Pittsburgh Arts, Regional Theatre, New Work, Producing, Copyright, Labor Unions,
New Products, Coping Skills, J-O-Bs...
Theatre industry news, University & School of Drama Announcements, plus occasional course support for
Carnegie Mellon School of Drama Faculty, Staff, Students, and Alumni.
Culture | The Guardian: A novel can tell you everything you want to know about what it's trying to say, but plays are by definition incomplete. They are instructions for performance, like musical scores, and they need players to become music.
This article articulates one of the reasons people have continued to rework plays, Shakespeare's in particular. If scripts were like novels, with everything spelled out, then there would be no point in staging multiple productions, as provided that the productions follow the script, every version of the play would be the same, which would make things very boring. Because, honestly, the reason people go to see plays is to see the actors' takes on the characters, to see how this version of a play has decided to interpret this character.
I this article does a great job at articulation the power of an actor. It seems as if many contemporary plays leave stories and characters fully developed. I think this article however brings up a lot of points on how shakespeare used contradiction as a way to focus actors and make them think then create their character. I think this highlights one reason why shakespeare is a strong writer. It seems as if he had a strong trust for his actors and was able to let them take large amounts of the production and build for themselves. In new work rehearsals with playwrights, the playwrights job has not been clearly defined however I think that some playwrights has too controlling and defensive about their work. I have every story mapped out and they know why and they are adding line or taking away lines that don't fit. I think that this ruins a script I think that when a playwright hands over a script they should let their actors play around with when they have. then after the process change it based on what they think.
It's in this article's stead that I am curious to hear the audience's reaction to our production of As You Like It opening this week. Part of Jessie's motivation in selecting the play and the subsequent work on it is a belief that the play is fundamentally flawed, and that being out of the headspace of the seventeenth century further makes character justifications difficult. So Jessie has done her work of cutting down the text and simplifying it, and the actors have invested in the characters (flaws and all) and worked to envelop all of those issues into the character they created. Our production, which doubts the Shakespearean text just as much as other productions may raise it on a pedestal, is amplified by the contradictory investment of the actors and their work to make sense of a poorly justified world.
I want to see this production of Othello!!! Ship me off to London please!
I have to completely agree with the writer. With Shakespeare the language alone is a major confusing element for most audience members. Therefore in order to convey the story adequately to audiences, the actors must completely understand the story and be able to perform it and all of the unsaid, suggested moments.
This is evident in the modern version of Romeo & Juliet that we are doing now at CMU for younger audiences. There was so much of that play that I didn't understand when I first studied it at school compared to what is as clear as day after the rehearsal process. I wonder if it is as clear to the audiences. That would make it successful.
I love the point that this article makes, and it's one that I don't think I've ever really thought about in those terms: a play, unlike a book, is by definition meant to be performed, and so it make perfect sense that plays are left "incomplete" in a sense, and it is each production's job to fill in the blanks. I think that's what makes theatre so exciting, and especially Shakespeare. Because Shakespeare doesn't provide every single backstory and event, it allows each production to interpret it differently, and basically tell a different story. As the article mentions, if Polonius delivers his famous line as a pompous ass, then it means something COMPLETELY different than if he smirks or if he flinches or if he smiles. I think that's what makes theatre so engaging: no performance is ever the same, and even if you've seen Othello or Romeo and Juliet or Hamlet 100 times, there will always be a different story for you to discover.
I agree. Shakespeare has been done so many times again and again that it has become necessary to evolve from it. That is to say, we can no longer present an Shakespeare work in true form and expect to wow the audience. They've seen it all. Instead it is essential that Shakespeare remain a springboard for ideas to leap from so that they may become fully realized productions.
I agree with the sentiment every play and role is unfinished until an actor breathes life into it. However, he seems to disregard the role of the creative team in creating the world these characters live in and in some cases specifically deciding what the characters turn out to be. In the end everyone is at the mercy of the directors vision. Shakespeare being done in its traditional setting (outside of the historic plays) seems to serve no real purpose in story telling. For text as inaccessible as it is, putting it in the time it was written doesn't seem fruitful. After all, when he wrote R and J he was writing it for the present. We must adapt it for the times.
7 comments:
This article articulates one of the reasons people have continued to rework plays, Shakespeare's in particular. If scripts were like novels, with everything spelled out, then there would be no point in staging multiple productions, as provided that the productions follow the script, every version of the play would be the same, which would make things very boring. Because, honestly, the reason people go to see plays is to see the actors' takes on the characters, to see how this version of a play has decided to interpret this character.
I this article does a great job at articulation the power of an actor. It seems as if many contemporary plays leave stories and characters fully developed. I think this article however brings up a lot of points on how shakespeare used contradiction as a way to focus actors and make them think then create their character. I think this highlights one reason why shakespeare is a strong writer. It seems as if he had a strong trust for his actors and was able to let them take large amounts of the production and build for themselves. In new work rehearsals with playwrights, the playwrights job has not been clearly defined however I think that some playwrights has too controlling and defensive about their work. I have every story mapped out and they know why and they are adding line or taking away lines that don't fit. I think that this ruins a script I think that when a playwright hands over a script they should let their actors play around with when they have. then after the process change it based on what they think.
It's in this article's stead that I am curious to hear the audience's reaction to our production of As You Like It opening this week. Part of Jessie's motivation in selecting the play and the subsequent work on it is a belief that the play is fundamentally flawed, and that being out of the headspace of the seventeenth century further makes character justifications difficult. So Jessie has done her work of cutting down the text and simplifying it, and the actors have invested in the characters (flaws and all) and worked to envelop all of those issues into the character they created. Our production, which doubts the Shakespearean text just as much as other productions may raise it on a pedestal, is amplified by the contradictory investment of the actors and their work to make sense of a poorly justified world.
I want to see this production of Othello!!! Ship me off to London please!
I have to completely agree with the writer. With Shakespeare the language alone is a major confusing element for most audience members. Therefore in order to convey the story adequately to audiences, the actors must completely understand the story and be able to perform it and all of the unsaid, suggested moments.
This is evident in the modern version of Romeo & Juliet that we are doing now at CMU for younger audiences. There was so much of that play that I didn't understand when I first studied it at school compared to what is as clear as day after the rehearsal process. I wonder if it is as clear to the audiences. That would make it successful.
I love the point that this article makes, and it's one that I don't think I've ever really thought about in those terms: a play, unlike a book, is by definition meant to be performed, and so it make perfect sense that plays are left "incomplete" in a sense, and it is each production's job to fill in the blanks. I think that's what makes theatre so exciting, and especially Shakespeare. Because Shakespeare doesn't provide every single backstory and event, it allows each production to interpret it differently, and basically tell a different story. As the article mentions, if Polonius delivers his famous line as a pompous ass, then it means something COMPLETELY different than if he smirks or if he flinches or if he smiles. I think that's what makes theatre so engaging: no performance is ever the same, and even if you've seen Othello or Romeo and Juliet or Hamlet 100 times, there will always be a different story for you to discover.
I agree. Shakespeare has been done so many times again and again that it has become necessary to evolve from it. That is to say, we can no longer present an Shakespeare work in true form and expect to wow the audience. They've seen it all. Instead it is essential that Shakespeare remain a springboard for ideas to leap from so that they may become fully realized productions.
I agree with the sentiment every play and role is unfinished until an actor breathes life into it. However, he seems to disregard the role of the creative team in creating the world these characters live in and in some cases specifically deciding what the characters turn out to be. In the end everyone is at the mercy of the
directors vision. Shakespeare being done in its traditional setting (outside of the historic plays) seems to serve no real purpose in story telling. For text as inaccessible as it is, putting it in the time it was written doesn't seem fruitful. After all, when he wrote R and J he was writing it for the present. We must adapt it
for the times.
Post a Comment