I am trying to understand your basic points here, R'Owl, but cannot. You'll
need to get your opinions to the point of a simple listing of simple short
sentences, perhaps, before you yourself see them plainly and clearly.
If it weren't so important, apparently, to you, I wouldnae bother bothering
you.
Try again.
Judy
2008/10/23 Roger Day <[log in to unmask]>
> 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
>
|