Posted by Followspot January 8, 2007
Over the years, my penchants and pet peeves have become readily apparent; we all have personal tastes, after all. Supplementing my heretic uninterest in Shakespeare is a healthy skepticism of one-person shows. Now, from this article, I realize that perhaps it’s just because they are so, well, un-democratic. To wit:
"As soon as Thespis turned and spoke to someone else, as soon as he invented dialogue, everything changed. The storyteller – who has had this authorial, god-like, unified perspective – isn’t right anymore. His point of view is not the authorial point of view. He is one of two points of view that are on stage. At that juncture we realize that truth resides not in the storyteller—truth resides somehow in the dialogue, in the space between two people. You’re imagining that you’re in my shoes: You empathize with me, and the empathize with whoever I’m talking to. That act – that empathetic leap of imagination – is the democratic act. In order for a democracy to work you have to believe that nobody has a monopoly on the truth. That there is no such thing as an absolute truth – otherwise the whole idea of democracy is nonsensical. All it would be is a compromise. In order to really believe in democracy, you have to believe that truth resides in the dialogue between different points of view."
From How Papp Got it Right: Theatre's lineage -- traced through Thespis, Aeschylus, Shakespeare and Joe Papp -- is inextricably linked to democracy by Oskar Eustis, American Theatre, January 2007. Oskar Eustis delivered this address at TCG’s Fall Forum in November. The full text of his remarks, as well as the transcripts from other speakers and panel discussions, can be found on TCG’s Web site, www.tcg.org, in the Events section.
35 comments:
Shakespeare was better at playwrighting than anyone has ever been at anything in human history.
One man shows are purely to cut costs on over budget re-modelings.
oh, wow.
that statement is laughable on several levels, and i'm quite sure i'm NOT the best one to address it, but i guess i'm going to be the first.
to begin with, it is quite possible that shakespeare IS the 'best' ever at writing plays. however, absolutes being as they are, a few glaring issues occur to me.
1. is writing plays (or any writing, for that matter) an empirical process that can be measured and quantified in this way? i don't personally believe that it is - and if it is, it certainly rocks the foundations of what I have always considered to be the critical attributes and defining features of 'art' and 'theatre' and 'literature'.
2. have you ever walked through a great museum? The fruits of artists' labors throughout the history of man are as miraculous as they are vast, and most importantly DIVERSE. forget the apples/oranges metaphor - this is like comparing iPODs and monkfish!
3. what level of intellectual arrogance does one have to reach in order to make such an assertion? ...and before you give in to the urge to prove how much you know about the subject... i wouldn't lend credence to that kind of absolutism from a tenured shakespeare scholar or theatre historian - so no resume' will make it more palateable to me. it isn't about knowing more about theatre - its about understanding artistic and intellectual humility and the difference between an academic dialogue and belching out assertions sans evidence.
claiming that shakespeare is the greatest writer of plays is a risky venture - but at least a defensible one. claiming that shakespeare is "better at playwrighting than anyone has ever been at anything in human history." is just silliness.
i'm not sure if that poster is underinformed or over confident.
or perhaps it was intended as silliness, and I've taken the bait and wasted 10 minutes.
by the by, i was responding to the comment made by Anon12:02, not to the excerpt that originated the thread. that was probably clear. or not.
I haven't had time to read the entire original article yet, but the excerpt above by itself seems to make an elementary error of reasoning. I don't believe most playwrights who pen one-person shows are laboring under the illusion that they are offering "truth" through the mouthpiece of the character; in fact, some recent characters such as the titular figure in "I Am My Own Wife" are clearly offered as undependable narrators. It strikes me as funny that I should be taking this position only a couple weeks after I complained about one-person shows in my comments on that one, but it seems to me the "dialogue" Eustis wants is happening in the space between the one-person show and the audience (and/or between the playwright and the character).
As for followspot, what you feel toward Shakespeare is uninterest, not disinterest. Although the two words have been lamentably conflated in recent decades, "disinterested" has a very precise, useful, and separate meaning from the one to which too many folks apply it these days. A "disinterested" party is someone who does not have a personal or financial stake in the matter, such as -- one hopes -- a judge, although she may yet find the situation very interesting. If the person is also bored, then he's uninterested, as well as disinterested.
I stand corrected -- and so does the post. Thank you, anon 3:02. I may be uninterested in Shakespeare, but I should never be disinterested in his work.
Joe, since you've already said that nothing one can say on this subject will make it more palatable for you...who knows why I'm bothering but here goes....
Fist off your very long winded reply with such an 'offended to the core' tone is what is silly. Whew...back off on an individuals opinion.
Second, The 'evidence' you require for the statment is inherent within the man's work. Are you suggesting that a slew of "scholars" supporting the 'opinion' would somehow make it more viable to you?
Third, The statment did not say that all other artists in history were bad it simply said Shakespeare has surpassed all the endeavors of everyone...which is an opinion.
Lastly, if the measure of an artist is their insight to what it means to be human, and I believe it is, than yes Shakespeare is quite simply peerless. Read his plays that's the evidence.
Maybe this should be another thread, but what are some things people like about Shakes? I don't dislike him, but I have had trouble connecting.
What are some great moments, images, situations you really like in his plays, and what do they do for you?
I'm not being a pain in the ass, I am seriously seeking some pointers. I feel I should know more about the guy. Personally, I need help to follow Shakespeare.
anonymous, thanks for clarifying that your declarative sentence was an opinion. offended to the core is certainly not how i am feeling. i was going for 'bemused scoffing'. it was a choice. ;)
i'll admit that i tend to warm to my subject at times and speak somewhat hyperbolically.
i do still find such a broad statement rather troubling, when you consider what humans have accomplished.
Anon 9:59
I think Shakespeare just takes some practice to get used to...unfortuantely we are taught to fear it now adays or see it as dusty irrelevent nonsense...you should check out how many modern colloquialisms actually come from Shakepseapre...
A few moments to help you see his words are quite accessible.
King Lear speaking to Gloucster after his eyes have been ripped out see's the eyeless man and says..
"Ah now like a scurvy politician thou can seems to see all the things thou says thou dost."
In Henry the IV part two is one of the most often quoted of Shakespeares lines...
"First thing we do let's kill all the lawyers"
This line is actually referenced by the Eagles.."Old Billy was right let's kill all the lawyers and kill'em tonight."
The thing with Shakespeare is to go and look up the words you don't know....we tend to breeze over things like that in our world but ya gotta stop and take the time..cuz like Hamlet says.
"What be man if he but sleep and eat? A beast nothing more."
Interesting that this has turned into a discussion about Shakespeare. I actually wanted to comment on one-person shows. I totally agree that the dialogue between different viewpoints is what makes good, thought-provoking theatre. What I don't agree with is the idea that a one-person show can't/doesn't present a myriad of viewpoints. A production/play with a dozen characters is just as likely to present a one-sided, didactic, narrow view as any one-person show. Similarly, a one-person show, even if it doesn't portray multiple characters, which it usually does, can, and really must, present a character that is in some way divided. I mean, presenting opposing or differing viewpoints wouldn't be in the least effective if individuals weren't ambivolent or divided to begin with. But multiple characters can fail in presenting a democratic view if the playwright's intention is to make one viewpoint look incredibly stupid, or if a director fails to flesh out varying viewpoints, etc etc.
Is Shakespeare's appeal about the language? or the truths it tells? Both, obviously, but as beautiful as it is, you have to admit Shakespeare’s original language is becoming increasingly inaccessible and is going to need an official King James translation at some point in the future. (Which makes me wonder: How do translations of Shakespeare into other languages hold up? Do the truths, then, outweight the tongue?) Even so, I wonder if his truths about humanity might just be too big for a selfish contemporary culture that’s focused on Me. Here. Now. (Or maybe it's the opposite?)
Just random thoughts ...
I went to the TCG Web site to read the entire article on one-man shows, but I couldn't find it. Hate to jump on the Shakespeare bandwagon, but that train has left the station.
I've never had trouble with Shakespeare, but I listened to LPs in my parents collection of Redgrave, Evans, Maggie Smith, Wolfit, and others declaiming the Bard when I was a wee fellow. The language doesn't sound strange to me, though of course there's still plenty I still don't understand.
One way or another, there's a way in, I believe, for everyone. When we did "Macbeth" last summer at Lovejoy Park, we had the usual problems with people walking into or behind our "set," occasional screamers and hecklers, noise from the blues festival, news helicopters overhead, LOUD wind through the trees, and audience misbehavior.
On our second night, I noticed a scruffy young working-class couple settling their blanket on one of our entrance hills, and their small kids (boy and girl) running wild on the main hill where the witches' cauldron and other scenes would later take place. Here comes trouble, I thought.
But at the intermission break, the family came "backstage" and allowed as how they had never seen any theater before, never mind Shakespeare, and after the show they were effusive in their appreciation. And they came at least twice again on subsequent weekends, with the kids hanging out respectfully among the cast backstage during the breaks.
I live for such experiences. That's why PAE does what it does. Maybe those folks will make the effort to see more theater -- even pay for it! -- someday.
This contrasted nicely with an actor friend who "doesn't like Shakespeare" and left at the half. I'm torn between exasperation and pity for the guy.
WM..
If Shakespeare is becoming more and more inaccessible that is clearly our fault and not his I would say...it is english and if the people in our increasingly dumbed down world cannot understand what he is saying then I must agree with Mr. Loftus and send them my pity.
I believe when Shakespeare is done well it needs no "translation" the problem is that too many lazy actors and directors throw up yet another bland production in tights and don't bother to do any text work and vwalah! Ya get more garbage that doesn't do any service to the brilliance inherent with the text and relationships...
Well, in defense of the "dumb people," though, Shakespeare's English is an archaic form that no one currently speaks. I don't think you can blame people for having trouble understanding forms of speech and slang that were current 400 years ago, and for preferring their own slang in lieu of the studying they'd have to do in order to understand Shakespeare's.
I don't think the "dumb people" need to defend themselves against someone who accuses lazy people of "dumbing down" language, yet fails to recognize that voila is a word with a real spelling.
If French is spoken properly, does it then need no translation for people that don't speak it? English has changed considerably since these texts were written, and many words and phrases of the texts have changed meanings or don't exist anymore. Yes, a good production can communicate the meaning of the text, just like a good production of any show should be able to communicate the meaning and relationships and action without any words at all. But a huge part of Shakespeare's brilliance is his mastery of language, his use of metaphor and word play is essential to his wit. If you can't understand the language, you'll be missing out on a lot. And, let's face it, the average person is not going to be exposed to Elizabethan English on a regular basis. It's not because our language is "dumbed down." It's because our language is different.
People would benefit from education a lot more than from your pity.
I must hasten to state that _I_ never called anyone "dumb," and that any pity I might feel toward fellow actors or just plain theatergoers is inspired by an assumption of bad or no experiences on their part, not any fault of their own.
People who consider themselves students or pros in theater really do have an obligation to make the effort, though, la foi. We can't ignore Shakespeare any more than a philosopher can decide to skip Plato or Hegel.
As for Anonymous 1/12/2007 08:25:39AM, "vwalah" was a joke on the previous poster's part, I'm sure. In fact, I think I can guess that poster's identity, and if I'm right, he and I have had our fierce disagreements over Shakespeare in the past; so this is hardly a united front you're looking at.
True, you miss out on a lot if you are not terrifically familiar with the language, but that shouldn't be an insurmountable stumbling block; with a decent production, there should still be a lot to get and to enjoy.
I think we all agree that everyone would benefit from education on this subject. The question is, how much do -- or should -- an individual take the initiative, particularly if he or she is involved in theater?
By the way, is it a fair assumption on everyone's part that followspot's (or anyone else's) objection to, or lack of interest in, Shakespeare comes down to just language?
Um... I've been lurking on this thread for a while now, not saying anything... but I think I have to chime in here.
Shakespeare's English isn't archaic. It's English. The same English we speak today.
Here's a bit from Act 4 Scene 1 of Taming of the Shrew (from Shakespeare Online):
Tell thou the tale: but hadst thou not crossed me,
thou shouldst have heard how her horse fell and she
under her horse; thou shouldst have heard in how
miry a place, how she was bemoiled, how he left her
with the horse upon her, how he beat me because
her horse stumbled, how she waded through the dirt
to pluck him off me, how he swore, how she prayed,
that never prayed before, how I cried, how the
horses ran away, how her bridle was burst, how I
lost my crupper, with many things of worthy memory,
which now shall die in oblivion and thou return
unexperienced to thy grave.
Yes, there are some thees and thous in there. Sure, there are a couple of words that aren't used much these days (crupper, bemoiled)... but that's plain ol' English. We're not talking about the Canterbury Tales here.
It's poetic English to be sure. There's verse and meter and such... but don't blame the language on people's lack of desire to see Shakespeare. Blame the marketing.
A theatre professor I had at the University of Alaska called bad Shakespeare "Two old guys in tights laughing at jokes nobody gets." That's the way most people in the US perceive Shakespeare's work - ancient and with no pertanance to today's world. The reason Shakespeare stands out from his contemporaries, though, is that his plays deal with universal human themes that transcend a particular time (well, for the most part... I point again to Taming of the Shrew ;) ).
If anyone is to fault for people not liking Shakespeare, it's the English teachers and the theatres who've told people for decades that they need to read and see Shakespeare because it's good for them... kind of like forcing a kid to drink some yuchy cough syrup. Instead of saying, "You think today's world is insane, and is in the hands of a madman? Why, that's kind of like Richard III... there's a production of it down the street. Lets go take a look."
Guess it's time to start working on that one-man show about Shakespeare being applicable to contemporary events... nah, on second thought, I'm sure Brian Bedford has probably already done it. :)
Harold and/or Trish,
I love you both, but plain English that is not. Yoda understand better I.
But that does make me wonder ... do we conveniently think SHakespeare is all that because we can still (sorta) understand him? I mean, how arrogant to think that SHakespeare is the tops when one hasn't read (assumedly) all the other writers in all their native languages from all time ... I mean, who's to say there isn't some Chinese-language writer who would give Shakespeare a run for his money? His work is great--don't get me wrong--but I think Shakespeare-philes are sometimes as arrogant as Shakespeare-phobes.
We really have to be careful to clarify our respect of this canon as perhaps the best in English.... or something along those lines ...
I myself don't have trouble understanding Shakespeare, due to extensive study. And I find much power in Shakespeare's use of language and theatrical images. But I am also troubled by people who seem to fetishize his writing. And while I think language has changed (though it is still, of course, English) a great deal since his time, that isn't what troubles me. It's this idea that a person who does not get off on Shakespeare is missing out on a grand experience they could ONLY have if they understood Shakespeare.
Shakespeare wrote about big themes, archetypal themes, but so have other people since then. Do you lament someone's sad lack of exposure to brilliance when they say they're not into Bob Dylan? Or Caryl Churchill? Or Ledbelly? Or William Blake?
It is good to know what came before you and draw inspiration and knowledge from it. But some people put Shakespeare on a pedestal and I think this attitude misses the point. He himself used stories and themes that had come before, and he made those stories relevant for his time. I'm more interested in artists who are doing this for our time. We all benefit from knowing and studying Shakespeare, but I don't see why he is put at the top of the pack and glorified above all else. It's a question, as someone earlier said, of diversity
Vwalah was a joke:)
And no one ever said anyone else was "dumb" but that this world has been "dumbed down".... This is not even really able to be debated....linquists at several major universities have done studies...with computers and such. By using examples of Newspapers and posters and everyday material from Shakespeare's day and from our own-----the results? The "average" uneducated person from Shakespeare's time had to have roughly a 1,500 word vocabulary just to get along. The average person from our time has roughly a 500 word vocabulary. We live in an age of soundbites and 15 second news clips and feel we are informed....I am sure the evolution of the image has much to do with this but it still does not alter the reality that we as a people grow more and more intellectually lazy with each passing generation.
I will say it again-- it is English plain and simple it is not archaic and it is completely accessible should one choose to access it.
And once again no one EVER said that all other art was crap---just that Shakespeare was the finest of the lot. If you don't agree...great....but don't dismiss him because you cannot grasp him...
Phew...never thought one little comment would start such a commotion...I'm feeling very powerful. :)
Don't flatter yourself. It was far more irritating and narrow-minded elitism than power that made people reply.
Don't flatter yourself. It was far more YOUR irritating and narrow-minded elitism than power that made people reply.
I started to write a meta-analysis of all the places this thread went off the rails in a typical Web-based mud fight, but I've deleted all that.
To put it simply, I never said Shakespeare was better than anyone else at anything, or even the best in English, or that he's easy to understand, or that everyone else should share my opinions on his work (whatever they may be).
And I lament the tendency of lively discussions to descend into "choosing up sides" and imposing roles and teams on other folks because you happened to disagree with one or two comments they happened to make.
Despite my apparent agreement with Monsieur Voila on one or two points, I STRONGLY disagree that the proposition that the world has been "dumbed down" is beyond debate. It's also amusingly ironic that he (I feel fairly confident that the poster is a "he," whether or not I've correctly guessed his identity), provided ammunition for others' claims that the language changes and has changed considerably in 400 years, by employing "access" as a verb.
Finally, I would love to provide some other, not-strictly-verbal examples of what I love about Shakespeare, in response to the seventh post (Anon 1/9/07 09:59:50PM), but this is not the place.
Who's this Shakespeare guy, anyway?
I don't know Dave, being tied to the past of Theater is nice, but isn't really all that important.
For instance a brief theater history quiz for you:
If Thespis was the first actor, who was the Second, the other guy on stage with him...the one that Turned Thespis from a monologist to an actor?
Who was the first director of theatre, what was his/her first production and where was it preformed?
What was Geo. Washington's favorite play, why is this play important to American Theatre?
What has Shakespeare done for the American Theatre?
Now, these questions have answers. They're really American Theatre history 101. But, how important are they? I know a lot of people in town that have been doing theatre for as long or longer than me that wouldn't have the foggiest idea about the answers to these questions...and they still pump out amazing work. Leif, Trish, even some newer people like Jonathan Walters, Lava Alapai. These guys might not know the answers to these unimportant questions, but they're all fantastic performers. I love you guys. My point is, Superficial knowledge is bullshit, and a mask. Knowing the answers to these questions means absolutely nothing. Please, take the energy you spend doling out pity to your fellow actors and spend it on learning how not being a jerk. Because, you need lessons.
I don't mean to say that the people I named in the last post are stupid. They're definitely not. They're all intelligent and well rounded. And they probably know the answers to the idiotic quiz I wrote. Just wanted to clear that up. They're all smart.
Sorry to be a quibbler, but it's "Leadbelly." His real name was Huddie William Ledbetter.
My, my -- the twists and turns a thread can take .... and it wasn't even about Shakespeare at all!
I'd like to throw out this:
What we as theatre professionals should be expected to know as a foundation for our work is one thing.
But what I take away from this whole discussion (more or less, thus far) is the question of -- just how much effort can we reasonably expect our audiences to make when they come to see one of our shows? Not effort in getting out the door, but doing their homework prior to leaving home in order to "better appreciate" what we put on stage.
It's an interesting question for both artistic and marketing staff ...
This is really fun...it's terribly amusing how everyone assumes that I must be soooo arrogant and elitist..the personal offense everyone takes sorta explains why our political system is falling apart too...the irony is so massive....the umbrage ya'll have taken is soley your own doing....
And access could easily be a verb if I so chose to put it in that form...(even if i made it up) that's just what any "poet" or "Playwright" does it's a license to make the words do what you will..people after all created them so they should do what ever we want them to do....
Ok go to town...make yourselves feel superior by ripping me apart some more...I can totally handle it...it's way more entertaining than a movie and cheaper too:)
PS. This however is precisely why folks choose to remain anonymous on this blog...far too many mean folks throwing rocks.
How very big of you, anonymous man. You are noble and self-assured and more intelligant than us all. If only you could stand behind your opinons like dave, Trish, wm, la foi, et al so i could send you a medal.
Oh, and by the by - absolutists who convince themselves they are right and everyone else is misguided are what has ruined our political system - not those of us who simply ask for people to have some humility and accept that other people MIGHT be right about things. . . tolerance is a slippry slop, isn't it? Before you can ask for others' grace, you have tyo actually extend it. Sucks, I know.
I have no problem with anonymous posts, but for god's sake, don't stand on principles and try to act noble when you're not even creative enough to come up with an ironic or witty pseudonym.
wow - i just misspelled 'intellgent', 'slippery' AND 'slope'. well, it's 2:30 am and i've only just returned from opening night revelry. . . i beg some grace. . . i believe i still made a solid point. . . well, a point, anyhow. . . .well. . . grace, please?
Joe,
Find one spot in any of my posts where I said "I was right and you were misguided" I also defy you to find any line where I have said "you are all stupid and I am not"....someone IS showing a lack of tolerance here but perhaps you should look in a mirror before you assume it is I. When did I ever say 'you or anyone else is wrong?' I don't think you'll find that statment anywhere either being that, unlike some, I would not try to assign a value of "rightness" or "wrongness" to your opinion...I also think it's quite hilarious that you insist that I need some 'humility'....when or where did I say I am the one who is so brilliant?...UMmmm I didn't...I said Shakespeare was the best of the best and you all attacked me like a swarm of African honey bees.
I would suggest to you that your assumption of my arrogance comes from your own feelings of inferiority...not to me per say but just in general. You and many others in this thread have assumed many things about 'moi' when really I was just out to chat about Old Billy.
Twas not I who turned this conversation into a personal attack.
My apologies, anon. I admit I may have misinterpreted your first comment, and it took me off on a tear. I felt like your dismissal of other viewpoints was implicit in your first post. Such an unequivocal statement with no real reasoning provided is bound to provoke some 'umbrage', don't you think?
I look forward to a discussion of The Bard - perhaps on a new thread - or even better - over a couple of cold beers. As I said, I warm to a subject and tend toward mercuriality in general - so I beg your pardon for being overzealous in my defense of some 'wiggle room' on the issue.
If you'll promise to allow said 'wiggle room', I'd be delighted to explore your assertion further.
In all sincerity,
Joe
Joe,
Absolutely! In fact I think having a conversation with someone who has strong opninions is the only way to go about it...
I concede that my opnioins are strong and I may have given the impression that I was not open to hear others viewpoints I hope tha now we understand one another a little better though....I still believe that no one has ever surpassed Shakespeare in their artistic endeavors BUT that doesn't mean my very own library is full of scores of brilliant playwrights authors and poets....
I love art as do all of us here I would assume.
Well, I'm glad to have that settled.
Now, we can get on to the business of figuring out why Shakespeare gets this bum rap....I contend it is because when it is performed it is done very often with little or no imagination...and because todays directors and actors don't do enough to express the universality of his words. (By the way I am not speaking specifically about anyone in Portland.) I am talking about how Shakespeare is done by and large in this country.
Now, before you jump all over me I have not seen every Shakespeare production ever done...I have seen Shakespeare done at most of the biggest regional theatre's in the country. and In fact I saw R&J at the Royal Shakespeare Co. (the only chance I ever had to see them)
and it was DREADFUL. However, we all do some crap from time to time so I'll give them a pass on that. I'm told by a friend that their Hamlet starring Kenneth Brannaugh (sp?) in a boxing ring was mind blowing.
I'm all for a round table discussion. . . pick a pub, set a day/time and come one, come all. . . assuming many of us pn this are in shows currently, late evening is probably best.
Post a Comment