Y'know Al, I said to a mate of mine the other day: 'I've never been a
guy who thought he knew the answers, but I used to think I understood
the questions. Now I'm no longer sure about that.'
All the Best
Dave
2008/10/3 Alison Croggon <[log in to unmask]>:
> Absolutely correct, David. Hamlet's one of the most interesting
> "essays" on theatre and performance - in the most general sense of the
> word, the playing of social roles and what it means to "act" - there
> is. And that very moving moment where Gloucester is taken to the
> cliffs of Dover by Edgar is a theatrical tour de force - its power
> depends entirely on our knowing it is artifice, that this is occuring
> on a stage. Certainly, his contemporary popularity has nothing to do
> with piety, but with the continual redisovery of the enduring
> fertility of his work for theatre artists (outside the English
> language as well as within it - Suzuki's Shakespeare productions were
> pretty stunning, as are Kurosawa's films). Actors kill to play those
> roles. And no wonder.
>
> Mind you, that doesn't mean he can't be done badly. One of the longest
> nights I've spent in a theatre was watching a production of Pericles.
> When Pericles, towards the end, announced that he wouldn't explain the
> story so far to another character because "''twould be tedious to
> relate" the entire audience burst out laughing, disturbing the couple
> behind me who had been liplocked throughout the show (for once, I
> didn't blame them, they were certainly more interesting than what was
> going on on stage). I had the misfortune to see the RSC production of
> Lear, starring Gandalf, and was bored to death, while being
> simultaneously rather shocked at how conservative and clunky (and,
> aside from Sir Ian, how inaudible) it was. But that kind of thing is
> only a small part of a world of possibility.
>
> xA
>
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2008 at 9:59 AM, David Bircumshaw
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> You know, questions about Shakespeare turn into questions about
>> everything. My view is that he was the most brilliant adapter and
>> improviser upon given material that we have ever had, he was an actor
>> always in his writing, that's the one personal element that's clear
>> from the plays (he never mentions Warwickshire once for example) and
>> he makes a heavy emphasis on the fact that they are plays, let's
>> pretends, as it were, and not to be taken entirely to heart, that
>> applies as much to 'The Tempest' as 'The Merry Wives of Windsor' or 'A
>> Midsummer Night's Dream'.
>> He may or may not have been a likeable person, a lot of the surviving
>> evidence suggests not, but that is subject to the the distorts of
>> history: I me myself personally (joke!) don't know whether I'm a nice
>> person or not, there are a few people with mental defects who think I
>> am but there are others who have their doubts.
>> I think Roger's attacks are against a role the Shakespeare plays might
>> have had in the 1950s, but not now, I feel that his (Shakespeare's (!)
>> and Rogers's (!!) ) continued problematic presence is as valuable as
>> that of any of us talking monkeys in this deforested jungle we
>> inherit.
>>
>> All the Best
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>> --
>> David Bircumshaw
>> Website and A Chide's Alphabet http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.bircumshaw/
>> The Animal Subsides http://www.arrowheadpress.co.uk/books/animal.html
>> Leicester Poetry Society: http://www.poetryleicester.co.uk
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Editor, Masthead: http://www.masthead.net.au
> Blog: http://theatrenotes.blogspot.com
> Home page: http://www.alisoncroggon.com
>
--
David Bircumshaw
Website and A Chide's Alphabet http://homepage.ntlworld.com/david.bircumshaw/
The Animal Subsides http://www.arrowheadpress.co.uk/books/animal.html
Leicester Poetry Society: http://www.poetryleicester.co.uk
|