Last week’s article, Fixing Shakespeare (March 8), lamented the callous editing and exclusion of key lines and speeches from Shakespeare’s plays. As a Shakespeare lover myself, I understand that indignation, especially when one spends an entire evening waiting to see a favourite passage enacted and does not receive the pleasure. But while some might view Shakespeare as canon and his words set in stone, the fact remains that his plays are open to interpretation just like any other text. Editing, cutting, and splicing of the plays allows for new and exciting avenues of interpretation of the Bard.
The bigger question, of course, is why do audiences tend to give interpretive authority to the author of a play? After all, no one can ever know precisely what the author “really meant,” and so to assume that a certain passage is essential and that its removal would distort the author’s intention would make us guilty of intentional fallacy. Instead of being blinded by the obvious brilliance of the author’s craft, it is far better to look at the text-and solely the text-and then to choose an interpretation or modification that suits the directorial vision.
When a text comes into the hands of a director, it is no longer the property of the author, but rather it is the director’s to do with what he or she pleases. In fact, Shakespeare himself often modified pre-existing plays and stories to form the basis of his own plays, and these days his own works are recycled by Tom Stoppard in absolutely delightful ways. If one can butcher Shaw’s Pygmalion and make it into a highly successful musical with a happy romance ending in My Fair Lady, then even Shakespeare should be open to scissors.
