Ancient dramatic performances, generally, were used to send their audience a moral or teaching. As such, both the Greek tragedy of Oedipus and the medieval drama The Second Shepherd’s Play have the audience’s interest at heart – hence why these texts have been updated to suit the modern audience. The modernisation of dramatic texts has both strengths and weaknesses though overall modern versions of texts appear to strengthen, rather than take away, from a performance.
In order to understand the reasons for modernising an ancient piece of text, the context surrounding the ancient text should be explored first. For instance, both Oedipus and The Second Shepherd’s play have modernised versions of their original texts, for a variety of reasons. One of those reasons, for instance, is the melodramatic performance of both plays. Oedipus, for example, despite being a tragedy is written to be performed in an exaggerated way due to the stage set up; actors often had to project their voices in order to be heard by the audience.
The Shepherd, for instance, who breaks the news to Oedipus in the original text, is overdramatic and hysterical, ‘O master, please—I beg you, master, please – don’t ask me more’, (Grene, 2010, ln.1334) ‘O God, I am on the brink of frightful speech.’ (Grene, 2010, ln.1341)
Plus, Oedipus’ realisation that the Shepherd is speaking of him, ‘O, O, O they will all come, all come out clearly!’, (Grene, 2010, ln.1363) is unrealistic to modern audiences. Not only is this reaction melodramatic, but his actual moment of realisation comes too late – it takes sixty three lines for Oedipus to come to the realisation. In comparison, this scene in modern editions of the text is cut down considerably; Oedipus is quicker to ask ‘was he your son? Then what was he doing there? Why was he living in your care?’ (Britton 2010 p83) , and the revelation that Oedipus is the man the Shepherd speaks of also comes sooner; ‘Where he become Oedipus, whose name means ‘he who walks in pain. (Britton, 2010 p84)
Moreover, his moment of realisation is reduced to, ‘No, no!’ (Britton, 2010, p84) – considerably less overdramatic.
The reason for the shortening in modern texts is due to the fact that 21st century audiences would view the lengthier original text as melodramatic and even pantomime like in nature, preferring a quicker resolution to the drama – therefore modernising the performance in this way is a positive step.
But while the pantomime performance works less well for Oedipus, it perhaps works better for the Second Shepherd’s Play. The Second Shepherd is also performed in an exaggerated way, with slapstick humour and a ‘pantomime vibe’. To a Middle English audience member the pantomime like nature of TSSP would be accepted – this, in part, is due to the informal nature of a Middle English performance. Yet it can be argued that the pantomime like nature of TSSP would contrast with the formality of the modern day theatre performance and as such risks the audience being less engaged with the text – for example, consider the rhyme scheme present in both the original and the updated versions of the text. In the 2010 performance the rhymes can appear unnatural and stilted. Mak’s line,‘it can’t be denied. Our home is well known. The sheep we must hide, Gill, what’s to be done?’ is clunkier than, for instance, the line in the traditional version, ‘well knowe I the token, Bot let it neuer be spoken’ (Anon, 1966 ln320-321)
Though, it is clear that the rhyme scheme is needed in the modern reworking of the performance. TSSP is a medieval drama that aims to engage audiences to its themes and so while performing the original text to a modern day audience means that the play fails in what it is made to do, performing an updated edition with the rhyme scheme intact is able to capture the interest of the audience. Moreover, it emphasises that while each performance covers the same territory, there are slight nuances between them and thus each performance is a version of TSSP in its own right.
At this point within the essay, it is clear that modernising texts can be beneficial toward modern audiences. But despite the benefits of updating ancient texts, the risks cannot be ignored – such as those discussed by Sartre. He proposes that Greek tragedies ‘are so tied to the society from which it is evolved and mirrors, that the text as it stands cannot be played today.’ (Walton, 2006) – supporting the idea that modern audiences need modern texts. In the case of Oedipus, this is true; the story hinges on religion, the plot is pushed forward by prophecies, and was written for the festival of Dionysus. Modern audiences are unlikely to believe in prophecies or the values of a long dead religion and so having a play that focuses so much on long-dead beliefs is unlikely to engage the modern audience. For this text to work in the modern day, the references to prophecies should be removed or at the very least have less of a focus on the concept of a prophecy. On the other hand, to perform The Second Shepherd’s Play in a modernised state is to undermine the intelligence of the audience. For example, consider the line spoken by Mak in the 2010 performance, ‘So dark is this night I may fall on me arse’, not present in the traditional text.
The use of modern yet derogatory language, .i.e. ‘arse’ in modern retellings can present Mak as a relatable character. However, the language is crude and adds to the ‘pantomime’ setting of the play. Plus, it fails to consider that many who watch plays such as TSSP would be doing so with a genuine interest in the context of the play’s background and thus an understanding of the content; the play then loses some of its historical content, and so in altering the text something is lost rather than gained.
Indeed, there are benefits to keeping the original style of performance even for modern audiences. Foley (1998) explains that ‘the use of mask, dance, music, ritual, & poetry in Eastern and other world theater traditions … only overlaps with that of Greek tragedy … offers an opportunity to bring to life those aspects of ancient drama that are alien to the tradition of Western nineteenth-century realism.’ – therefore illuminating modern audiences to different cultural aspects of ancient performance that perhaps would contrast with an atypical modern day performance.
The same argument regarding the loss of historical content could be made for Oedipus as if modern audiences were to be shown an original Oedipus performance they would be unable to understand and follow the narrative – therefore Oedipus must be modernised in some way in order for audiences to engage.
As this essay draws to a close it is important to note a new point. The clear conclusion I have drawn is that modern adaptation of texts are beneficial to audiences to the point where they can be enlightening – so long as the original historical context of the play is not removed. Yet it begs the question as to how far this modernisation of texts can go – can or will texts be modernised even further than they are currently, in years to come? Or, perhaps, there will be a decline in the ultra-modernised versions of dramatic texts as, to suit the audience’s needs, performances go back to their original roots.