I'm not saying it's Government-sponsored; the Royal Family haven't
been the govt for a long time now. I'm talking about a systemic,
probably a specifically English, cultural problem which still lingers,
and spreads it's chill hand.
I think quality in shakespeare is an untestable attribute. As Robin
says, he's everywhere (and nowhere), we're fish in water. You can go
around saying S is genius, fantastic, lovely, yeah, and you'll always
find layers of books and people to support your view. The english in
particular are taught, no, indoctrinated from birth that S is our
genius. Rarely can you find a disinterested claim to the contrary. You
can say that he's lasted the test of time; well, the censorship issue
almost defeats that argument, certainly it puts a pall over it. I'm
not saying he isn't good, it's the pervasiveness that, amongst other
things, I don't like.
I used to have objections to Patronage from any source; less so now,
particularly when I'll be the one doing the begging pretty soon. So I
don't have objections to govt sponsorship per se; just the unthinking,
interwoven, systemic variety that still lingers over s. It's not as
bad as it was, but there's still some there.
I have come to the conclusion that Theatre in these isles will survive
and, now that the dead-hand of the censor has been lifted, we are
seeing the start of a better day. Possibly. It's almost as if the
centre has been cut from the heart of the Shakespeare industry and
only the outliers remain. From this I take heart.
Roger
On 10/23/08, Judy Prince <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> R'Owl and Alison: In this round, anyway, you each make unarguable points.
> Both of you know that Alison's correct in asserting that no 'bells and
> whistles' makes a play positively memorable----unless, of course, it is the
> bells and whistles that you happen to prefer to positively memorable
> writing. Bells and whistles can be profoundly exciting and distracting.
> Ten years ago in the UStates it was playing around with a body of water
> onstage; that continues permutatedly up to today---an audience regarding the
> new element [wow, water onstage; what will the actors DO with it/in it? fun
> to see how they manage it]
> Other things than physical staging and actors' movements in response will
> 'bell and whistle' audiences. Au courant is Michael Billington's----and
> most theatre companies and playwrights worldwide----exuberance and relief
> that 'at last' plays reflect the news of the day; ie, docudrama. These
> plays include the awesomely successful recent play of that ilk: _Black
> Watch_, National Theatre of Scotland. It was THEATRE, believe me. No body
> of water onstage, but a muscled, energetic, thoroly musical and visual
> visceral event. The writing? As docudrama as was possibleth: the play
> form imitating the playwright's experience, in all respects, as he engaged
> with the returning-from-Iraq Scottish regiment soldiers whom he had
> interviewed. Much of the credit for the success of the play goes to the
> directors, especially those who directed movement and music. Twin elements
> [bells and whistles, and docudrama newsy] made this play the success it was,
> and one of those elements will, of itself, cause the play to fade into
> wallpaper relatively soon and permanently. It is what has and will cause
> plays to fade, and poems to fade, relatively soon and permanently: the
> writing's not memorable.
>
> Hence, Bells and whistles? Important, not essential. The second element,
> newsworthy docudrama, sometimes fascinating, but not essential.
>
> Memorable writing? Essential. Period. R'Owl, you get no points for your
> monkey metaphor, and you know it as well as Alison.
> However, your fallback position has some logical warrants, R'Owl. But it is
> a peripheral issue. It has nothing to do with Shaksper or playwriting or
> even literature of any kind. You object to state-sanctioned events. You
> reflect a highly 'class-conscious' culture which is somewhat foreign to
> USAmericans. As I've said before, USAmericans bow to MONEY and those who
> have it, nominally, but we don't have the cultural apparatus to respond to
> 'class' with the same depthy love/hate that you do'. We do racism as well
> as UK folk, or Chinese or Japanese, for that matter. And we do genderism
> slightly more enlightenedly than other cultures. But that pervasive 'class'
> thing, we don't have in the same way you do. A brief test to show you that
> you have a socio-political bee in your bonnet, not a literary one: would
> you object strenuously to government-sanctioned fine art [e.g., sanctioning
> some art galleries, not others, funding some artists' works and not others',
> providing funds for some art schools and not others]. If your answer is a
> resounding yes, then it's your socio-political stance which drives your
> steam, not your take on Shaksper's writing or political views. Of course,
> your government DOES sanction fine arts in all those parenthetical examples
> above. Does that drive you wild? Apparently not yet, because you've given
> no sign of it that I know of. It would be well for you to do so! It's
> those kids you'll be shepherding soon that stand to gain from your positive,
> creative attention to the shortsightedness of governmentally-propelled
> policies. And it's WEALTH and its influence that drives these. You are
> right to expose them and to urge continuous reviews of them----and to offer
> substitutes for their inadequate, inaccurate assessments and fundings.
>
> When you finally come to judge a play, and Shaksper, you will find that, as
> with most successful-in-any-terms playwrights, Shaksper capably presents all
> the psychological sides of an issue. It MUST BE done if a playwright is a
> playwright because convincingly portraying many characters constitutes the
> major element of successful playwrighting. You can do cardboard characters
> as did Ben Jonson----but his damn well tap a deep psychology of individual
> personalities, or they wouldnae worked so thoroly and lasted so long in
> popular public view.
>
> Hence, Shaksper did as all playwrights do, and which you have noted: she
> bowed to the censors, or her plays would not have been publicly performed.
> They were continuously privately performed, of course, because she had the
> financial wherewithal to have them done. In fact, the first play performed
> in England for James I and 6 was at her home, and it was her play.
>
> BTW, my congratulations to Alison---a noteworthy play critic. You take the
> high road, Alison, refusing to echo the popular view if it doesn't feel a
> 'fit' to you. And you effectively warrant your claims. Not easy, and
> always demanding of time, energy, dedication.
>
> Best,
>
> Judy
>
> 2008/10/23 Roger Day <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
> > Ah yes, "liberation" and "oppression". Fine flag words, there. And I'm
> > a book-burner to boot, hey? Make you feel good to think you're
> > rebelling against ... something?
> >
> > Shakespeares long reign over English culture has been assisted by
> > censorship, in my opinion. All those long years in this country when
> > our theatre definitely wasn't free, although it may have been
> > exciting. (Bread and circuses and all that and you're right in that
> > helps if the circus is of quality stuff. ) The Lord Chancellor - an
> > office of the Royal Court let's not forget - and his blue pen,
> > snipping this, stopping that. After S's death, the theatre in this
> > country was closed by Royal diktat. S was the first to be raised from
> > the dust. Why? I think because he was safe; theatre companies could
> > put on S without fear of being closed down; he was the safe option;
> > people were pre-censoring themselves because that's how censorship
> > works. And so it continued until the 60s, when the blue pen was
> > abolished. So, yes, oppression and fear. And of course, this safeness
> > got bound into English culture, where S sits tightly bound to this
> > day, feeding, amongst other things, the myth of continuity, the
> > "river" of invented traditions that keep this sad sack of a country a
> > monarchy, and playing safe culturally speaking.
> >
> > The one thing that did interest me recently about S's works was his
> > humanism. I was watching Clark's civilisation and he makes a forcible
> > point that S is probably the English equivalent of Montaigne. But hey,
> > S's canon is big enough you can probably read anything into it ...
> >
> > I take heart though that the amount of S put on in this country is
> > declining. Certainly no West End Theatre - to take an index - has a
> > showing of an S play. I think as England splits apart, people may
> > triumph s more but I think the planks on which he stood are coming
> > apart. There is an awful lot of new stuff being put on in, exciting,
> > vibrant stuff, and I do take heart in this lest anyone think I'm Mr
> > Killjoy here, stopping their enjoyment.
> >
> > I realise that this isn't a issue that crosses boundaries of nation.
> > But it saddens me greatly, heaves my poor heart so, to see others
> > follow down this route. S almost *invented* patriotism. It's up to you
> > but to take this poisoned chalice to your heart? It saddens me but
> > maybe this gladdens you. Hey ho.
> >
> > Roger
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 6:51 AM, Alison Croggon <[log in to unmask]>
> > wrote:
> > > Sorry Roger, but it's ignorant bullshit that you can "make the
> > > telephone directory" exciting in theatre. If you're going to have a
> > > text, it has to be dynamic and vital, and no amount of bells or
> > > whistles will cover the lack if it isn't. I've seen enough theatre -
> > > and suffered through enough bad texts - to assert this as absolute
> > > bedrock fact.
> > >
> > > If Shakespeare's work has a stultifying effect on English culture, I'd
> > > suggest it's not his fault, but that of those who make his work that
> > > way. And I don't see why it should be a cause for resentment If others
> > > find excitement where you only see staleness. Certainly I'm not
> > > participating in your oppression by enjoying that work. In fact, you
> > > could turn things around and see a certain liberating possibility in
> > > that language. But I'm not insisting.
> > >
> > > A
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Roger Day <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > >> I couldnt give a fuck if you or anyone else thinks shakespeare is
> > >> "exciting" - you can make the telephone directory in theatre
> > >> "exciting". My beef is with the stultifying effect of S on English
> > >> culture. If other poor deluded fools want to put on s, that's up to
> > >> them.
> > >>
> > >> Roger
> > >>
> > >> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:27 PM, Alison Croggon <[log in to unmask]>
> > wrote:
> > >>> Heh heh. Coincidentally I saw Romeo and Juliet in Lithuanian last
> > >>> night. Set in a bakery. It was a total pisstake on masculine machismo
> > >>> and male violence and especially on the culture of vendetta. The
> > >>> second half was basically a danse macabre, the first grotesquely
> > >>> funny. Extraordinary theatre. You'll never convince me it's dull!
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> My Stuff: http://www.badstep.net/
> > >> "I began to warm and chill
> > >> to objects and their fields"
> > >> Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Editor, Masthead: http://www.masthead.net.au
> > > Blog: http://theatrenotes.blogspot.com
> > > Home page: http://www.alisoncroggon.com
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > My Stuff: http://www.badstep.net/
> > "I began to warm and chill
> > to objects and their fields"
> > Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds
> >
>
--
My Stuff: http://www.badstep.net/
"I began to warm and chill
to objects and their fields"
Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds
|