My Tempest Adaptation

Often times old but true messages in classical works can be lost in the dialogue and cues of its past time; modern reimaginings of such works help to exemplify the message and even build forth based on the culture of the one adapting it.  I propose to reimagine Shakespeare's The Tempest through the perspective of a college age American Indian.

First I would set the story possibly in the southwest United States; the protagonist would be the American indian, and her struggle to ease into a national "American" identity while trying to balance the traditions of her heritage would serve as the initial conflict.  Instead of an island she could possibly flee into the wilderness, overwhelmed by peer pressure aswell as cultural pressure (much like Phillip fled his failing relationship and career).  The final confrontation could bring her family or friends that "pressure" her to come to their senses, understanding the stress of her situation.  The major theme would be the struggle to fit and assimilate into a society without losing ones personal and cultural identity.

Tempest and The Tempest

Paul Mazursky's Tempest is a modern staging of Shakespeare's The Tempest, utilizing much of the same plot and dynamics of the original.  The differences in the modern adaptation reveal Muzursky's changes in focus of the story, rather than using the frame of the story to convey an entirely different message, a technique used by Gloria Naylor in Mama Day.  One difference I quickly noticed was that Phillip (Prospero's counterpart) consciously chose to leave his job in the city (his dukedom) to travel to Greece and ultimately live on the deserted island.  This difference can be used to relate to Muzursky's modern audience, who would understand the stress of a failing relationship with Antonia and the disparity of his job situation; traveling to Greece was a way for Phillip to get away from these modern problems.  Also, the relationship between Miranda and Freddy (Ferdinand) seemed to take a lesser role of importance.  In Shakespeare's play, their relationship can be a possible source of change to Prospero, while in thin the movie it seemed to be a trivial side plot.  Muzursky used this to focus on the actual relationship and process of forgiveness for Phillip and Antonia.  These small changes reflect Mazursky's focus on the issues of contemporary life, allowing his audience to easily relate to the story.

Shakespeare's Mama?

Gloria Naylor’s Mama Day seems to find inspiration in Shakespeare’s The Tempest, but it is not a total reimagining of the plot with new characters and setting.  The story takes several different turns than its comparison, and only a few themes seem to carry over.  These similarities too can seem a stretch at times.  Parallels include an island setting, the power of natural magic, and a young couple.   These similarities though are seemingly generic, and Shakespeare’s work is not the only to implement these themes by far.  This poses a problem when trying to directly compare the two when reading.  I, personally, was confused when first reading the novel, as I tried to find each characters corresponding counterpart from the other work.  There are no clear, direct foils; however, Mama Day can somewhat represent a Prospero character and George and Cocoa Ferdinand and Miranda respectively.   The differences in these characters though help to advance the plot as well as add new depth to the understanding of it.  The changes and depth added to the characters George and Cocoa from their Shakespearian counterparts ultimately changes the overall tone of the story.  The Tempest had an ending like that of a classical comedy: problems are resolved and lovers get married. Mama Day adds actual dynamics to the Miranda and Ferdinand like characters, and their changes and interactions helps advance to the very different tragedy like ending.  Ultimately, Naylor uses the similarities to help tell a new story based on the themes and untold static characters of Shakespeare’s work.

Prospero's Plan

Shakespeare’s The Tempest tells the story of an orchestrated plot to safely shipwreck a sailing crew of nobles.  The man behind the storm, Prospero, initially desires to confront the man who overthrew him as duke, Antonio; however, new wrinkles are added to his plan as the story progresses. 

In Act I, Scene ii, Prospero’s daughter, Miranda, sees King Alonso’s son, Ferdinand and falls in love.  Prospero understands this and makes the first minor change to his plan: he will acquire Ferdinand and allow the marriage of his daughter to him. 

Prospero makes small addition to his plan again when he is told of what Ariel discovered from Caliban, Trinculo, and Stephano in Act III, scene ii.  The trio plot to steal Prospero’s magical books and kill him; Stephano then plans to become king of the island, taking Miranda as his queen.  Prospero easily foils these plans in Act IV, scene I when he summons spirits to scare the drunken men away.  

I believe Prospero’s final confrontation with Antonio and the other nobles seems unchanged from his initial plan.  His words about the men, prior to this scene, never seem vindictive, and his forgiveness and final speech towards the men seems well thought out and planned.  All along Prospero wished to confront the man that usurped his title and forgive him without stooping down to his level and exacting revenge.  He only altered his plan when he felt it would be responsible and positive, taking all parties into account.  By not exacting his revenge, Prospero in effect makes the guilty men feel regret and shame for their actions.

Caroline's Character

From the beginning, Caroline is described by her own sister, Ginny, as different; she was not the typical farmer's daughter.  She is sensible, thorough, and very meticulous in her speech and actions; she is independent as a woman.  Caroline's traits are the reasons why she does not seem to fit in with her family.  Her father's pride is hurt by Caroline's unsure words about his proposition to split up the farm between his daughters.

Many instances of Caroline's distinct personality can be found throughout the book; however, glimpses of her true care for her father seem to appear few, but they show that she is not simply a cold hearted lawyer.  In a passage on page 124, Caroline and Ginny argue:

"'He was drinking and driving?' [. . .] 'Talk to him.  Take his keys away to have to. [. . .] 'Why isn't he working?' [. . .] 'I knew this whole thing would blow up.  As soon as [Ty and Pete] started running things.'"

While it seems like Caroline speaks with an annoyed and aggravated tone, she does not simply throw blame on her father.  She does care that he does not drink and drive, and she did only speak with concern when she questioned his initial proposal.  While Caroline may not fit in with the personality of her home, she does, in a gritty lawyer-like way care for the well being of it.

King Lear Sub-plot

The relationship between Gloucester and his two sons, Edgar and Edmund, can be viewed as a sub-plot that can be compared and contrasted to that Lear and his daughters.  Just as Lear turns away his true faithful daughter, Cordelia, Gloucester turns away from his honest son Edgar to the manipulative and greedy son, Edmund.  Both fathers make the same error in judgement by listening to the lies of their manipulative children, while turning away their faithful children in an unjustly manor. 

Gloucester also suffers from his error, but in a much more physically painful sense.  Edmund's betrayal of his father results in Gloucester's eyes being gouged out, while Regan and Goneril's mistreatment of Lear results in his slip into senility.  The suffering in both these senses is ironic in effect: Gloucester was blind of both Edgar and Edmund's true intent just as Lear was mad to believe Regan and Goneril's greed for love.  It is only when both of the fathers have physically succumbed to their individual faults that they see the error in their ways.

Shakespeare makes an interesting parallel with the sub-plot of this play, but it fails to help the overall plot and understanding.  Both father's made a mistake, mistrusting the wrong of their youth, and both suffer and ultimately see their mistake through their pain.  The only difference is the method by which each was punished in the end, which ultimately does nothing for the story; it just creates two of the same tragic protagonists.  Perhaps if one father would have caught the slip or possibly further punished himself, there would be more contrast between each one's plot to help advance the plot of the overall play.

Lear's Fool

As in many of his dramas, Shakespeare uses the fool as an ironic source of wisdom and logic.  As a witty jester and an object of humiliation for others' enjoyment, the fool is surprisingly the character who makes the most logical sense in the play.  The fool takes on the role of an informal royal advisor; he reveals Lear's errors in judgement throughout the play.  An example early on in the play, the fool addresses Kent (in disguise) who wishes to accompany and aid Lear: "[. . .] Why, this / fellow has banish'd two on's daughters, and did the / third a blessing against his will: if thou follow him thou / must needs to wear my coxcomb" (Act 1 Scene 4 96-99).  He calls Kent a fool himself for wanting to follow Lear, but this is not a warning message to Kent but a reality check for Lear.  Ultimately, while the Fool's critical comments on Lear can be somewhat cruel his objective is to help him.

The fool seems to be most effective in Act 3, Scene 6 when he holds a mock trial of Lear's daughters.  At this point Lear has begun to slip into senility; however, he finally internally realizes the shallowness of his daughters, Goneril and Regan in this slip from reality.  The fool disappears from the play after Lear, now thoroughly mad, reaches Dover.  He could have disappeared because of Lear's mental state, or possibly because at this point Lear has realized his mistakes and the fool has completed his task.