I have just gotten back from BYU Young Company's production of "The Merchant of Venice"
Over all I really loved the adaptation
It was an adaptation for children
They preform at BYU
and then they travel and perform it for schools as well
They had the children sit down on the floor
and also had children play some of the minor parts like Nerissa
The play was held in Margetts Theatre
This was a very interesting set up
They called it a "round play" if i remember correctly
because it was a big room with tier seating set up on all four sides
and then in the center there were floor seat with "aisles" for the actors to walk
so the audience was all around
in the four corners, props were kept and costume changes and everything took place
so there was no backstage either
this set up worked particularly well for what the play was trying to accomplish
being a child's adaptation, the cast was trying to get the audience and the children
as involved as possible
the only down fall that i noticed was that
at times i felt the actors had to go out of their way to get around the children on the ground
which made it feel awkward because of the lack of space
this was bearable, but what was not is that i felt lines got lost
some lines would not get spoken loud enough
when the actor had their back to my side
so the "round" set up made it hard to hear at times
or i could also be deaf....
Like I said, I really enjoyed the play
I thought they did a wonderful job
and it makes me wish I had children of my own to bring to it
to make it a children's adaptation
they changed a few thing about the original script
to start off the actors asked the audience
what they wanted the names of things to be
so they changed:
the money name to be dublooms from ducats
Portia's "far away land" of Belmont to be Andalasia
they changed it to be the Merchant of Stratford instead of Venice
and Shylock worked at the Purple Turtle Yogurtland
They also focus on race instead of religion
so they changed the Jews to be "Curan"
and Christians to be "Tharian"
I really didnt like how they did this
I thought it was unnecessary and didnt add anything to the play
the only thing i thought was good was is
how they changed the religion issue to be a race issue
but changing everything else took away from the play
and they could have kept everything else the same
and had an equally good production
the reasoning they gave was that they wanted
to create a completely made up land
and really get the audience involved on it
which i still hold that this was unnecessary
The play being for children,
changing the religion to race did work
the play was very focused on the moral issue
of bullying and fairness and justice
which is good
and they had a display set up in lobby about bullying
and this all makes the harder issues in the play
reach the children's level
also how they portrayed Shylock changing everything
he had in the end did a wonderful job of bring it all home
so the religion to race change was good
all the other changes.. not so much
the other change that was made in the play
was that Antonio was changed to Antonia
After the play I talked to Katie Jarvis who
played Antonia in the adaptation
I first asked if she had read the original play
Which she replied to that she has
I asked her how she felt about the change of the character
She was really excited about how it was changed
because it allowed for the feelings and relationship that is expressed
between Bassanio and Antonio to be kept in the play
yet it makes it appropriate for children and school audiences
in taking out the gay undertones
So she completely believes that Antonio was in love with Bassanio
and that there is a strong theme of homosexuality
She also said it was amazing to play
what would then be such a powerful woman
when they changed Antonio to Antonia
I really enjoyed talking one on one with her
and she helped bring out things I had never thought about
I think that changing Antonio to Antonia
was a good change for this adaptation
it definitely allowed for Antonio's character to be changed as little as possible
as far as making the play interactive
i think the cast did a wonderful job
it made the play so cute
as well as added another dynamic to the play
that made it enjoyable
because how cute was it when the little girl realized she was getting married
and as a future English teacher
i think that this is such a good experience for the children
i hope that it planted good seeds
that the children will remember
so that they too can come to love Shakespeare!
so over all I thought the play was wonderful
i wish they wouldnt have changed unnecessary things
and that some of the line couldve been spoken louder
but other than that! i loved it
oh! and they are doing Henry V next winter!
and i liked this adaptation enough
that i will probably try to go to that one if i remember
Tara I really appreciate your comments about Katie Jarvis' comments. I had no idea that this could be considered an exploration of homosexuality and feel it brings a whole new highlight to the play.
ReplyDeleteYou peaked my curiosity and so I was able to search a couple sites: Luminarium, Wikapedia,and World Shakespeare Bibliography. The below article is in specific relations to what Katie Jarvis was speaking about:
"Sexual Testing in The Merchant of Venice" by Morriss Henry Partee
http://www.worldshakesbib.org/search?order1=author&keywords=merchant+of+venice+homosexuality&submit=Search&rid=85306&words=merchant%20of%20venice%20homosexuality