In article <q5kp2k$110c$
1...@gioia.aioe.org>,
Anson Carmichael <
noemai...@example.com> wrote:
>I'm beginning to get that feeling with this particular theatre company.
>It's not that I think they are bad in any way, just that I think there
>is a need to be a bit on the nose with some of their productions.
It's fairly common, I think. As I say, I think it stems from a lack of trust.
If you trust your audience and give them some credit, then you don't feel
a need to force-feed or spoon-feed them the play.
>I recall the poster saying "Adapted by..." but that was about it, I
>think. Maybe the program had something, but I didn't keep it.
At least it's clear that it's not Marlowe's, then;-)
>Let me know what you think of this: I've been pondering if the works
>of Elizabethan and Jacobean drama, indeed any drama with verse
>dialogue is perceived as difficult because of the way language was
>approached at the time.
<snip and rearrange>
>I know a writer who says that there's nothing difficult with
>understanding iambic pentameter - one just has to read it enough
>times. Given Shakespeare's regular use of puns and wordplay,
>I find myself wondering about that.
I agree with your writer. However, when speaking of plays, it is the
responsibility of the actors to bring the words to life. If the *actor*
doesn't know what the words mean, or the line rather, then they can't
communicate it, even if they get all the syllables in order. Part of the
work of an actor is to know what you're saying - and if the language is
unfamiliar to you, that means working harder earlier and doing your
homework, so that you understand which clauses modify which things.
Likewise, if you understand the joke, then it is delivered as a joke,
and it is sometimes surprising how often the audience will get the joke.
(In my experience, of course, which is not universal.)
People sometimes get scared of 'verse' but I suspect that's because of
their own associations with the word. Iambic pentameter is an extremely
natural rhythm in spoken English, and aloud does much to clarify where
the emphasis should be on certain lines. Reading and performing E/J verse
is a skill, to be sure, but that means it can be learned. (People may
also be put off if they have heard verse very badly done - that can leave
a mark;-)
>I suspect that now language is handled in a much more concrete manner,
>largely because now English has more or less be solidly codified.
>That is, "we say this, so it must mean this" as opposed to "we
>say this, but in context with the rest of the statement, it actually
>means that"
I disagree. I don't think language is particularly more concrete now.
A case could be made that is incredibly fluid just at the minute, with
new words cropping up, new slang and written shorthand, and so on.
Irony is alive and well. Context still matters.
>What did you think of the Marowitz Hamlet? I haven't seen it, but
>I'm told he rewrote significant portions of the play.
I'm not familiar with it, but a little research suggests that I would have
hated it. There's a quote is his obit that Shakespeare was "capable
of some horrifically bad writing" - but aren't we all? My contention
is that if you find the play to be so horrifically bad, don't do it.
In a similar vein, if you believe Shakespeare to be great enough to perform,
how arrogant must you be to believe you can improve it?
As an aside, it drives me crazy that people feel free to play fast-and-loose
with Shakespeare, 'the immortal Bard of Stratford-on-Avon,' in a way that
would get them sued if they tried it with a living playwright. Shakespeare
(or any playwright) wrote it that way for a reason. As actors and directors,
our job is to figure out why, not discard it or rewrite it because it's
too hard. If you are working with a playwright on a play, that's a different
animal because the collaboration is still happening and the text is still
fluid.
>How did they deal with the run times?
We ran them. We did our Shakespeare, for example, uncut from the first
folio. (As another aside, often Shakespeare is performed at a laggardly
pace, which extends the run time.)
>company I've been referencing, I'm told the director (who is also the
>artistic director) is devoted to the idea of a two hour maximum with
>intermission and will cut and modify to make sure it happens. As I'm
What a dreadful thing to be devoted to. Most Broadway shows run over
that. Let me see -
https://www.broadway.org/performance-times -
31 shows up, 3 under two hours, 1 more at two hours on the nose.
One season we did Shaw's "Man and Superman" - most evenings we did
either "Don Juan in Hell" (most of Act III if memory serves), or
the rest with DJiH. On Sundays we ran the whole thing, which meant
more or less a full length play, a break for dinner and another full length
play. The Sundays sold out.
>told, he is just convinced no one will sit for longer than that. He's
>a pretty hyperactive person, though, so he could be considering this
>from his personal experience.
That may well be the case. Again, he's not trusting his audience. Or
confusing theatrical runtimes (which allow for an intermission), with
cinematic ones which no longer do.