Rather than doing the 'oh look, I've started a new blog about my writing' spiel, I thought I'd jump right in with what's been going on in my head recently.
I came across this article today http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/theatreblog/2012/mar/16/noises-off-theatre-faithful-texts which talks about an issue I've been contemplating recently with regard to a play I've been working on.
I have a passion for adaptations. I love to see how a story is interpreted by someone new, how it evolves and why stories continue to resonate with audiences decades and even hundreds of years after their creation. I could go on about contemporary adaptation/appropriation theory, but that would be getting off topic. Suffice it to say I've done a fair amount of academic work in this field so I have a solid background when it comes to debating the issue. I may know current thinking, but I'm still having an issue with my particular project.
Anyway, to get back on track this article hit home because I'm currently working on writing a stage adaptation of the children's story The Happy Prince by Oscar Wilde.
Now, the story centres around the statue of a Prince and a swallow about to migrate for winter. The Prince sees all the misery in the town and persuades the swallow to help him help the poor townspeople in need. The swallow does, but by doing so he stays until the weather becomes too cold and he dies. The Prince's heart breaks when this happens and he 'dies' too. It's a beautiful story, but rather sad. However, at the very end God sends one of his angels to bring back the 2 most precious things in the town. The angel brings back the broken heart of the Prince and the little swallow.
It feels as if this ending was tacked on by the author as a way of giving the story a happy ending. It is after all a children's story.
I've tried to remain faithful to the original dialogue as much as possible, because I feel that Wilde always had a beautiful way with language and I want to preserve that. But the ending doesn't sit quite right with me. I find it too abrupt for one. But the biggest reason is centred around how I feel about adding in religion into a contemporary children's play.
Here are some of my concerns:
If I leave it in, will that make it less likely to be producable? I feel like it would in the UK, but maybe not in the US.
Should I be faithful to the original text? Is that important? I do feel the story deserves a happy ending, but is having God step in and have them brought to heaven the best way to do it? Does that alienate those who don't share in those beliefs?
How do I tackle the ending with sensitivity to the original text if I do change it?
I think at the moment I need to sit with it a while longer and let my unconscious ponder these issues. Maybe do some deeper research into the story itself and see if that yields any information that helps.
It's a tricky one. The point of adaptations is to add your own spin to something, but at what point does your own spin change the story entirely? There's a ton to be said on that, but I'll try and stick to your main concerns.
ReplyDeleteOK, you say you have problems concerning religion in a children's play. How religious is it, exactly? Is it proper Biblical, Judeo-Christian God with all the trappings? Is it just a miscellaneous omnipotent being identified as God but nothing more? How Biblical is it? Could you get away with it being a non religion-specific God figure?
Also, I think you need to have a think about something else - if it was, say, Gaia who brought the swallow and prince back, would you be as annoyed about that? (might that even be a better ending? Could be interesting to adapt it in the context of different world religions - a Hindu reincarnation ending, for example?) Are you annoyed about religion being present in the play or are you annoyed about Christianity being in the play? Figure out if you'd treat all world religions the same with the adaptation and take it from there.
Also, what's the main reason for not liking religion in contemporary children's plays? If it's a general "don't use things like plays and books to indoctrinate kids", then cool, but does that extend to, say, the strong atheist sentiment in the His Dark Materials books or the strong Christian ethos in the Twilight saga? Should they be in their respective books? I imagine your issue is mainly to do with the age of the children in the target audience, and their susceptibility to messages in their cultural intake?
I know this seems like I'm having a total "In defence of religion" go here, but I'm honestly not. My drift into atheism was completed some time ago.
Right, faithfulness to the original text. Again, tricky. Like I said, there's your own spin and there's changing it entirely. Think of your favourite book or play. Imagine going to see it. Imagine the ending being changed completely. How do you feel about it? Are you disappointed? Key thing to remember is that the story will be very precious to a lot of people. Think very carefully about changing the ending in such a way. Further research is the best idea. Figure out, as far as you can, why the ending is there. Don't change it without understanding it fully.
Now in fairness, I haven't read the damn thing, but these are just the initial thoughts that come to mind. It does sound to me like the ending was fairly tacked on, and it would have been a nice bittersweet ending if left as it were. As for a happy ending though, all sweet and no bitter? Haven't a scoobie.
Hope I made sense!
Thanks for the comments, I'll try to explain my way around them.
ReplyDeleteMy problem with the religious aspect is twofold in the play. First, yes it does feel tacked on. It reads as if Wilde needed to have a positive and moralistic ending to what would otherwise be a story about the futility of good actions. From my critical reading around the story it seems as if he wrote it as a metaphor against the baser actions of people in his own society. And fairytales have long been associated with morality lessons.
The context of the story feels like a typical (though not specified) Judeo-Christian God. While the notion of playing around with the particular religion of the story does interest me and would be an enjoyable exercise in writing, I don't feel like it fits the rest of the story without changing it drastically which is something I'm not interested in with this particular project. I had been thinking about some form of reincarnation/heavenly reward that is not specific to any one religion. It would allow the story to carry the same elements without being specifically Christian/Jewish/Hindu etc.
Mostly I find the religion in this story somewhat heavy handed. Even though it's only tacked on at the end. When the angel brings them back to heaven God says 'in my garden of Paradise
this little bird shall sing for evermore, and in my city of gold
the Happy Prince shall praise me.' I would personally prefer and ending where the two are reunited and the focus is on them being together. That's their reward for their good deeds, not being brought to heaven to praise God.
I'm not annoyed with religion in this story, I just don't feel that the way it is presented in the original is something I personally want to reiterate. Yes, I want to pay homage to Wilde as a writer, and the way I see myself doing that is by maintaining the beauty of his language. But I also need to remain true to my own artistic sensibilities. This is the line that any adapter has to tread when approaching a work from the angle I am.
Thanks for (once again!) helping me firm up the ideas in my head by talking around them with me.