The New York Times: There are no small parts. There are some very small actors. In “Complete Works: Table Top Shakespeare,” which starts on Sept. 11 at N.Y.U. Skirball, the blazingly inventive English company Forced Entertainment will whiz through 36 Shakespeare plays. (Sorry, “Henry VIII.”) Each play is a solo show, abetted by armloads of household objects: cups, cans, kitchen twine, wood glue, gin. Juliet is a jar of marmalade. Hamlet is a bottle of vinegar. (Genius.)
6 comments:
I think the idea of this is extremely clever. It ties back to when we were children and we made up stories using anything around us to project characteristics onto, such as pretending that the pencils and Pink Pearl erasers could talk to one another, or that a pom-pom could be a cute little creature. Taking that childlike creativity of personification and meshing it with something as ‘grand’ or ‘renowned’ as Shakespeare is hilariously genius. That, and asking of the audience to get attached to jars of marmalade or sponges is quite something in and of itself. I’d love to see people get upset over the death of a bottle of wood glue. I also enjoy their outlook on failure, and how failure in one thing does not mean it’s failure overall. I know that a lot of people in the entertainment industry, especially when it comes to performances, are pretty afraid of failure. But it can be a great entertainment factor and tool when it’s something as obscure as performing a play on the top of a table. There’s no pressure to feel the need for perfection in that kind of setting. I’m not really a performer, I’ve never really wanted to be and I have a fair amount of stage fright, but I think I would absolutely love to do this kind of playful and imaginative performance with no pressure to be flawless.
I am very much a fan of experimental artists who do not take themselves too seriously. I feel that if you seek to push the boundaries of art you have to recognize that the work you create is going to be a bit ridiculous in one way or another, which is something Tim Etchells seems to fully embrace. I feel like the art then becomes more enjoyable. I know that I, as an audience member, am far more willing to participate and engage in something bizarre if the artists/actors seem cognizant of the fact that this is an experiment for them and for us. I appreciate this troupe view on failure and on seriousness. By going so far as to make failure a goal, I think their window of creativity is thrown wide open. There are no real limits if you are allowed to have things go terribly wrong. As an audience member, I’m not sure I’d be left with the sort of catharsis many seek from theater, but I really do like that their art is an experiment in how the audience will engage as well as an experiment in how the actors will persevere. I’d love to see something they do.
I think this is such a fun idea, with so many adaptations of Shakespeare this is really something that stands out. From what I gather from the company that’s sort of the point of there creations. I like that their world revolves around these ideas of failure and experimentation, paired with long duration performances. From what I gather the theatre this company produces has a raw sort of quality to it that is very hard to obtain but something I am personally drawn to. Confronting our own notions of what “acceptable” theatre is and challenges are our perceived ideas as what confines theatre really pushes people to be better artist and is inspiring. There midnight to 6am run time really pushes it’s audience as well as it’s performers and employs a whole new host of challenges but at the same time transforms each performance into such an experience, and isn’t that what theatre should be about?
This is a really cute and imaginative way to expose new audiences to classic Shakespeare. One of the most challenging things about Shakespeare is the language, and this removes that barrier entirely. I think this would also be very valuable if it were filmed for children, in sort of a Mister Rogers-esque style. That being said, I can't imagine seeing all of these shows back to back. I'd love to see maybe three of them in a row before I would get mentally, physically, and emotionally exhausted. I had never really heard of durational theatre before reading this article, but I think it's a very interesting concept that could create a very special environment and a total bond between audience and performer. I also think it's fascinating how the shows are "built to fail" and ultimately go nowhere. I don't know if that is something that I would be able to get used to as an audience member, even if it happened in front of me thirty-six times in a row.
I agree with Claire: this is a very fun and innovative way to expose audiences to Shakespeare. Everyone has at least read Romeo and Juliet in High School, but to see Juliet's marmalade bottle draw its last breath, is really quite funny to imagine and fascinating to watch. For a class last year we actually watched some of "And on the thousandth night..." and it truly was a different experience. The idea of failure in public theatrical performances is something that I think we are all made so uncomfortable by, but that can actually lead to some really wonderful moments. None of their stories get finished, very few of them make sense. Shakespeare as acted out by inanimate household objects is a strange thing to even consider, much less view, but it all does ask you to re-evaluate your perceptions on "what theatre is and why theatre is." As part of that class, we had to do our own "failed performance." We planned out exactly what it would be, counting on audience participation, and had a clear message that would come out of it. Except something went wrong: the audience refused to participate. The failure of our failed performance turned out to be the best thing that could have happened, and the discussion that occurred afterwards was so energetic, silly, and refreshing. Although it may take audiences to grow accustomed to being ok should performances "fail" or be less than perfectly defined "theatre", I think that in the end it will allow us all to be more comfortable learning from what "went wrong" and actually open up an honest dialogue on how to progress from there.
The idea of setting up theatre in a way that it might be doomed to fail, and framing it that way, is so funny to me. But I guess that’s improv, and also every other form of live theatre ever. This troupe’s philosophy of sort of flirting with failure and performing so much durational theatre is fascinating to me – it sounds like an improv filibuster. I’d be curious to find a video of the tabletop Shakespeare performances. I have no doubt that with a compelling enough narrator, vinegar-Hamlet or glass-vial Cordelia could be a very entertaining and whimsical show to watch, possibly bringing more people into Shakespeare as well. I wonder if they use a lot of the original text, or if it’s more like Reader’s Theater where they simply explain the audience through the story using the tabletop characters as props. Either way, it’s an odd and incredibly fun idea.
Post a Comment