Shakespeare’s genius doesn’t come from the words he wrote, it comes from the words he created/cultivated and the characters/colors/movement he drew from to describe “what can’t be put into words.” Shakespeare, much like the existing adaptations of his work across film, theater, and other forms of media or art throughout the ages, served as the tool of translation in restructuring his accessible “language” stemming from his tool knowledge and “toolbelt” (“toolbelt” denoting his accessible/available formats/means/methods of “language,” otherwise known as communication). Shakespear translation of written language was limited in means of communicating the stories he wished to tell into theater, so he drew knowledge and understanding from shape, color, movement, sound, and common aspects of theater during the 16th and 17th centuries(the “contexts” of his time/era) to curate, or create, new “tools” to record/translate these associations of physical format(theater, acting, etc.) to written shape/form. This is part of the reason Shakespeare is so beloved among both theatrical and literary communities, because the “tools” he curated are applicable to both mediums.
However, Shakespeare’s translatability only extends to the limitations of his context and time and the technology/available resources of the audience’s environment. As technology and environment changes throughout time and culture, so do the words and associations (otherwise known as “meaning”) between audience and the conveying format, which causes a shift/need for formats to be translated/” adapt”[1] to the new contexts of time. In the contexts of a 21st century American capitalist model of society, as a result of shifting environment and pressure as well as how “language” is taught/structured through the American education system as well as a rapid decline in time as a resource (also due to the focus on “capital gain” or “efficiency”), the format Shakespear is taught in (primarily literary) does not “keep up” in terms of speed/efficiency and technology, which perpetuates a cultural “gap” between generations that ultimately hinders progress throughout society. The “infrastructure” of technology shifts the speed at which communication/translation between various formats of language (mediums such as theater, film, TV, books, movies, “art” in general) occurs. For this reason, capitalist pressure on speed/efficiency in the 21st century and technological acceleration should shift the way we structure educational systems and the mediums at which we teach kids to build associations/cultivate their own language/lexicon, much in the way Shakespeare did. This essay will attempt to illustrate/communication/” translate” this relationship between the contexts of Shakespeare’s time to the contexts of 21st century educational systems, i.e., to build/work on technology/language/cultural “infrastructures” to conclude why Baz Luhrmann’s 1996 film adaptation Romeo + Juliet is an incredibly efficient “tool” or “translation” within 21st century language infrastructure/educational system technologies/contexts.
[1] “Adapt” as synonymous with the cyclical processes that are interpreted when viewing history. In natural selection, species “adapt” to new environments where the “fitness” of a body contributes to the survival of said body. As cultural contexts change over time, the “fitness” of language must also grow accustom or be offered supplements through a symbiotic relationship with the language’s environment/landscape. Just as society progresses through time to more equitably accommodate bodies with what was “traditionally” viewed as “defective” or “disabled” features/capabilities that place these bodies in polarized positions to their surrounding environments, communication in all forms must as well. How the surrounding environment works symbiotically with technology, cultural exchange, and all other factors that construct barriers between communication can be examined as “adaptations.” Throughout history, examples of change come in varying forms depending on contexts. War, genocides, and other forms of violence seek aggressive routes of adaptation as a response to miscommunications or progressing culture that the surrounding culture disagrees with. Other responses follow routes of coexistence through mutual incorporation of cultural aspects or designated responses, accommodations, exceptions, etc., to barriers of communication/translation.
To first illustrate this point, we have to begin by examining the relationship between the words Shakespeare translated from sight/sound/other aspects of theater language drawn from the context of 16th and 17th century theater into written/literary format. As put by Catherine Alexander in Shakespeare and Language,
Although numerous studies have traced Shakespeare’s changes to the narrative’s plot and characters, they have not examined his alterations of style (122)
This “alteration of style” simply means the updating/translating of previous/related ideas/stories/concepts of Romeo and Juliet into the new concepts/” tools” of Shakespeare’s era. Romeo and Juliet, therefore, existed as a “language” in a different format before Shakespeare’s translation of it as written by Alexander in the line
The Romeo and Juliet narrative assumed its most popular non-dramatic form in the middle decades of the sixteenth century; Bandello’s novella was translated into French and English between 1559 and 1567. As rhetoric flourished, ‘polymorphous and ubiquitous’, the novellas took shape as rhetorical compositions based on the story as da Porto had arranged it (122-3)
Drawing what comprises of Shakespeare’s “environmental contexts” from that quote, the time contexts are the years 1559-1567, and the accessible language/medium for Shakespeare includes the “new”/written/literary English format of Bandello’s novel. In those contexts, it can be understood that 1. Shakespeare interpretated both the direct translations as well as the mistranslations/limitations of expression between written French and written English, and 2. Shakespeare then had to adapt/cultivate new “tools” between the written English he interacted with the medium of theatrical production he was primarily interested in contributing to. In other words, he had to “translate” the English translation of Bandello’s French work into a new format/tool that would pursue his passion/desire/drive/motivation into theater production. The motivation of his passion/desire is up for debate/examination, and the purpose of this paper isn’t to dig too far into that (that’s more within the realm of psychology work/topic of a different context/tools/methods of examination), but the speculation could serve as a “close enough” analogy for the contexts of how translation/language infrastructure in the 21st century is the result of the rigidity/focus on maintaining old/outdated language infrastructures/associations between written word/characters/traditional English letters[2].
[2] 26 letter format, or 52 if uppercase and lowercase letters are “separate characters”/denotations, and then the addition of all the “signage” that technology now denotes/classifies/characterizes in current tech/language/cultural infrastructures (think/associate/apply “slang” terminology across varying “languages” – e.g., “😊” is classified/denoted in 21st century English language infrastructure/characters as “Emoji”, but “: )” is classified/denoted within that same infrastructure as “Emoticon.” “Alphanumeric” can also be used a noun to denote “a character that is either a letter or a number” which further complicates the understanding of “English characters” which are constructed from an amalgamation of Romance language contexts.
Regardless of the 21st century English language infrastructure, the proliferation of technology and the accessibility of said technology to populace is fragmented and unequal/non-equitable based on cultural limitations ultimately rooted in capitalism and traditionalist adhesion/strictness/rigidity to English as a static language, partially due to the subscription of rhetoric in academic circles that perpetuates the idea that Shakespearean English is the model/mode in which we should build educational systems on, despite the economic gaps prevalent within those existing educational systems and technological limits. Ultimately too, does this belief of language as a static model and Shakespeare’s work as “correct” undermine the exact philosophical view of language that Shakespeare himself took. Put promptly, when translating one “language” into another format, you must either use existing tools/formats or build your own tools/reshape formats/language infrastructures that rely on “close enough” logic/association building rather than “direct” translation (“direct” denoting an impossibility due to the limitations/inherent differences of language formats/infrastructures).
The reason Baz Luhrmann’s Romeo + Juliet adaptation is such an important adaptation of Shakespeare’s work in how it relates to this idea of “language theory” is because it restructures the tools and languages of the original script through new tools and infrastructures, while inventing new ones itself. Understanding why Luhrmann’s film is “subversive” (and was/is considered a “masterpiece” in the context of the year it was released all the way to 2025) requires many comparisons between tools and contexts. Ultimately, Luhrmann’s philosophical viewpoint is an understanding of Shakespeare’s own philosophical standpoint. During a 1996 interview, prior to the release of Romeo + Juliet, Luhrmann states that
What is a director, but a storyteller? I think that it’s the storytellers of a particular generation’s responsibility to reveal anew. Those classic texts, which have affected or moved us throughout time and throughout the ages (ScreenSlam)
To Luhrmann and Shakespeare, a “storyteller” falls into this idea of a “close enough” translation. Director/storyteller/author/painter are comparable, they’re synonymous. All of them look at each other’s work and translate it into their own mediums using their available tools to create a “close enough” version in new contexts that communicate a similar idea between languages.
Kashif Ilyas examines these recontextualizations in depth, observing,
The scene is shot like a contemporary music video which the youths would immediately relate with. Shakespeare’s verses are reproduced … which further connects Shakespeare with contemporary popular culture, while the preservation of the original dialogue of the play grants the movie authenticity (9)
In other words (or “contemporary language), Luhrmann has adapted Shakespears Romeo and Juliet to fit a new language infrastructure, one that requires different formatting to connect with the speed at which the audience registers associations built off new technologies/language infrastructures that have been rapidly advancing/shift/adapting over time. Luhrmann still, however, was limited in tools, his desired direction/intention, and cultural acceptance of boundary pushing that ultimately led to the release of Romeo + Juliet. Language and the concept of temporal distortion or the perception of time, constantly shifts depending on so many varying factors that contributes the composition of individuals and individual groups that both serve as “bodies” that denote features that both relate “bodies” and separate/categorize them. Ilyas brings this up by writing,
He speeds up the action to balance the wordy dialogues and accomplishes the task with such finesse that it is nothing short of brilliant. The language of the bard flows through the movie so effortlessly it would seem that he wrote it for the script himself. This is, of course, proof of the genius of Shakespeare himself, but it takes Luhrmann’s artistic vision here to bring it to light for the newer generation (9)
In literary terms, “authorship” then is “close enough”/synonymous with the idea of “writing in the language of the self/individual/body.” Authorship is therefore synonymous with the adjective “auteur,” used to describe films who’s style/language is so unique/individual/of “it’s” own body that the “language” of the film can be identified/traced to a specific director who existed in a specific context of time and culture and had access to/cultivated specific tools to cater/curate to their form/medium/audience/art.
In conclusion, Luhrmann’s adaptation is an incredible feat of adaptation/translation in the context of his time to audiences of specific cultural identity, background, and language. To the youth of the 90s and early 2000s, Luhrmann’s film is a working “tool” for gaining a “close enough” understanding of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet because it matches the time perception of that culture (youth being more interested in film than books) as well as connecting/building off of associations/characters/the “lexicon” of that particular cultures language infrastructure. Of course, language context is something that is always in motion and must be repeatedly examined and restructured throughout time as contexts of “bodies” also change. Technology used to teach/connect throughout generations changes as well as time perceptions among languages, which is why there is an importance on constantly examining changing contexts and readapting “works” to be communicated to different bodies and languages. A simple illustration of this concept would be the symbol/character/communicating message of yin and yang. Good and evil. Ebb and flow. A cycle, a loop, etc. Same concepts, different languages and contexts. Interestingly too, it can be observed/researched HOW language infrastructure is based off varying factors and how those observations and what opinions are formed based on a bodies’ contexts and relation to other bodies. It could be argued that Luhrmann’s adaptation of Shakespeare’s work is the result of capitalism through the examination of language infrastructure, bodies, and concepts that all contribute to the “value” or “capital gain” of time perception being based on the relation between format speed and cultural desire which translates Luhrmann’s work from a subversive masterpiece as viewed by one body, to an exploitive money-grab from the perception of another body. Those debates/views/speculations are, of course, highly dependent on the contexts of bodies and language infrastructures. The idea of a “language theory” is comparable to what is described in the Oxford English Dictionary as an “oxymoron.” The term “oxymoron” is classified/categorized within the same dictionary in different contexts of time and application, with the second generalized categorization stating, “More generally: a contradiction in terms” (OED). “More generally” in the body of the Oxford English Dictionary can be translated to another body as “close enough” despite the characters used to communicate/translate owing to the same “filing system” (i.e., alphabetical). How bodies examine and determine language infrastructure is, contemporarily, increasing in speed as the advancement and proliferation of technology access cultivates new environments for bodies to construct infrastructures/lexicons/associations from. Simply put, internet access and culture, through globalization, has rapidly restructured languages as a whole—which has infinite implications on fields such as psychology, literature, film, etc., and raises the question of what this means for existing language infrastructures and how language infrastructure should be curated throughout time, as association between bodies, time, and contexts shift. How does society determine the “authenticity” of slang or signage, or put in other terms, how does one body translate the language of another. Hasley & Young’s 2002 and 2006 publications explore the tangential understanding of contexts, signage, and the concept of “bodies” through the examination of graffiti and the contexts of graffiti writers and are very useful resources on understanding “language theory” and language infrastructures as they relate to art and economic disparities in the context of 20th century Australian youth. Given that Luhrmann is Australian and exists in a similar context of time, it could be examined that there is some language between the body of the Australian filmmaker and that of a Melbourne graffiti artist, and further, the language between a Melbourne graffiti artist and Shakespeare.
Works Cited
Catherine M. S. Alexander. Shakespeare and Language. Cambridge University Press,
2004. EBSCOhost, research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=67c49982-9104-393c-80ce-733b3061d4c4.
Halsey, Mark, and Alison Young. “‘Our Desires Are Ungovernable.’” Theoretical Criminology,
vol. 10, no. 3, Aug. 2006, pp. 275–306. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480606065908.
Halsey, Mark, and Alison Young. “The Meanings of Graffiti and Municipal
Administration.” Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology (Australian Academic Press), vol. 35, no. 2, Aug. 2002, pp. 165–86. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1375/acri.35.2.165.
Ilyas, Kashif. “High Art to High School: Baz Luhrmann’s Romeo + Juliet as Transposition of the
Classical Shakespeare into American Postmodern Cinematic Tradition.” Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Science, vol. 9, no. 11, 2021, pp. 8–10. Quest Journals, www.questjournals.org/jrhss/papers/vol9-issue11/Ser-4/B09110810.pdf.
“Oxymoron, N., Sense 2.” Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford UP, July 2023,
https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/2495809325.
“Romeo + Juliet: Baz Lurhmann Interview | ScreenSlam.” YouTube, uploaded by ScreenSlam, 26
March 2015, Romeo + Juliet: Baz Lurhmann Interview | ScreenSlam – YouTube.
Sprockets and Springes 