Māori and Pacific Shakespeares in Aotearoa/New Zealand

Abstract

Michael Neill, has called for a major change in the way that Shakespeare is approached in Aotearoa/New Zealand, arguing that The business of New Zealand Shakespeare, whether in the theatre or in the academy is not merely to give the plays a local accent, but to realise their inescapably local dimension. In the theatre, this means effecting the kind of cultural translation necessary to remove [the plays] from the pieties of the "universal" stage to which they are still too often consigned, and to replace them in the historically charged arena to which they belong. This thesis considers three significant Shakespeare productions in light of Neills vision, employing aspects of post-colonial theory drawn primarily from Gilbert and Tompkins. I have used Richard Schechner's classifications in describing the productions as ranging from a conservative "realisation", through "interpretation" and "adaptation" to a more radical "deconstruction". I focus on how Shakespeare has been utilised, the dialogue between the "local" and the "universal," and issues such as tribalism, colonisation and history which are important in the context of Aotearoa/New Zealand. The three productions I discuss are: • The Māori Merchant of Venice: Te Tangata Whai Rawa o Weniti (dir.Don Selwyn, 2002), the first Shakespeare film in Aotearo/New Zealand, performed entirely in te reo Māori, which takes a specifically Māori approach to the concepts of mercy and revenge; • The Toi Whakaari production of Troilus and Cressida (dir. Annie Ruth and Rangimoana Taylor, 2003), which relocates Shakespeare's play to the New Zealand Land Wars, controversially using racially based casting and interrogating the mutability of (New Zealand) history; • Romeo and Tusi (written and directed by Erolia lfopo and Oscar Kightley, 1997) which rewrites Romeo and Juliet into a Pacific Island comedy, located in the "historically charged arena" of race relations between Māori and Pacific Islanders, and uses Shakespeare to make a political statement about the dangers of rivalry between ethnic groups. Rather than drawing on Shakespeare's "universality" or following a counterdiscursive political stance that critiques Shakespeare as an agent or symptom of the colonial project, these productions demonstrate a respect for Shakespeare's mana as a cultural icon for Māori and Pacific theatre practitioners. I find that these three productions utilise the "malleability" of Shakespeare to create "syncretic" or "hybrid" works that are both locally relevant and also create new readings/meanings of the plays in the Pacific context. I conclude that all three productions "realise" Neill's vision of a "local dimension," relocating Shakespeare to the "historically charged arena" of contemporary Aotearoa/New Zealand.