Shakespeare without his verse

With a playwright now so universally acclaimed and interpreted, why not get rid of the language that makes up Shakespeare’s masterpieces? Yes, they are classics and masterpieces, and Artaud indeed stresses the anachronistic nature of them in a modern society, renouncing them as ‘fit for the past’ and incomprehensible to the masses, but Artaud also makes the suggestion that masterpieces can be made conscious to the masses if their ideas are spoken in their language. As Artaud says: ‘theatre is the only place in the world where a gesture, made once, is never repeated in the same way’. I believe it is possible to recreate Shakespeare in an Artaudian language, that goes deeper than one’s intellect and touches on the sensualities and emotions of all people across the world, through what Artaud calls a language somewhere between thought and gesture, which lies outside the restricted nature of words. Instead of actors focussing on the complex nuances of Shakespearean verse, they would make use of the language’s symbolism and interconnections to speak of a world they live in. Last year I saw ‘Richard the Third’ recreated into an ‘Arab Tragedy’, where Shakespeare’s text was cut and edited and translated into Arabic. The English geography, images, conceits and religious framework were reworked into the world of the Gulf today. English history was used to explore contemporary political anxieties in the Gulf and Arab region. Language was not the focus of the play; it had been rewritten. The play was created by a historical idea, much like what Artaud championed, and a theatrical language was created where Arabs as well as English (and I’m sure other nationalities) in the audience could connect with the sensuality, emotion and rhythm contained in that language, whether or not the words were understood.