Sources
Interview with Emma Harris
Note: This interview texts has been recreated from notes and recordings and abridged in places for brevity and clarity.
December 2019, London
ANTONIA GEORGIEVA: Is there a certain approach or method of adaptation that you’ve found yourself following across different productions?
EMMA HARRIS: I think there are two ways. One way is you do the thing as it exists in its original form and then radically change the thematic lens through which you are looking at it. And I think it’s quite interesting having the text as is and pointing out the problems in it. This becomes a form of adaptation, I would argue, despite the fact that there are no textual changes because the lens is so different.
Methodology number 2 is what I did with the Chekhov [adaptation] and actually what I also did on Absolute Hell [dir. Joe Hill-Gibbins] because it turned out there’s 4 different versions of it, so I collated the editions. The play was originally called The Pink Room, written in the 50s. In many ways the first version was quite queer, and it was a massive failure. He rewrote it a couple of decades later as Absolute Hell and continued to edit it. So I looked at all 4 versions, looked at questions, formatting, etc. I made a list of all of that the textual variants in all 4 versions and made choices based on what we were doing with the play, so actually it was kind of a Frankenstein’s monster of the texts, a mishmash of all the versions. Going through and deciding based on what we were going for which version would best fit.
For my Chekhov thing I read 15 versions of Three Sisters and I tried to look at the mustiest versions and translations – that’s a whole other question because it’s adaptation and translation – but I tried to look at how all of the variants and different methods of adapting. And based on all of that I made my own decisions about how I wanted it to go.
So that is the other way of doing it: coming up with your own rules and your own concept. And then using the existing version to make what you want. That could be a question of using the existing text entirely or it could be a question of translating it in modern language.
In terms of the formatting, this is what Rob [Icke] does. He takes out all of the capitalization. He basically dismantles the hegemony of the printing press is what we argued. He removes all of the punctuation except he adds forward slashes where he wants them to keep the momentum of the text moving. So, Rob included the scene between Horatio and Gertrude from the First Quarto, which is why we spoke to him in the first place, because that essentially completely changes the text because Gertrude goes from being unclear whether or not she was complicit in Claudius’s crimes to her having no idea. Otherwise I’ve seen so many Gertrudes who were monsters.
He also added non-verbal scenes in which you see Ophelia naked in the bathtub and Hamlet comes in and grabs her and she’s got bruises throughout. There’s also a scene of Claudius and Gertrude post-wedding and that was really interesting because then you think that she was actually in love with him and forced to marry old Hamlet and she didn’t want to but now for the first time she can be happy. That changes her character completely. It’s her tragedy as well.
AG: How did that change the ending when she takes the poison?
EH: She has this amazing moment where Claudius goes to stop her and looks at him. There’s a moment of “I know what I’m doing, and I know who you are” and so it becomes a defiant act of she’s taking herself out of the picture and there is a deep maternal connection with Hamlet there. It’s a choice. That completely changes Gertrude and as soon as you have a different Gertrude, you have a different Hamlet and the whole play re-centers.
He also did a bunch of things with time – he basically condensed it to make it look like it was taking place over 48h or so. They cut some of the details and made it more urgent. He wanted it to feel domestic. He wanted the tragedy of the family and wanted it to feel like it had urgency and momentum which it sometimes doesn’t because of the timeline. With those things in mind, he edited accordingly.
AG: Going back to the idea of punctuation and formatting, especially with Shakespeare there’s whole academia around the meaning of a period and a semi-colon…
EH: Something that I would say for your actors that would be crucial is how you format it and punctuate it. Sometimes even the font that you choose can make it sing in a different way. Come up with your language rulebook, whatever that it and then format in a way that can then activate it for actors. Present it to them as a new text.
AG: You talked a bit about anachronisms in the text. Can you give some other examples of where you encountered that and how you approached those?
EH: I’d say the main one for me was with the Chekhov, where it’s a question of translation as well as anachronisms so then you have another thing kind of muddying the picture. Often words to watch have to do with currency, animals, niche things referring to clothing. So I guess then a question about cutting is to do with keeping the integrity of the scansion intact – if you’re cutting or replacing something you need to make sure it scans the same way; otherwise it attacks the ear and it’s really unpleasant. I am comfortable with changing anachronisms, especially if it helps to clarify something for the audience. Another thing I would say is look for bad adaptations because it can be really instructive and you will find they have quite a strong moral response. If you look at versions where people have changed things up and sliced the original in various different ways, you will learn more about your own rules.
AG: This next question is more about adaptations as a whole. What do you think is the place of adaptations in contemporary theatre as a whole? And what is the critical work they should be doing or are doing – the pros and cons? These classic plays tend to attract a large audience, and that’s why they are constantly being revisit, but beyond that very practical reason, why do you think we artistically keep going back to these texts that are 400 years old or even older?
I am currently leaning more toward cons in my life than pros, but I will say pros. The argument I would give for it and the reason why I’m interested in, for example, Restoration she-tragedy is, I would argue, nothing has changed. I find deep comfort in the fact that Hamlet’s existential angst is in dialogue with my own. I think there something really amazing in the fact that someone 400 years ago was saying and thinking things that are deeply akin to what I think and feel. I find that really moving. And I think that the only reason to ever do an adaptation is if you have something relevant to say. With Shakespeare you sort of get productions that everyone is doing at the same time. Like a year or so ago there were a bunch of Hamlets going on at the same time. There was Rob’s, and then there was one they did at RADA with Tom Hiddleston, the Lyndsey Turner one with Benedict Cumberbatch.
AG: There was one with Maxine Peake around the same time. And the one at The RSC.
EH: Yes, with Paapa Essiedu, which was set in Africa. That’s a question of what an adaptation is. If you’re just staging Shakespeare, there’s an interesting question of is that then automatically an adaptation in putting an early modern text on stage. Does it inherently become something other than the original?
AG: That’s one of my starting questions as well. At what point has a text changed so much that it’s now a new thing. Sometimes directors will make really radical cuts and revisions all with their vision in mind but at the end of the day it’s a completely different text. So what’s that line between a director’s adaptation and a writer’s adaptation?
EH: So do you know the Ostermeier Hamlet? I think part of the reason why German Shakespeare is better is that they are not tied to the language. Because it’s automatically in translation they kind of have a free pass and as a result of that it sometimes ends up feeling closer to the text.
Cons on the question of adaptations and relevance. Accessibility or lack thereof. The fact that Shakespeare is used as a kind of oppressive tool of colonialism. The fact that we all “know it”. Does that mean there’s anything exciting in it? There’s maybe a pro in taking that and trying to do something innovative with it. But at the same time it has become a part of the culture. Everyone knows Romeo and Juliet die at the end so why bother?
I’d say that at the moment my cons have to do with this is an oppressive thing that perpetuates the myth of a single author. There’s a cult of Shakespeare’s figure. We grow up worshipping Shakespeare and thinking that he was the single source of Western genius but actually that is an oppressive and patriarchal myth. I would say.
AG: What are some ways to tackle that today?
EH: I think that has to do with the lens you are taking and your concept, having a really strong intention and being really aware of the ways in which a text can be a violent tool and making a very conscious choice not to go there, trying as hard as you can to mediate that. By putting it on you are perpetuating it. So take that as a starting point and interrogate it.