The Scottish play is so well known around the world and there are very many adaptations of the play. Some of them are in English, but lots of them are in different languages. The adaptation I enjoyed the most was uMabatha. This adaptation was presented the best because it really dealt a lot with its own culture. Many of the actual events that occurred in uMabatha actually did occur in the real Scottish Play. The adaptation really fit in for the viewers of this African tribe. An example is, “Mabatha, your hands are steeped in blood Of thousands of our people of KwaZulu.” KwaZulu is a culture in
South Africa, and I find it great that the adaptation used the actual name of a nation. The adaptation that was least pleasing to watch and learn about was Throne of Blood. The entire play got switched around, and acting was terrible. In this adaptation there is no Macduff, and if someone is creating a play based off of the Scottish Play, there must be a Macduff, even if the producer didn’t think that he needed Macduff. Besides, if I was just watching this on television, I would have no idea that this was supposed to be about the Scottish Play, because the differences were so great. There is a lot lost also from this adaptation because, the fight scene was completely different. Washizu’s troops ended up turning on him, when in reality, in the real Scottish Play, there is a proper fight scene between Macbeth, and Macduff.If I was ever to become a producer, and was given the task of adapting from a play, I would keep the same key parts. I think it’s ridiculous to get rid of Macduff. I would maybe change the village names, like uMabatha did, but the key parts of the play would be exactly the same
The Different Scottish Plays
November 5th, 2006 · 8 Comments
Uncategorized
8 responses so far ↓
1 mellyl00 // Nov 6, 2006 at 3:00 pm
I agree that The Throne of Blood was definitely very different from the original version, and not just because of langauge or setting. I probably would not have been able to know it was based on the Scottish Play either. The fact that we watched it in class and we knew it was inspired by the Scottish Play helped us to relate to it and compare the differences in acting, scene, costumes, or dialogue. In The Throne of Blood, I think the director purposely created a lot of differences from the original version, just to show what their interpretation of the play was. That’s what makes adaptations so interesting. About uMabatha, I actually found that version one of my least favorites. I enjoyed reading it, but it was slightly less entertaining, probably because it was too much like the original version. The best adaptations were the ones that were so different, yet very alike in terms of theme or general concepts. Then I could really spot the differences.
2 Haid // Nov 6, 2006 at 6:24 pm
I agree that the adaptations were radically different from the original version, but I disagree that it was ridiculous to make these changes. The fact that Macduff wasn’t present in The Throne of Blood was a key factor in its uniqueness and independence. It made it very interesting to view, and quite frankly, I was very impressed with how the storyline carried itself out. It would have been too similar to the original if Macduff had been present. I agree that uMabatha was too similar to the original, and no fun to read. The best adaptations are the ones that are noticably different from the original, but carry out the same plot line.
3 hoffster // Nov 7, 2006 at 6:30 pm
I have to say that I really enjoyed the Throne Of Blood, although it was remarkably different than the Scottish play towards the ending. I see what you mean about taking Macduff out of the play, but it is an adaption, and the im sure the producer had a good reason for doing so. The Throne of Blood wasn’t the best film i’ve ever seen, but I found it interesting to see a form of the Scottish Play take place in a compltely diffrient setting. This shows that plays are manapliated to fit the producers way of seeing it. I honestly didn’t like Umabatha because it was exactly like the scottish play. The only diffrience was the setting, and the lines were made into african talk. The characters names even resembled their base characters. I think a true adaption is one that keeps the theme and/or plot based, but uses diffrient ways of showing it.
4 scotie // Nov 7, 2006 at 10:06 pm
seems like nobody agrees with me, what a surprise
5 Jonathan // Nov 8, 2006 at 4:18 pm
Throne of Blood wasn’t a complete adaptation of the Scottish Play, and wasn’t identical to the Scottish Play. I think that by making alterations in Throne of Blood made it all the more interesting, because if there were only adaptations of a certain play then all the plays would end up being exactly the same. By changing up some key parts and characters of the play, it made it unique and interesting. The only reason I thought that Throne of Blood was rediculous was because of some of the acting and the fact that it was in black and white made it a little hard to watch. However, other than that, Throne of Blood was a very creative alternative to the Scottish Play.
6 nd06 // Nov 8, 2006 at 7:20 pm
I agree with Scott’s opinions on the adaptations of the scottish play. The Throne of Blood did not have a few key characters that I felt would have made it seem much more like the Scottish Play. uMbatha was good but it neither of these adaptations were as good as the original. Scott made a few good points concerning his ideas on the use of the culture of South Africa and this certain town but it was still not as good the original Shakespeare play. Throne of Blood was very over acted which made it almost funny. Everything was screamed at one another which immediatly took the seriousness out of all the lines and the characters expressions were often really extreme or barely even present.
7 x-factor // Nov 8, 2006 at 8:51 pm
I agree that The Throne of Blood was definitely very different from the original version, and not just because of langauge or setting. I probably would not have been able to know it was based on the Scottish Play either. The fact that we watched it in class and we knew it was inspired by the Scottish Play helped us to relate to it and compare the differences. In The Throne of Blood, I think the director purposely created a lot of differences from the original version, just to show what their interpretation of the play was. That’s what makes adaptations so interesting. About uMabatha, I actually found that version one of my least favorites. I enjoyed reading it, but it was slightly less entertaining, probably because it was too much like the original version. The best adaptations were the ones that were so different, yet very alike in terms of theme or general concepts. Then I could really spot the differences.
8 When the hurly-burly’s done » Shakespeare in all his glory // Nov 14, 2006 at 3:05 pm
[…] Lots of good stuff on the blogs in the past week. I’ve finally gotten around to trying to make some sense of it all. It seems to me that a lot of students, like Scotie, weren’t very impressed with the adaptations that made major changes (like Throne of Blood’s elimination of the Macduff character): If I was ever to become a producer, and was given the task of adapting from a play, I would keep the same key parts. I think it’s ridiculous to get rid of Macduff. I would maybe change the village names, like uMabatha did, but the key parts of the play would be exactly the same […]