3 ms·

Well that's ironic. You do know many of Shakespeare's plays were adapted from elsewhere outside of England or Scotland. So Shakespeare would've been committing

Well that's ironic. You do know many of Shakespeare's plays were adapted from elsewhere outside of England or Scotland. So Shakespeare would've been committing the same sins you're all getting twisted about by having Englishmen play characters called 'Malveolo' and 'Othello' and 'Titus Andronicus' etc. I'm really not understanding this slavish devotion to the skin color and ethnicity of who plays fictional characters.

slothtrop 2y ago
Not really. You can transpose a plot and/or create something based on another work with the freedom to do anything you want (see: Throne of Blood, based on MacBeth), and people will be singing your praises generations later. If conversely you take on the original name, script, characters, historical setting, aesthetic, etc collectively as if to approximate high faithfulness to the original work (one that is not genre fantasy), then putting a brazen change front-and-center (like a black Scottish king) sticks out. It will draw more attention than anything else, and maybe that's the point. There are a ton of Macbeth adaptations, they're not super-duper cheap to make, and they often lose money. It's just an artistic/stylistic judgement, not a complaint (very few readers here are likely to go see another in the pile of Macbeth movies). A modern day adaptation even with all the original names and dialog would still work better. I don't have a horse in the race because I don't care to see yet another Macbeth.
- mpalmer 2y ago
  Following your line of argument, it is arguably way more "brazen" (quite the word choice btw) to cast a woman as Lady Macbeth.
  - slothtrop 2y ago
    https://nosweatshakespeare.com/characters/lady-macbeth/ https://nosweatshakespeare.com/characters/lady-macbeth/ I don't see how.
    - mpalmer 2y ago
      The first time a woman performed in one of Shakespeare's plays in England, he'd been dead for half a century. He wrote all his plays knowing the women would be played by men. How else do you explain the comic irony and theatrical resonance of Lady M saying "Come, you spirits that tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here, [...] come to my woman's breasts and take my milk for gall." What I'm saying is you are not purely interested in artistic faithfulness to the original. You are interested in particular aesthetics that fit your own perspective, and you're using box office receipts to defend your own aesthetics, which is weird.
      - slothtrop 2y ago
        Yes that was the convention, for all plays, and in film today it's decidedly not (not to mention, films.. aren't plays, and that in itself is a deviation). I didn't express any preference for any particular aesthetic. Everyone has them, but it's neither here nor there.
        mpalmer 2y ago
        "some approaches to modern adaptation are better than others", and I believe you went on to say that a race-blind period Macbeth is not an approach you like. Maybe I'm crazy, sounded like a preference to me.
        slothtrop 2y ago
        > you went on to say that a race-blind period Macbeth is not an approach you like I didn't explicitly say so. But given race-blind adaptations, do it or don't. If you're going to turn a historical period on its head, then going all the way would be better. Going back to something you said: > What I'm saying is you are not purely interested in artistic faithfulness to the original. You are interested in particular aesthetics that fit your own perspective, and you're using box office receipts to defend your own aesthetics, which is weird. Consistency and approximating faithfulness to an original is itself an aesthetic. It does not itself make an adaptation superior, it's a stylistic choice, and no one said it's the only good one. Another user mentioned people are looking for "depth and coherent world building". All I said is in keeping with that.
- thruway516 2y ago
  >You can transpose a plot and/or create something based on another work with the freedom to do anything you want Lol. That is exactly what they're doing. You just don't like a black Macbeth, but others do and are fine with it. For the record, there have been black, green, orange, purple, yellow Macbeths since the dawn of time, ever since Shakespeare became a global cultural touchstone performed all over the world. I'm pretty sure whoever he is, wherever he is now, he must be pretty pleased to see his work continue to have cultural relevance through adaptation and appealing to audiences he could not have imagined rather than limited by the lack of imagination of hidebound tradition.
  - slothtrop 2y ago
    > That is exactly what they're doing. I think I made it clear, it isn't. > You just don't like a black Macbeth, but others do and are fine with it. Wrong.

slothtrop 2y ago

Not really. You can transpose a plot and/or create something based on another work with the freedom to do anything you want (see: Throne of Blood, based on MacBeth), and people will be singing your praises generations later. If conversely you take on the original name, script, characters, historical setting, aesthetic, etc collectively as if to approximate high faithfulness to the original work (one that is not genre fantasy), then putting a brazen change front-and-center (like a black Scottish king) sticks out. It will draw more attention than anything else, and maybe that's the point. There are a ton of Macbeth adaptations, they're not super-duper cheap to make, and they often lose money. It's just an artistic/stylistic judgement, not a complaint (very few readers here are likely to go see another in the pile of Macbeth movies). A modern day adaptation even with all the original names and dialog would still work better. I don't have a horse in the race because I don't care to see yet another Macbeth.

mpalmer 2y ago
Following your line of argument, it is arguably way more "brazen" (quite the word choice btw) to cast a woman as Lady Macbeth.
- slothtrop 2y ago
  https://nosweatshakespeare.com/characters/lady-macbeth/ https://nosweatshakespeare.com/characters/lady-macbeth/ I don't see how.
  - mpalmer 2y ago
    The first time a woman performed in one of Shakespeare's plays in England, he'd been dead for half a century. He wrote all his plays knowing the women would be played by men. How else do you explain the comic irony and theatrical resonance of Lady M saying "Come, you spirits that tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here, [...] come to my woman's breasts and take my milk for gall." What I'm saying is you are not purely interested in artistic faithfulness to the original. You are interested in particular aesthetics that fit your own perspective, and you're using box office receipts to defend your own aesthetics, which is weird.
    - slothtrop 2y ago
      Yes that was the convention, for all plays, and in film today it's decidedly not (not to mention, films.. aren't plays, and that in itself is a deviation). I didn't express any preference for any particular aesthetic. Everyone has them, but it's neither here nor there.
      - mpalmer 2y ago
        "some approaches to modern adaptation are better than others", and I believe you went on to say that a race-blind period Macbeth is not an approach you like. Maybe I'm crazy, sounded like a preference to me.
        slothtrop 2y ago
        > you went on to say that a race-blind period Macbeth is not an approach you like I didn't explicitly say so. But given race-blind adaptations, do it or don't. If you're going to turn a historical period on its head, then going all the way would be better. Going back to something you said: > What I'm saying is you are not purely interested in artistic faithfulness to the original. You are interested in particular aesthetics that fit your own perspective, and you're using box office receipts to defend your own aesthetics, which is weird. Consistency and approximating faithfulness to an original is itself an aesthetic. It does not itself make an adaptation superior, it's a stylistic choice, and no one said it's the only good one. Another user mentioned people are looking for "depth and coherent world building". All I said is in keeping with that.
thruway516 2y ago
>You can transpose a plot and/or create something based on another work with the freedom to do anything you want Lol. That is exactly what they're doing. You just don't like a black Macbeth, but others do and are fine with it. For the record, there have been black, green, orange, purple, yellow Macbeths since the dawn of time, ever since Shakespeare became a global cultural touchstone performed all over the world. I'm pretty sure whoever he is, wherever he is now, he must be pretty pleased to see his work continue to have cultural relevance through adaptation and appealing to audiences he could not have imagined rather than limited by the lack of imagination of hidebound tradition.
- slothtrop 2y ago
  > That is exactly what they're doing. I think I made it clear, it isn't. > You just don't like a black Macbeth, but others do and are fine with it. Wrong.