Are people actually creative anymore? Are we all just leeching off Shakespeare because his work is completely free? What qualifies as organic creativity? The public domain is a powerful source to be reckoned with if we are to examine its effect on future art.
In simple terms, the public domain is a collection of art and written work that is not under copyright law due to expiration or ineligibility of copyright. Put into practicum, the public domain allows users of these works to be quoted extensively, copied and distributed for free, and promoted on independent sites and sources without paying royalties. Because Shakespeare’s works were all written before the 20th century, they are automatically a part of the public domain.
One work that is referenced and utilized quite a bit is Shakespeare’s Hamlet. Maybe it’s the unique name that draws creators to keep coming back. Some say the universal themes of political unrest continue to connect with audiences because of the plot’s relevance to history’s corrupt governments from the fall of the Roman Republic to the United States’ complete political polarization. In any case, this play is continuously reinterpreted in creative circles. Fans of Shakespeare might consider reinterpretations to be misconstructions due to the simplification of the plot in new works, or potentially disrespecting the initial piece.
This takes us back to the central question: How far can we butcher Hamlet? By “butcher,” the implied definition is that the work is either dissected or interpreted at a different level of maturity. This is mostly demonstrated through altered theatrical scripts. Of the examples provided, the one closest to Hamlet’s original format is the comic play Rosencrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead by Tom Stoppard. In the same universe as the original play, this version dives into the silly lives of two smaller side characters. A major stylistic departure from Hamlet is the lack of formal diction. This play is meant to read as a spoof compared to the darker psychotic portrayal of Shakespeare’s original play.
One can argue that the material is organic because of the new ideas generated to follow Rosencrantz and Guildenstern’s side quests, however, others say this play is only an elaboration tied to one pre-established universe. There have been discussions on parody versus plagiarism for other works of literature but aside from individual disputes, a strong consensus is that while the original piece must be identifiable through the new work of art, the work is considered a parody as long as enough new material has been generated. Why parodize when given the option to create completely organic material?
Honing the original concept of Hamlet, Disney’s 1994 animated feature, The Lion King, drew upon many aspects of character development and journey. After we acknowledge that this adaptation centers around animals found in the African savanna, many of the plot devices align with Shakespeare’s vision, even if they are drastically simplified for the sake of appealing to children. It’s quite funny that The Lion King 1½, a future sequel, mimics Rosencrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead because of the same decision to make the initial subplot now the main plot of the film in alignment with the same character references. Because there is no denying that Hamlet is the backbone of The Lion King, there is less of a counterargument for its originality other than the addition of musical-driven storytelling.
Taking musical-driven storytelling to the next level, the hit 2015 musical comedy, Something Rotten!, played into spoofing Hamlet in a more abstract format. This story takes place within the world of the Elizabethan Renaissance and—judging by the title and its allude to the prince of Denmark’s often quoted line—there is a clear message that Hamlet will be involved. While the characters, guided by their misinformation, decide to perform what they think is Hamlet’s true form, “Omelet: The Musical,” they reference the familial plot structure of Shakespeare’s initial work, entwined with many Broadway musical references and the subject of eggs.
There is much more of an argument to be made for misconstruing the original work because of how much Something Rotten! purposefully misinterpreted the concept. With only Hamlet’s presence in the players’ diegetic performance of their musical about eggs, we don’t spend more than one scene examining the parody structure. This is by far the most “butchery” seen out of any example because the acknowledgment of Hamlet is the most simplified and least referenced in this script.
One step further, David Ives examines Hamlet in his play Words, Words, Words, a one-act within a collection of written works he published, entitled All in the Timing. This short abstract play is based on the Infinite Monkey Theorem, stating that if you put a monkey in a room and have them type on a typewriter for an infinite amount of time, it would eventually type out any text, including all of Shakespeare’s works. Hamlet is referenced in this interpretation but is most minuscule in its significance other than it being an unknown ending objective for each character. The show plays into this comedic concept by having two of the monkeys writing gibberish near the end of the piece, with one writing successfully word for word in the opening text of Hamlet. This is the most abstract and condensed use of Shakespeare’s work out of every example presented, and the public domain allows the author to directly quote Hamlet as if it was written by these monkeys, setting a basis for the one act’s inspiration.
Where is the line drawn between organic material that stands alone, and art influenced by preexisting factors such as already-written texts? This threshold should correlate to how we define the length to which artists are tied to the public domain. For simplicity, let us say that a work no longer becomes organic once there is a direct correlation between another work’s given circumstances with that of the new piece. This does allow us to question whether adding in allusion to history and its literature is considered unoriginal to a certain extent and if the word “unoriginal” should have the negative connotation that is often accompanied. Because almost all art is influenced, whether it’s clarified to an audience or not, there is still potential for work to be great even if the first word that comes to mind is “unoriginal.”
While Shakespeare’s works and influence have been long-lasting, only so much can be done to take one author’s work and—for a consistent term—“butcher” it. Once the meat has been dissected and ground so fine to the point of incoherence, society has reached a limit on the potential of the public domain on Shakespeare’s texts. All this is to say that as new works enter the public domain once their copyrights expire, there will continue to be a plethora of newly inspired creative works and in a way, an endless cycle develops because of the limited window of works that remain in the private domain. Perhaps Hamlet’s shelf life of influence decreases by the year, but even so, it will be a very long time before the creative well runs dry.
Comments