I'm on the adapt side. I'm not a fan of purist interpretations of Shakespeare, and certainly not a fan of uncut productions (3 hour shows? No thanks!) for several reasons.

The first is that young people are presented with Shakespeare in the entirely wrong way. They first read Shakespeare in English class. Well, dammit, it's a boring read! He wrote PLAYS meant to be SEEN not worshiped for the language. Sure the language is beautiful, but always intended to be heard and seen.

Second, we can't ignore our modern day sensitivities. Anti-antisemitism, while common at the time, is no longer acceptable. It's not a PC thing, it's reality. Would we accept Othello performed in black-face. No (and we certainly shouldn't). Should Shylock be censored? Not necessarily; depends on how much you want the character to be hated, and he will be, possibly at the expense of relating with the character. Do you really want that?

Third, adaptation often breeds better understanding. It makes Shakespeare accessible and interesting. The article's example of hip hop Othello is great. I've seen a bajillion adaptations of Shakespeare, some good, some not. If we want more people to gain an appreciation of the Bard, then making his works more accessible is the way to go. "The Complete Works of William Shakespeare Abridged" is the perfect example.

As an aside, we just did Botho Strauss' Viol d'après Titus Andronicus which is probably something you scholars should be looking into. Completely F'ed up in a way cool kind of way.

Also, talking about historical context, do we present Greek plays in the same way they were presented back in the day? 12-hour debaucheries with feasts and drink only to puke it all up in order to continue? No. So how purist are we going to be when it comes to Shakespearean historical context?

Finally, Shakespeare had a lot of important stuff to say, and he said it pretty damn well. But what's the point of saying those things to an audience that can't/won't hear it? Isn't it worth it to try to communicate those messages in a way that our modern audiences are receptive to? Isn't that our responsibility as artists?

C'mon, doesn't this film adaptation explain the character's motivation better than anything? (This is my absolute favourite Richard III adaptation of all time, so I'm probably a little biased). We need to be receptive to our audience's tastes and sensibilities, and to do that we need to adapt Shakespeare. Not be holed up in our ivory towers worshiping the ground he walked on.