“There’s No Such Thing As Classic" by Halla Miller
“What is classic anymore?”
[read the intro] [see other chapters in this e-book]

Read the first portion of this e-chapter in PowerPoint.

What is a classic? What makes something ‘classic’? Is it the material itself, or the era that it was born into? Or is it the viewers themselves who classify something as a classic? ‘Classic’ literature is about content – but is it still? Do people still see the content, or are they too caught up in the special effects?

DO WE EVEN CARE ABOUT CONTENT ANYMORE?
         
Society is changing. Today people see things differently than they did 20 years ago. Books – sadly – aren’t as popular as they used to be as a general form of entertainment. Our generation doesn’t take interest in other peoples’ stuff. We, as a group, have the ‘me-me-me’ outlook on life, which doesn’t give us the opportunities to expand our knowledge about things like ‘how literature has changed throughout the ages.’ Our generation believes that what we have now is the best, most modern, most efficient. It’s kind of sick, to think of all the things our generation is missing out on because of modern technology. What happened to taking a walk? Gardening? Sitting in the yard reading a book?

Books. Nowadays everyone is more interested in the computer, and classic, brilliant pieces of literature are gathering dust on the shelves. As I am a combination of these two things – modern generation as well as a lover of books – I find myself torn when given the option of choosing between what my generation prefers, and what I prefer. Even now as I’m having this argument, I’m typing it all down into a computer. I don’t hand write it, because even if I did initially do that, I would eventually have to type it because to turn it in it has to be in digital format. Though, really, there isn’t a definite line between ‘books’ and ‘electronic literature’ because even the oldest books are printed, with typewriter and ink. It is rare these days to come across a piece of published work that isn’t typed. But that isn’t my point; my point is that peoples’ views of literature are changing, and it is important to preserve the classics.

Why is this? Why have people turned away from the classic work of art that is the printed book? Why have authors and producers decided to ‘update’ their work by making movies and ‘contemporary’ works out of them? To appeal to a broader range of people, I would suspect. But did these authors and producers stop to think about what they might be destroying? What, with their newly updated versions, they were taking away from their works? But, of course, there is another dimension to this: What were they also adding to their works?

Let me ask you something: When asked about ‘literature’, what is the first thing that comes to mind?

That question is kind of what I based my presentation on. The first thing that came to mind for me was William Shakespeare. For me, his works seemed to fit the profile of ‘literature’ the best: unique, artistic, brilliant. Worldly popular. Sustained through the ages. There were a number of different versions of this work available, and I chose three: Script, feature film and ballet. I think that these three are the best for comparing; they all show different forms of the same script, and they each give vastly different performances.

Let’s look at my first example: plain old script. In this medium you get the raw dialogue; no pictures or any kind of distractions. You can also interpret it any way you like; there is nothing there to influence your interpretation, nothing but the words. The problem I had while reading the script was that some things I didn’t know how to interpret – not having any kind of atmosphere around the dialogue was kind of inhibiting. I noticed as I watched various videos that it was easier to interpret when there was some kind of scene around the script. I also noticed that the different videos I watched, the more I realized that the one I understood the most was the 1996 version starring Leonardo DiCaprio – shocking, huh?

I believe that this (my inability to follow script, and preference towards film) is an excellent example of how my generation functions.

Watching the modernized version of the prologue that takes place in the feature film, I noticed a lot of little tricks the cinematographers used to catch – and keep – the viewers attention. For example, the piece begins with a black screen, where a television pops up, quite small. There is a news broadcast being played, and the broadcaster begins reciting the prologue to the play. As she speaks, the television moves forward, floating closer and closer to the viewer, until she finishes, when the whole piece changes.

I think that this reciting of the prologue in the modern setting of a news broadcast is a way of appealing to a modern audience, catching their attention with something familiar. I also think that the actress playing the news woman did a very good job of portraying this piece of script as ‘news,’ using the same manner of speaking that news people generally do – factually and neutrally.

The rest of the prologue is a fast-animation blur of words, pictures, and scene clips timed to another reciting of the prologue, and its purpose was to catch the audience up on the ‘modern’ aspect of this particular film – the modern-day city of Verona, the feuding corporations that were the two families, the main characters – the whole modernized story was packed into this two and a half minute prologue. Altogether, the introduction brings the story into our time and makes it more personal to the viewer, the quick cinematography, elaborate scenes and lighting keeps the easily distracted viewer from getting up and leaving the room, and this is all done so well that the old English dialogue can be spoken without with viewer hardly noticing.

My last example was the Paris Opera Ballet’s version of ‘Romeo and Juliet.’I wasn’t able to use the prologue for analysis on this one because there wasn’t one. Instead, I used the balcony scene, and was amazed at the similarities between it and the play. This was a whole different way of experiencing this piece; no script, just music and movement. But you don’t need words in this context to be able to understand what’s going on. As you watch, humor me by playing a little game: can you tell when the dancers are performing specific parts of the script? Can you hear Juliet say “On Romeo! Romeo! Wherefore art thou Romeo?” I sure could. 

The dancers use body language to depict a classic moment in the story. The music goes along for the ride, enhancing the dancers’ movements as they bring the story alive onstage. The feature film depicts this classic as modern, and uses modern context to get the audiences attention. The script gives a clean, classic look at the story. Altogether, the three mediums depict the same story in drastically different ways, each appealing to its own audience. The result is the evolution of classic literature through the ages, with the ability to appeal to nearly every person on the planet. Effective? Yes. But does it preserve the classic, or transform it? Who’s to say?