Pittsburgh Current: There is a question as to when William Shakespeare (or as his wife used to call him “The Immortal Bard”) actually wrote The Comedy of Errors. According to my crackerjack research efforts (which consist mainly of me gossiping on the phone and looking at Wikipedia) general consensus seems to suggest that Billy put quill to parchment to create this master work in 1594.
And you know what? The jokes are just as fresh!
7 comments:
Wow I really could not disagree with this author more about our production of Comedy of Errors, except for what they said about the benefits of cutting the show down to the length we did. I think Shakespeare's comedies are inherently funny if you know what you are listening for and capable of finding humor in ironic circumstances instead of clearly relevant punch lines. I think that our show itself was really funny with the physical comedy and added prop humor on top of Shakespeare's work. Shakespeare’s shows are of course dated, but that does not mean modern audiences cannot enjoy them just as much. I mean clearly we would not continue to produce his shows if people were not coming to see them. Also, his comment about Sasha’s scene design was so thoughtless it was almost laughable. Her design facilitated and added to the show in subtle and detailed ways that made it very lovely and practical.
I think it is great to hear that Comedy of Errors was perfectly timed and had enough information in it that it was understandable while still keeping its core comedic elements, because that was something that the dramaturgy team and Don were trying to combat with the cuts of the script and we were hyper aware of throughout the rehearsal process. With that being said, I think the physical elements of comedy that we added throughout the show were necessary getting the comedic plot line pressed through the show. Yes at times it can seem like a lot, but I think that when staging Shakespeare that can be a crucial part of communicating that information to the audience. In a different light, it is fantastic to hear the works of fellow classmates like Stefan, Javi, and Sasha praised in this article, because it is obvious that they have put extensive time and effort into their designs of this show.
I have said countless times that I don’t like critics, but this Ted Hoover fellow really has a stick up his ass. I agree with him about the length and the quality of the actor’s performance, but that’s about it. He harps a lot on the script and his opinion of Shakespeare in general, which doesn’t feel like much of a review of Carnegie Mellon’s production as much as it feels like a debate on the timelessness – or lack thereof – of the work, which I find a bit irrelevant. And it seems to me from his own words, and from the very positive reactions from our audiences these past two weeks, that Comedy of Errors just isn’t Ted’s comedic cup of tea. In fact, the only negative comment he makes about *our production* is that he didn’t understand Sasha’s set. Considering he also doesn’t see the appeal in physical comedy, it makes sense that he doesn’t understand the set because it’s meant to tie into that physically comedic, musical, whimsical world that the team devised. Obviously opinions on design are subjective, as are opinions of theater in general, but I think Ted came into the show knowing he wasn’t going to like it so what was the point?
While I agree with the majority of this review, it also seems to contain some amount of crap in it that seems to be written to drum up a response from readers. Feeding into this trap, I really agree that the show was cut down to the perfect length. I think a huge reason Shakespeare is not performed as much as it used to be is that it is written in the old 5 act play structure which is just far too long to ask a modern audience to sit through. Where this review starts to fall off with me is when he mentions that Shakespeare’s comedy does not hold up in the modern day. The trick and challenge are to make the jokes relevant to a modern audience and I think CMU did a great job of taking the difficult text and adding appropriate actions to supplement the dialogue. As for the comment of the scenic design, it is clear that the reviewer completely missed the brilliant sound design and how the set was made up of objects that can be used as a musical instrument.
I saw Comedy of Errors on opening night, and to be honest, I did not enjoy it that much. Albeit, I was not in the best mood when I saw the show, but I have a long track record of disliking Shakespeare. I enjoyed the design very much, and I thought that a lot of the staging was very interesting, however, I always find the dialogue in Shakespearean plays very terrible to follow and understand, and generally, not worth the effort. I thought that in terms of a Shakespeare play, Comedy of Errors was pretty good for a Shakespeare play, and perhaps I would have enjoyed it more if I had been in a better mood when I saw it. I think that the scenic design was very interesting and very unique. Having the opportunity to explore the set during the 4D Cabaret, and it made it even easier to understand why the show would have been fun to watch.
Comedy of Errors was amazing, and I firmly disagree with the majority of what this critic said. I agree that cutting it down was smart and that the actors and design were amazing but like, so was literally everything and so is Shakespeare in general. Like, “I can’t say I understood what in the world Sasha Schwartz is up to with her set design it is nevertheless diverting, colorful and funny.” Really? Yes, Sasha’s set was diverting, colorful, and funny but it was SO much more than that, and you don’t have to be a designer to see it. I was talking to an engineering friend about this and he was amazed at how Sasha interpreted how to show the passage of time through the clock and the floor divided into pie-shaped sections, and by having people move around the curve like a hand on a clock, etc., etc. Like the fact that he could see all these things proves that someone who’s career is literally to watch shows and judge them, definitely should have been able to see the amazing thought put into the show. Maybe my friend should take his job, he defiantly more perceptive.
I agree entirely with everything that this article has to say. However, I think the author spent a lot of time complaining about their personal views on Shakespeare and the relevance of the art form. One of the great aspects about Shakespeare is how adaptable it can be and how a production team can shape the lens of the show. CMU, in particular, did a lovely job of capturing all of the timeless parts of a Shakespeare piece while still being able to put a modern spin on the production.
I am thrilled to see that CMU took on this production and was able to adapt the art form is such a way that added to the productions value and gave the audience a new Shakespearian experience. I hope that the work of Shakespeare continues to be adapted in the future and people find new ways to manipulate the art form to fit the times.
Post a Comment