Last night, I went to see the BYU production of Love's Labour's Lost. I thought it was interesting the way they tried to tie it into the WW2/ 1940s style while still using the original Shakespearean language.  Having a background of war--and not just any generic war, but one which our grandparents experienced and has become a part of our heritage; a war where we can still see pictures of the soldiers and civilians who died--having this serious background really added some depth to the play. When the princess's father died, I imagined it as a casualty of this war. It made more sense that the boys would want to get married quickly because they were soldiers at war and might not ever come back. It also made the girls' demands that they wait a year seem less personal and more patriotic: "Go out and serve your country, man; prove to me and the world and yourself what you're made of, and I'll be waiting when you return." The war made the ending darker than in the original, and even though there was still laughter, dancing, and music before the curtains closed, I left with a subdued and reverent feeling.

One thing I'm also wondering about is the fact that these productions (Merchant of Venice, LLL) keep changing characters' genders. Mote was a girl in love with Don Armado (her lines actually fit pretty well in that context, surprisingly); Boyet was a girl, which allowed her to enter the dressing room. Then Nathaniel & the other boy-turned-girl (I forgot his/her name) were really awkwardly in love (that part was funny, even though it wasn't in the original script).  I've decided it must be one or a mix of 4 things: 1) it's a conspiracy where people are trying to say that Shakespeare supported homosexuality, 2) they're saying it's okay since Shakespeare had people cross-dressing the other way around, 3) it's funny, &/or 4) they didn't have enough guys to act the parts.

Another thing I noticed was that this production seemed to bring out the social aspect of the play more than the educational facet that seemed more prominent in reading it; and I guess that makes sense since most social interaction is nonverbal. Maybe the director had an influence on this, too--I found a bulletin board in the HFAC after the performance with a newspaper article about the play that mentioned that the director based the production off of her grandparents' story (they met at a dance in the WW2 era and were married a few weeks later at another dance; she said Biron & Rosalind's witty banter reminded her of them).