That’s not to knock that approach. It yields top-drawer – not to mention varied – productions: everything from Gregory Doran’s loving reverence to Rupert Goold’s vivid reinvention.
Monday, September 28, 2015
'One audience member tried to punch an actor': the battle to shake up Shakespeare
That’s not to knock that approach. It yields top-drawer – not to mention varied – productions: everything from Gregory Doran’s loving reverence to Rupert Goold’s vivid reinvention.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Talking about being a part of the performance. I appreciate what Phelim McDermott is doing for this Shakespeare performance. In the Elizabethan era, the Bard was the theatre for Shakespearean performances and the groundling were always chaotic and out of control unless the performance was a success. McDermott seems to be bringing back that same feeling with improve to not only break the fourth wall and allow the audience to enter the world but to also bring the audience back in time as if they were seeing this show performed for the first time. I also believe that involving the audience could help them better understand the language of Shakespeare. If learning the language of Shakespeare is a problem, like what I read in other articles, then I feel like this is a good step to help further the understanding of the language. Shakespeare is interesting and unique and it should be appreciated in it's true form. If that calls for some improv, then I believe this ideas should be entertaining and helpful to its audience.
I have a very unpopular opinion which gets me into a lot of trouble, but I think Shakespeare is overrated. I honestly don’t like his plays, and I don’t care to put on any productions. It’s overdone because everyone thinks that he is the “perfect” writer and all of his plays are so magnificent that nothing else can be on that level. I much prefer modern plays over something that I have to scrawl over and struggle to understand. If I can’t understand what someone is saying, why do I care? The answer: I don’t. I do not care one bit if someone spends their entire lifetime dedicated to a dissecting the true meanings of Shakespeare’s writings. It’s a waste of time. So why are people so mad about a theater troupe trying to make it understandable and maybe even enjoyable? I would love to see a Shakespeare in modern English and significantly cut down to a reasonable length so that maybe I’d enjoy the performance instead of wishing I was napping.
I think it's all a matter of interpretation -- and Shakespeare can be the best and worst text for this. To me, improv might be one of the best ways to show a Shakespearean show. As long as you get the character and plot, what does it matter if you have to use the same lines? Of course, the verse is one of the most important parts of shakespeare, but if you interpret the metaphor through image or physicality, you can still gain the same effect as if you'd been saying the words themselves. However, I know a lot of people that dislike Shakespeare any other way than plain and simple. There can sometimes be too much going on with an interpretation, and if it clouds the way you see the core of the story it renders the work inefficient and dumb. Some of the best Shakespeare I've seen has come from very physical interpretations, but perhaps I say that because I personally like seeing an old text being turned on its head. Shakespeare's plays embody so many integral human morals and struggles that it becomes easy to place them anywhere, in any time or place. It takes a good director, however, to pull all the pieces together and string them through the place/time to clarify it for the audience.
I believe that if you're going to do Shakespeare, you should have fun with it. The best parts of Shakespeare’s work come from the characters and the situations, the beautiful text is just a bonus or a vessel. And the greatest part about Shakespeare is that his situations and stories are so ancient that it’s easy for us to play with them. Not only does changing the situation make it more fun for the audience and the actors, but it could lead to them understanding whats going on in a much more effortless way.
I loved the way Improbable incorporated improv into Shakespeare, I thought their ideas were genius. Instant acting is incredibly fun to do and watch, it releases a whole new side of the actor’s brain, one that doesn’t have time to show any judgement because everything is moving so quickly. They are forced to be in the moment. Combining the ideals of instant acting with Shakespeare is genius because its all about instincts and it lets everything happen naturally.
I really liked a specific line of the article which is that "the play’s not the thing. The playing of it is." I think that this philosophy is at the heart of good Shakespeare, but also at the heart of most good theatre. Revering the text seems to be a pretty common practice among actors, but I think the best work is created when plays are treated as living malleable tools. I'm not saying to change the plays, but there is no reason any play needs to be presented the way they were originally intended. Plays aren't novels-- they live and breathe every time they are performed. By this logic, a play is different every time it is performed and should be treated with fresh hands and fresh voices. Traditional Shakespeare is impressive but not the most interesting. Shakespeare has the ability beyond most plays to transcend all limitations. It is exciting to see these theatre companies taking advantage of this flexibility to push themselves, and theatrical work to its limits.
While I know that some Shakespeare fans would consider it inferior to performing the shows as they were originally written, I think this is just an example of how Shakespeare can be changed and adapted while still retaining the same themes. I can see why someone would be upset that they're not using the original language, but at the same time you don't have to go to an experimental show like this if you don't want to. I think that by using more experimental or immersive types of theater, the directors can explore the themes of the original plays in ways that they haven't been able to in a more traditional format.
I thought another interesting point to this article was how the author discussed Shakespeare's more political and intense plays as compared to his lighter comedies. The idea that anyone can do Twelfth Night or A Midsummer Night's Dream but only the high-level companies can approach things like Hamlet is interesting, because it introduces the idea that there's a hidden hierarchy within Shakespeare's works.
While I know that some Shakespeare fans would consider it inferior to performing the shows as they were originally written, I think this is just an example of how Shakespeare can be changed and adapted while still retaining the same themes. I can see why someone would be upset that they're not using the original language, but at the same time you don't have to go to an experimental show like this if you don't want to. I think that by using more experimental or immersive types of theater, the directors can explore the themes of the original plays in ways that they haven't been able to in a more traditional format.
I thought another interesting point to this article was how the author discussed Shakespeare's more political and intense plays as compared to his lighter comedies. The idea that anyone can do Twelfth Night or A Midsummer Night's Dream but only the high-level companies can approach things like Hamlet is interesting, because it introduces the idea that there's a hidden hierarchy within Shakespeare's works.
I’ve worked on a few Shakespearian productions, and sometimes they could be one of the hardest things to grasp. Fortunately I’ve seen various productions by different directors, who bring their own styles and approaches. When you’ve got a particular flavor of Shakespeare in your mind, and you are critical of others who try to bring about a new direction to how the play can be done. You’re just holding back the artistic presence that could be something good. Don’t get me wrong. There have been several cases of bad Shakespeare performed. There are many factors that go into getting that to be the way it was. This style on the other hand; it seems a bit more free, though while it is still able to take on the text and iambic pentameter of Shakespeare, I hope it is able to be translated across audiences who have a harder time understanding Shakespeare to begin with.
Post a Comment