In lieu of an, eh, actual blog post, and in light of recent (and not-so-recent) discussions regarding authorship and appropriation, thought I might share a brief bit regarding The Beaux' Stratagem, discovered whilst poking at the production history.
Turns out that perhaps the most recent, larger-scale U.S. production of Stratagem came in 2006, under the direction of Michael Kahn with D.C.'s Shakespeare Theatre Company. The trick here? The text used was, well, something of an adaptation of an adaptation, or perhaps an adaptation with contributions by two authors separated by half a century.
...Eh?
During the late 1930s, Thornton Wilder (yes, the Wilder of Our Town and The Skin of Our Teeth) apparently set to adapting Farquhar's play. He didn't finish the project, however, and Ken Ludwig (think Lend Me a Tenor and Moon Over Buffalo) picked it up in 2004, gave the play a final presumed polish, and there the newly revised Beaux' Stratagem stood, ready to hit the stage (or, at least, to head into the production process).
And so arise the questions. Is this a matter of "restoring the play," or something more like creating a new work? Picking, choosing, and remolding can very quickly blur a work's (dare we say original... or perhaps simply earlier) identity. Where indeed is the original or are the originals here, and who may lay claim to creative talent? Having undergone the treatment of three separate playwrights (noting again that the writers were separated by decades or even centuries, so that none were in, eh, lively conversation), having been altered to suit more modern sensibilities and clear up supposed clutter, to whom does this new Stratagem belong? At what point does it become more Wilder and/or Ludwig's than Farquhar's? What does this shifted authorship mean? And, at bottom, does this matter of the author matter overmuch?
And consider the following quote (taken from an interview with Lincoln Konkle) from Ludwig on considering Wilder's unfinished adaptation of Farquhar's play:
Wilder through the eyes of Ludwig, getting at Farquhar. Makes the head spin a bit, non?"I imagine that Wilder must have said to himself something like this: 'Here is a great piece of theatre with really remarkable comic exuberance and unusually wonderful characters, and it goes unperformed for decades at a time because it’s too long, too dense, and has too many complicated sub-plots. So why don’t I shake things up a bit? I’ll keep the exuberant story-line, the major characters and the great speeches, and I’ll cut out all the boring bits. And to make up for the cuts, I’ll add some new plot twists and write some new scenes. Then, perhaps, I can restore this play to the glory it deserves...'"
And so arise the questions. Is this a matter of "restoring the play," or something more like creating a new work? Picking, choosing, and remolding can very quickly blur a work's (dare we say original... or perhaps simply earlier) identity. Where indeed is the original or are the originals here, and who may lay claim to creative talent? Having undergone the treatment of three separate playwrights (noting again that the writers were separated by decades or even centuries, so that none were in, eh, lively conversation), having been altered to suit more modern sensibilities and clear up supposed clutter, to whom does this new Stratagem belong? At what point does it become more Wilder and/or Ludwig's than Farquhar's? What does this shifted authorship mean? And, at bottom, does this matter of the author matter overmuch?
Whatever the answers, here we have another piece of print passed about, marked up and marked over, remade at the whim of whichever author happens to hold the pen. Seems rather a likely fate for an 18th-century work, given the many freely circulated and re-worked pages (shall we briefly return to Pamela and friends?).
At any rate. Check out The Shakespeare Theatre Company's show site for further information regarding the adaptation, and about Farquhar himself. A couple of theatre reviews will offer outside impressions of the adaptation. And if you'd like a glimpse for yourself, Google Books offers a preview of the adapted script.
Fascinating! And so revealing about the collaborative processes of writing. I think the only place truly solitary writing exists is within copyright law.
ReplyDelete