Shakespeare Wept

I was flipping through the extremely local fishwrapper this morning and came across back-to-back theatre articles that left me, well, decide for yourself....

The first was a review of a new production of Macbeth that, wait for it, doesn't have any words. The reviewer seems to think this is just what the Bard needed:

Words cannot do justice to the unspeakable acts of betrayal and murder in Shakespeare's “Macbeth,” so Synetic Theater's dialogue-free adaptation plunges even further into the darkness.

Directed by Paata Tsikurishvili, “Macbeth” bears a strong resemblance to several of Synetic's recent successes. “Dracula,” “Frankenstein” and “Faust” also benefited from similarly dark themes, thunderous music, dramatic lighting and writhing dancers.

"Words cannot do justice....?" They can't? I'd say that words cannot do justice to the gob-smacking assinity of this sentiment.

(And speaking of idiocy, let's go back to the article:

The company changes the play's opening sequence by having the witches (played by Philip Fletcher, Meghan Grady and Katherine Hill) steal the identities of a Christian priest, Islamic mullah and Jewish rabbi.

Oh, how very timely, how very clever, how very.......7th grade.)

And speaking of 7th grade, cast your eyes over the opening of this review of the play "I Hate Hamlet" written by the same fellah:

What better way to wade into the deep waters of Shakespeare than to gleefully mock its pretensions, arcane language and attendant snobbery?

Fascinating, Captain. Sensors are picking up a massive inferiority complex dead ahead.

Look, I really don't mind that much when people muck about with Shakespeare, even when the idea is as silly as staging one of his plays in mime (recognizing, of course, that it is no longer Shakespeare). After all, where would we be without, say, "West Side Story" and "Kiss Me, Kate"? And as for lampoons, well, there aren't many folks much funnier than The Reduced Shakespeare Company.

But I do mind the apparent need of some people to justify enjoying such mucking by attempting to take down Ol' Will himself. Shakespeare's words can't do justice to Macbeth? The Bard is pretentious, arcane and thhnobbish? ("Oh, Oh, Pardon me! I'm off to play the grahhnd piaahno.!") This is the very worst sort of middle-brow reverse snobbery, shallow, cheap and ignorant. Sure, Shakespeare takes some effort to understand and appreciate, but it's been pretty well accepted that the rewards are very much worth it. This fellah, however, would have his readers believe otherwise - that one can skip that old, dead punk completely and go straight for the derivatives.

Feh.

Incidentally, is Shakespeare in mime still Shakespeare? As I say, of course not. The language is as integral to his plays as is anything else about them. This brings back fond memories of a blazing argument I had in college with my then-soon-to-be-ex-girlfriend over a program to introduce high school kids to the Bard by presenting his plays in updated, heavily-edited comic book form. She said it was still Shakespeare. I said no, it was comic books. She said I was a snob. I said she was a fool. And the rest, as they say, is history.

UPDATE: The Colossus mentions the Pythonesque quality of a wordless "Macbeth." Agreed. And while I can't give you that, I can give you the semaphore version of Wuthering Heights: