How far can you go?

              Shakespeare's universality has become more impressive to me after watching for the first time a clip of Love's Labour's Lost translated into Spanish. The "fidelity" of the piece (if we can call it that) with relation to the way that Shakespeare originally presented, is enormously different. Not only is this a Spanish translation with a European flavor, but furthermore the Broadway-like aspect that Kenneth Branagh brings in to it with his year 2000 musical adaption set in the 1930s creates a severely unique environment in for Shakespeare to take on. So, the question is, does the production survive this strange, hostile climate? 

           The stats tell us that though budgeted at $13 million, the production scraped in $299, 972.

           Even though the results popularly say that this was a failure, there are still over 17,000 views on You-tube in the English version and a little more than a fourth of that in Spanish at around 4,300 views. It is really interesting to me that even in the confines of this very unique environment to create Shakespeare, he still is viewed by so many. This is a lesser-known play, some of the casting and setting were very unpopular (though they were intentional) and some of the atmosphere that contributes to this rendition (the fact that it was done in Spanish) makes it even more unique. What is it about Shakespeare that makes him crop up over and over again is so many contexts and "permutations"?  This is a question that I would like to take into further study.

       It is interesting to me that I found this cinematic rendition to be... terribly cheesy. The language of Shakespeare that I most enjoy was not a part at all (or at least barely) of this rendition. The whole aspect of Shakespeare's commenting on rhetoric is totally lost. I love how in Love's Labour's Lost Shakespeare holds up pedantry for consideration. The high and mighty, over-the-top eloquent speech of people like Armado makes us consider whether or not we are using language as a means to an end, or an end in itself. Do we want to sound fancy, or actually say something important? This is a great question I love the play for.

    In the light that I found none of that here, set in a very unique way, how could it still be viewed and appreciated?