Shakespearean Adaptations and Why Relevancy’s Expiration Date Matters
By Isabella Kelly-Goss
Over the recent years there has been an increase in demand for ‘original content.’ While Hollywood should absolutely be investing in fresh minds and ideas, it has often been overlooked that many of our beloved films are, in fact, adaptations. Specifically speaking, many films that fly under the radar of the term ‘adaptation’ are born from classic literature. Of course, many of these scripts have been given a makeover to breathe modern air into the stories. While you have your classic adaptations, such as Baz Luhrmann’s Romeo + Juliet (1996) which uses the original script, there are a plethora of movies that take inspiration from the Elizabethan Era and go relatively undetected. There is no doubt that the executives in Hollywood should be giving unknown screenwriters and actors a shot, but the conversation does arise: Who decides what defines original content?
Image Sourced Through Pinterest
While there is plenty of argument to be made for the end-all-be-all of original content being strictly unknown stories by unknown writers up on the silver screen, does a fresh perspective on an ancient story count as original? Sure, quite a few of Shakespeare’s works have been taught religiously in schools and, therefore, are known by the masses. There are adaptive films such as Steven Spielberg’s West Side Story which is a well known reimagining of Romeo and Juliet, not to mention a remake of the 1961 film. Due to the relevance of Romeo and Juliet, good as it may be (Rachel Zegler, I love you), it does not count as original content. But where do we draw the line in the proverbial sand of new life in cinema?
Image Sourced Through Pinterest
In the 1990’s and early 2000’s we saw a large uptick in literary adaptations that have become independently iconic from their original ideas. Even now, 26 years later, younger generations adore and revere Gil Junger’s 10 Things I Hate About You (1999), despite most people not knowing the story of Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew outside of the film. It is a fairly well known fact that 10 Things is an adaptation of the play, but the general audience has, more than likely, not sat down and read or watched a performance of Shakespeare’s version. To the general audience, screenwriters Karen McCullah and Kirsten Smith had created a new and exciting rom-com in its own right.
Image Sourced Through Pinterest
Other films, such as She’s the Man (2006) starring Amanda Bynes, which is based on Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night, or John Tucker Must Die (2006), based on The Merry Wives of Windsor, are stellar testaments to the success of theatre turned theater releases that thrived despite not promoting solely through their Shakespearean roots.
Image Sourced Through Pinterest
Though not Shakespeare, another wonderful example of this is Amy Heckerling's 1995 adaptation of Jane Austen’s Emma, more commonly known as Clueless. More recently, Will Gluck’s Anyone But You starring Glen Powell and Sydney Sweeney made a splash with pop culture enjoyers as the ever classic ‘good but bad’ rom-com. It may have garnered only a 52% on Rotten Tomatoes, but it did certainly gross over $200 million dollars upon its first box office weekend (Deadline). The numbers themselves, paired with many viewers not realizing its inspiration was Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing, is proof of the idea that source material has an expiration date in relevance.
Image Sourced Through Pinterest
With all of these adaptations spurring success for their screenwriters and directors, some of whom are not necessarily well known, does this not count as ‘original content’? Hollywood’s habit of pulling from the same pool of ideas and creators while there are writers desperate to have their work read let alone produced is certainly disheartening. But, relevancy’s expiration date removing certain works from total popularity enables inspiration for those left who appreciate it and help return it to glory with new vision. Perhaps, given these films are more of an homage rather than copy and paste, inspiration is not devalued by the source. In fact, I believe if we looked more towards screenwriters and creators that find inspiration in the dying art they still love, we could move forwards into a wider universe of wholly original stories.
If Hollywood continues to use relevant content in ‘new ways’ as a cash grab, we will move further away from individuality and originality. A screenwriters’ individual interest spurring relevance into reworkings made for a new generation should be celebrated. If we take a gamble on scripts and art that are inspired by something not currently relevant, we open the door to new ideas entirely. The general audience has been asking for new life in films for a few years now, and given the response such inspired films garner, it seems to be the deciding factor. Production companies that value art over profit have even begun to see that profit returning. At the end of the day, relevancy and originality is up to the audience and how they view the film. Modern Shakespearean adaptations may still be adaptations, but the new life they breathe into the audience is what matters the most.
