 12 (with occasional rewatches whenever it showed up on TV), and things began to click after reading Shakespeare’s play. There were parallels everywhere, some more apparent than others- Mufasa to King Hamlet, Simba to Hamlet, and Scar to Claudius. Their base plots are essentially the same- A king is killed by his brother in order to usurp the former’s throne, and his son is made aware of the murder and driven to seek revenge. Two comic relief characters acting to closely advise the son- This role is filled by Timon and Pumbaa. The dead king appearing to his son, motivating him to revenge his passing- Simba’s father appearing to him in the clouds, with a resounding “remember who you are.” A wise beneficiary that assists the son- This is fulfilled by Rafiki, guiding Simba on his journey back to face Scar. Polonious and Laretes are present as well, in the form of the Hyenas- devotees to the usurper. And yet, despite the similarities and obvious influences that Hamlet had on The Lion King, several key differences caused the two tales to diverge. Perhaps the largest of them is the ending of the two stories. Hamlet is, by all conventional definitions, a tragedy. Yet The Lion King, following a similar plotline, is almost inspiring. Also interesting is the exclusion of the relations between Polonious, Larates, and Ophelia, and the importance of Claudius marrying Hamlet’s mother. Perhaps the most momentous exclusion is Hamlet’s insanity, the central issue to Hamlet- are the son’s actions a product of madness, or rational thought ending badly due to poor planning and unfortunate circumstances?  In The Lion King, this decision is made for the viewer- The son is completely sane, his actions are justified, and he is able to carry out his destiny and regain his honor.  This single decision turns a cautionary tale of jealousy and greed into an epic of revenge and fulfillment. What makes the adaptation intriguing is the fact that it aims to be so different from its Shakespearean roots.  Does the story benefit from the change? It’s hard to say. Both stories end up fairly different and wildly popular. Perhaps the change came about due to different target audiences- Disney is a company towards children’s movies, whereas Shakespeare sought a more intellectual (or at least older) audience. Or perhaps Disney aimed to create something different out of a timeless classic. In either case, it is hard to call The Lion King an adaptation- it’s more like a reimagining of the play. And as the movie and its franchising have proved, it was not necessarily a bad idea. At least from a marketing standpoint.

Jacquelyn's post on David Tse

In the adaptation I found called Lear's Daughters, the show takes an entirely new perspective on King Lear. It focuses on the three daughters' lives before the onset of the play. With the fool acting as narrator as well as his own character, he addresses the audience directly. Each daughter in turn will talk about different experiences unique to them and through that give insight into life behind the scenes at Lear's castle. With implications of affairs and a habitually absent Lear as father, this adaptation forces the focus onto the relationships between the three sisters in hopes of explaining their dynamics within Shakespeare's play. I didn't get to watch all of it but the part I did see seemed witty and very interesting.

http://globalshakespeares.mit.edu/lears-daughters-tse-david-2003/

Is Macbeth Insane?

While searching the internet for an interesting Shakespearean adaptation, I found this commercial for a new interpretation of Macbeth. The commercial focuses on Act 2, Scene 1, lines 51-77 and, through many different factors, reveals a side of Macbeth many people wouldn’t think of. The performance focuses on the interpretation that Macbeth is insane and through cinematic effect, reveals his internal conflict over what to do about killing King Duncan. The adaptation is set in a mental hospital in which Macbeth will play all of the different characters in the original play under the pretense that he has multiple personalities. While this interpretation is fairly far-fetched, I believe it provides an important commentary on the different ways to perceive the famed protagonist: is he a cunning manipulator or a mentally disturbed man? It is up to the reader to decide. I appreciate this version of the play because it makes that decision for us and is therefore able to delve even further into this interpretation and investigate the possibilities what Macbeth’s mental illness could mean.

http://globalshakespeares.mit.edu/macbeth-tiffany-john-2012/

Images of Hamlet in Pippin

This past summer, I saw the amazing production of Pippin on Broadway, and there was a scene in it that certainly seemed to be inspired by Hamlet. In the first act, Pippin is convinced to murder his father, so he goes to find him praying at the church. During the scene, Pippin contemplates whether he should go through with the murder, since it might be sacreligious to kill him during prayer, which is parallel to the scene in Hamlet where Hamlet considers killing Claudius during prayer. Though the scene in Pippin is not completely consistent with the Hamlet scene (Pippin DOES end up killing Charles) it seemed to be inspired by Shakespeare's story. In addition, Pippin as a whole features a lot of Shakespearean-type language, and it certainly stuck out when I saw it in New York this past summer.

Maria Penas' post: Internet Shakespeare FAQ's: What Makes Shakespeare Great?

Internet Shakespeare FAQ's: What Makes Shakespeare Great?

"People still talk about Shakespeare and study his plays because

-- he wrote plays that are enormously rewarding to act and direct

-- his characters are endlessly interesting and impossible to reduce to a simple formula

-- his language, though now difficult, is subtle, richly varied, and eloquent

-- the plots of his plays still speak to the experiences of a modern world

 -- his plays survive translation and are performed around the world

-- he's just an amazingly good writer

There are also some less attractive reasons. Some people still talk about Shakespeare because:

-- he's famous, so you should take him seriously

-- he's famous so you would look bad if you didn't say you liked him

-- he's always been studied, so we should go on studying him"

The article then went on about aspects of Shakespeare's life that were/are interesting. The author never went into why Shakespeare is so famous as opposed to other writers.

I think Shakespeare is definitely worth his fame, but the argument missing here is that what if there were other authors worth his fame, too?

The Speaker's Progress (Twelfth Night)

http://globalshakespeares.mit.edu/the-speakers-progress-al-bassam-sulayman-2011/

I came across this modernized Twelfth Night that is set in the Arab world as the citizens under totalitarian rule begin to fight for freedoms. Theater has been banned in this unnamed country, but a few brave souls are putting on a play and becoming important players on the underground blogging and twitter scene.
Here's a quote from the writer/director:
 “A new history is finding its voice among the millions across the Arab world who stood up and continue to stand—and fall—for dignity and freedom after decades of shame and oppression. This play, forged at the cusp of these two eras, has the fortune—and the responsibility—to be one of its platforms.”–Sulayman Al-Bassam

and another link to Professor Litvin's review of the production:
http://www.academia.edu/4443584/Review_of_Sulayman_Al-Bassams_The_Speakers_Progress_2011_

I think this production is an excellent example of the concept of meaning by Shakespeare that we discussed in class on Monday. While there are obvious differences in time, place, and circumstance from the original "Twelfth Night," the irrefutable desire to be who you are, express yourself, and love who you choose are still the central themes of the play. Even though the play centered around Arab issues, all people are able to relate to the agony of repression and censorship (as someone who was removed from a school paper for her political views, I can personally attest to that). Al-Bassam uses the core of Twelfth Night to express his meaning, honoring courageous dissidents in the modernizing Arab World in this tumultuous time of uprising and political discontent, but he is able to speak to me, a young girl in a comparatively free western nation whose reporting on Todd Akin and the legitimacy of rape was deemed unfit for Catholic school girls in wealthy suburb.

My point is, people have been forced to hide since the times of Shakespeare. He composed Twelfth Night based on his own views and experiences with the issue, whatever they may be. Al-Bassam is just one of the many directors able to adapt the work to convey his own socio-political message, which is part of what makes Shakespeare so successful. No matter where you search in the world, from free democracies to rigid dictatorships, people have felt repressed in one way or another and we often admire the brave few that stand up. This play provides relatable heroes in its characters that can and should inspire everyone to fight for the creation of a more accepting world, wherever they may be.

Makebai furen (Lady Macbeth)

While I was browsing the MIT Global Shakespeares website, I stumbled upon a link that seemed interesting. About an hour later, I had watched an entire play based off Macbeth,  called Lady Macbeth. This play was fascinating, firstly because of the entirely different culture in which  Macbeth  took place. The producers had placed Shakespeare's original play in ancient Taiwan, which I found reminded me strongly of the article from yesterday's class (with the woman who visited with the Tiv tribe) because of the way small changes had been made to accommodate the people's culture. Emperors replaced kings and tea replaced wine.

Another thing that grabbed my attention was that the play was being narrated by Lady Macbeth. It was cool to be able to view the play from an entirely different standpoint - especially a female perspective (since Shakespeare's original plays never focused on a female character) . I felt that the audience could sympathize with Lady Macbeth more in this play because her power-seeking nature was highlighted less than her remorse over murdering the emperor.

The final half of the play focused on Lady Macbeth's guilt, and how the emperor she killed reminded her of her own father. In the last scene of the play, where Lady Macbeth laments her fate (as well as that of the dead emperor's) she is dressed in all white - something I found peculiar. I'm not sure if white in Taiwanese culture symbolizes purity, as it does in Western culture, but it made me think that perhaps the playwrights were suggesting that her remorse had somehow "cleansed" her of all her wrongdoings.

Anyway, if anyone is interested in watching this short play as well, the link is below!
<http://globalshakespeares.mit.edu/lady-macbeth-tian-mansha-2001/>