E minor - Now That's What I Call Music

I absolutely love adaptation. Maybe this is because I have a deep seeded love for ancient stories, maybe this is because all my favourite playwrights seem to love adaptation, maybe it is because I was able to figure out most of the 7th Harry Potter book before it came out because I was up on my mythology. Who knows? The fact of the matter is- adapting ancient stories is genius. Especially if the adaptation is such like Sarah Ruhl's take on the classic myth of Orpheus and Eurydice. I am very familiar with the story because one cannot take Music History and not be familiar. Almost every single great composer of early opera wrote some version or another of the myth and musical adaptation is an interesting ball game in which to compare theatrical adaptation. They share a lot of similarities. Both are new representations of the core of the matter, finding the subtle nuances and exploiting them, even if the new version does not stay completely true to the original. The opera versions use key signatures, tonal centres, and chordal structure to signify to the audience how a character is feeling or whether or not they should sit up and take special notice of what is happening. When adapting for a play, the music is not (necessarily) an inherent part of the author's vision and so the words and the relationships are what clue in the audience. Dialogue and adaptation follow many of the same guidelines- because adaptation is dialogue. Just with lots of extra fun for those of us who are way too geeky for our own good.
One thing I like about the new trend in adaptation is the move away from simply rewriting the old words into a syntax that newer audiences can understand, but actually trying to rewrite the play and making it mean something more than just an updated original. One of my new absolute favourite playwrights, Enda Walsh, just completed his adaptation of The Brothers Karamazov and it was utterly genius. He didn't just try to update the language of Dostoevsky, he created a whole new play. It was the same story but it was entirely its own entity. The adaptation movement in Ireland has been going strong since Yates, but recently the ancient Greek tragedies have been remade and specifically placed in the North where characters are specified with specific regional accents to help try to understand The Troubles through the eyes of outside cultures and history. Ruhl follows along with this pattern of updating the originals to become something more than just a basic remake. She has made the classic story entirely her own. The language is modern and fast paced, full of colloquialisms and blatant moments of PDA that bring her Eurydice and Orpheus out of mythology and into the 21st (well, 20th technically) century. I love the idea of having the chorus acting as if "nasty children at a birthday party" and having the Lord of the Underworld behave as a spoiled little child. The imagery of children and child like behaviour adds and interesting element to the story.
Most importantly to me is how easy it is to read. While I am rather devoted to Greek Tragedy, some translations really bog me down with the grandiose language and rhyme schemes to help keep it 'high culture' and 'academically intellectual.' Ruhl by passes this idea and, instead, opts for an accessible version that speaks more of the love story than of the scholarly inquiry. This isn't to say that the accessibly of the language dilutes the intelligence and breadth of the play. Quite the opposite for me. The themes of music and the importance of music in the play are never lost. They are highlighted, subtly or not, throughout the entire play- therefore remaining true to the myth and the roots of the play.
The humour in the play is also something that I absolutely appreciate. Greek tragedy is usually associated with the pinnacle of drama, and rightfully so. But there is humour in Greek tragedy- a lot of it- and I feel like Ruhl really found how to play up the funny without demeaning the heartbreak of the story. Although I will be honest and admit that, at times, I feel like Ruhl was trying to make her characters human for the modern century but just ended up over doing it. Although, it is possible that she is just exaggerating the nature of the characters as she interprets them. Enda Walsh does the same thing in Delirium. His characters are utterly ridiculous- but it gets the point across and captures the essence of the story. Here Eurydice is kind of whiny and Orpheus is off in a dream land- but they are rather like that in the original as well. At the same time- Eurydice is given more strength throughout this version than she is usually. The new twist on the ending is a perfect example of added empowerment. I like that Eurydice is the one who decides to come back. She is given more power here than she gets to have in the myth. It is not just that Orpheus turns around and ends up losing her- he turns around and she decides to return. It is an interesting idea.
Adaptation is fun and quirky. My kind of dialogue, my kind of play. While I still prefer Enda Walsh and Brendan Kennelly, I found a charm in Ruhl's version. Banter, rhythm, colloquialism, modern speech patterns- all sorts of fun. Plus the music geek that still lives in me was very very happy about all of the music references (both the subtle and the blatant). Having Orpheus and Eurydice create speech music at the very end while he is trying to rescue her made me forget all the small parts of the play that bugged me and instead I am left with nothing but love for the play. And an extremely large wish to both direct this play and write lots of my own quirky, fun, adaptations. Bring on the symbolism and keep it in e minor. Because- really - that is key to the essence of the story.