11 replies to this topic

[Jan Brock]

"Michael Billington stated that Kneehigh's Cymbeline had been 'perverse to junk all the language' of the original. Carol Rutter responded by saying: 'By scene 17 I had counted over 200 lines of Shakespeare'".

Does anybody, anywhere, in the entire world, believe that C.Rutter sat there actually counting lines of Shakespeare ? Even if she knew the entire play by heart (which I don't believe either) it couldn't be done.

From my perspective (I have seen 5 different productions of this play) the plot was retained intact, some lines were new, some were "translated" from the original into "modern idiom", some fragments and lines of Shakespeare were retained (not much) and a wholly extraneous pantomime dame was introduced to tell us about her holiday in Spain (not in the original). As for the modern idion, well, chucking in phrases like "shock and awe" qualifies but is really hackneyed and dull (and inappropriate to the play).  On top of this, the acting was quite weak in several parts.

[Duncan]

Carol Rutter's judgment can be tested scientifically. The text of the Kneehigh adaptation is available in print, and can therefore be checked for the number of original lines of Shakespeare it contains.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cymbeline-William-.../dp/1840027215/

This is what is meant by "peer review" isn't it? I must stress that I am not volunteering for the job!