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
>