Most would agree that making Shakespeare accessible to new generations of young people is vital if his works are to endure, as they have endured now for around four centuries; and whatever ‘means’ may be employed to realize this objective ought, on the face of it, to be justified. My concern, however, is that the ‘means’ are not always justified.
Evidently the fear among us is that Shakespeare may not be relevant. So theatres feel compelled to make his work relevant.
Today’s ‘cool’ thing to do with Shakespeare to make his work accessible is by speaking his lines indistinctly, by simplifying his plots, and/or by addressing profound philosophical discourse in a contemporaneous, colloquial, conversational style, and by costuming him in today's fashions,
Now don’t get me wrong here… (apart from the first which merely points to bad acting) I happen to believe that there is nothing inherently wrong with any of these things… so long as they remain true to the text.
Over the years I have encountered numerous attempts at making Shakespeare accessible to young people, to adults, and diverse cultures. Some of these productions have succeeded but the majority have, I believe, only resulted in a dumbing-down of Shakespeare’s work, exhibiting little palpable understanding of what really makes ‘Shakespeare’ Shakespeare.
Of course, if we don't want Shakespeare to die, or to become the preserve of a narrow elite, or what the highly respected Shakesperean director, Michael Bogdanov, once referred to as “The Dead-Hand of Academia”, then we must reinterpret him in modern day terms… so long as we remain true to the text.
Bogdanov also said… “There is in today's theatre world what I call THE SHAKESPEARE INDUSTRY. It has sprung from academia, where cultural historians, English professors and inexperienced theorists conspire to write original theses exhuming the true meaning behind the writings of the man from Stratford. Papers roll. Documents flow. Conferences are held. Opinions are spoken. There is Hamlet's Oedipus Complex and Cleopatra's Edifice Envy. There is post-modernism, pre-structuralism, multiculturalism and deconstructivism. There is the politically correct and there is the politically incorrect and there is the politically indifferent. Where, oh where, in all this contorted analysis, is the Shakespeare who first touched our hearts and minds?”
Personally I believe the answer lies in exposing people to Shakespeare as performance; after all, Shakespeare wrote dialogue for his plays, not literature; getting someone to experience, in action, the words of Shakespeare as a spoken language is by far the best solution, whereby they may get in touch with the play and the text both corporeally and intellectually, and consequently experience the plays at an emotional level.
When the Bard's plays are taught as literature, the work can seem dry and the language archaic, therefore we need to educate people, both young and old, to enjoy Shakespeare; letting them see and participate in it as theatre, as a play, rather than as literature, will encourage this… so long as we remain true to the text.
I must disagree with those who believe that because the language of Shakepeare’s time has changed to what it is today, children don't, or won't, understand it. I've worked with young people who not only understood it, but understood it better and grasped it more quickly than many adults I've worked with. When it is approached in the right way, children see the characters and situations and don't get hung up on the language the way adults do. They drop right into it without a problem. Shakespeare's “cool” - kind of like "rap" or other young slang. It's just another way of speaking and kids are into that.
Monday, 24 November 2008
Saturday, 22 November 2008
Learning Lines
Probably my most frequently asked question by those who aspire to the dramatic stage is… “What is the best way to learn my lines?”
I usually respond, in my typically glib way, that there exist no hard and fast rules or techniques for the learning of lines, and that if one were to ask a thousand actors how they personally approached the task, one may well receive a thousand different answers.
Having said that, it is useful to have at the very least an idea as to the possible approaches one can utilize when faced with a dramatic text… so here are a few tips from me on learning lines.
An actor's job is not primarily to learn lines but to communicate the character he's playing, so anything that helps him to get learning them out of the way is a blessing. Professional actors rarely learn lines by sitting in a chair staring at a page and repeating the words over and over again; most pick them up by a kind of osmosis during rehearsals. One day they're walking about the set with the book in hand, the next they've left it on a chair. How does this happen?
There are several techniques, but perhaps these are the most important and simplest to master:
First: find out what induces your character to behave the way it does.
At first glance this might seem to have little bearing on line-learning, but believe me it's crucial. In every well-written play, the characters are in conflict with someone or something. The actor has to know what drives his character to participate in this conflict, and every character has a good reason. It's that reason you have to uncover. For example, if your character is emotional, he is emotional for a reason. Every action is performed for a reason, and . . . the REASON precedes everything else.
You cannot learn lines by playing emotion; you can only learn lines by playing the REASON for the emotion.
There comes a day during every rehearsal when an actor will suddenly ask questions like 'What am I doing?', 'What do I want?', 'Why is my character on stage?', 'What is he after?' Each question is really a different way of asking, 'Why is my character doing what he's doing?' A character is not alive until that question's answered. So; don't worry about learning lines; find out why your character says them, every one of them! If you do that, then you'll know them.
Secondly: Make line-learning physical.
Actors think on their feet; they learn lines on their feet. Few actors can learn lines well until they've memorised the blocking. Anyone having difficulty learning lines might try the following excellent method of 'walking' the scene by imagining his character performing the physical actions. For example, once you know the blocking well, talk yourself through it:
My character stands offstage right, with left hand on the door handle, he turns the handle, pushes the door, and shouts "Mary!" as he enters the set. He stops. He looks around. He hears Mary answering from offstage. He walks below the couch to the small table left of the couch as he calls 'Had a rotten day at work; you'll never guess who showed up . . . ' and so on.
Any scene in which the lines are particularly difficult to commit to memory could be approached this way. It works very well indeed.
These two rules work together. When your character says he had a rotten day at work, you the actor not only physically visualise yourself crossing below the couch to the table as you say them, but you also must know WHY your character had a rotten day at work, WHY he's walking to the table, WHY he's telling this to Mary, and so on.
The art of acting is in many ways the art of getting another character to change his mind to support your character's objective. It should go without saying that you, the actor, has to know what your character is after before the lines he speaks make sense to you.
It would be wonderful if all those actors out there would respond with their own experiences and ideas on the subject.
I usually respond, in my typically glib way, that there exist no hard and fast rules or techniques for the learning of lines, and that if one were to ask a thousand actors how they personally approached the task, one may well receive a thousand different answers.
Having said that, it is useful to have at the very least an idea as to the possible approaches one can utilize when faced with a dramatic text… so here are a few tips from me on learning lines.
An actor's job is not primarily to learn lines but to communicate the character he's playing, so anything that helps him to get learning them out of the way is a blessing. Professional actors rarely learn lines by sitting in a chair staring at a page and repeating the words over and over again; most pick them up by a kind of osmosis during rehearsals. One day they're walking about the set with the book in hand, the next they've left it on a chair. How does this happen?
There are several techniques, but perhaps these are the most important and simplest to master:
First: find out what induces your character to behave the way it does.
At first glance this might seem to have little bearing on line-learning, but believe me it's crucial. In every well-written play, the characters are in conflict with someone or something. The actor has to know what drives his character to participate in this conflict, and every character has a good reason. It's that reason you have to uncover. For example, if your character is emotional, he is emotional for a reason. Every action is performed for a reason, and . . . the REASON precedes everything else.
You cannot learn lines by playing emotion; you can only learn lines by playing the REASON for the emotion.
There comes a day during every rehearsal when an actor will suddenly ask questions like 'What am I doing?', 'What do I want?', 'Why is my character on stage?', 'What is he after?' Each question is really a different way of asking, 'Why is my character doing what he's doing?' A character is not alive until that question's answered. So; don't worry about learning lines; find out why your character says them, every one of them! If you do that, then you'll know them.
Secondly: Make line-learning physical.
Actors think on their feet; they learn lines on their feet. Few actors can learn lines well until they've memorised the blocking. Anyone having difficulty learning lines might try the following excellent method of 'walking' the scene by imagining his character performing the physical actions. For example, once you know the blocking well, talk yourself through it:
My character stands offstage right, with left hand on the door handle, he turns the handle, pushes the door, and shouts "Mary!" as he enters the set. He stops. He looks around. He hears Mary answering from offstage. He walks below the couch to the small table left of the couch as he calls 'Had a rotten day at work; you'll never guess who showed up . . . ' and so on.
Any scene in which the lines are particularly difficult to commit to memory could be approached this way. It works very well indeed.
These two rules work together. When your character says he had a rotten day at work, you the actor not only physically visualise yourself crossing below the couch to the table as you say them, but you also must know WHY your character had a rotten day at work, WHY he's walking to the table, WHY he's telling this to Mary, and so on.
The art of acting is in many ways the art of getting another character to change his mind to support your character's objective. It should go without saying that you, the actor, has to know what your character is after before the lines he speaks make sense to you.
It would be wonderful if all those actors out there would respond with their own experiences and ideas on the subject.
Theatre Relationships (1)
A man in a hot air balloon realized he was lost. He reduced altitude and spotted a woman below. He descended a bit more and shouted, "Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don't know where I am."
The woman below replied, "You are in a hot air balloon hovering approximately 30 feet above the ground. You are between 40 and 41 degrees north latitude and between 59 and 60 degrees west longitude."
"You must be an Production Manager," said the balloonist.
"I am," replied the woman, "How did you know?"
"Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you told me is technically correct, but I have no idea what to make of your information, and the fact is I am still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help so far."
The woman below responded, "You must be a Producer."
"I am," replied the balloonist, "but how did you know?"
"Well," said the woman, "you don't know where you are or where you are going. You have risen to where you are due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise which you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. The fact is you are in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but now, somehow, it's my fault."
—————
The woman below replied, "You are in a hot air balloon hovering approximately 30 feet above the ground. You are between 40 and 41 degrees north latitude and between 59 and 60 degrees west longitude."
"You must be an Production Manager," said the balloonist.
"I am," replied the woman, "How did you know?"
"Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you told me is technically correct, but I have no idea what to make of your information, and the fact is I am still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help so far."
The woman below responded, "You must be a Producer."
"I am," replied the balloonist, "but how did you know?"
"Well," said the woman, "you don't know where you are or where you are going. You have risen to where you are due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise which you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. The fact is you are in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but now, somehow, it's my fault."
—————
Tuesday, 11 November 2008
“Anyone can act!”
“Anyone can act.”
I cannot hope to recount how often have I heard this remark during the course of my forty-plus years of strutting and fretting my hour upon the stage.
It is, however, essentially a very true statement… and, by the same token, it must also essentially true that anybody can dance a jig, sing a ditty, draw a picture, tell a tale, or play a tune. These are all activities which we engage in from the moment we are dragged, kicking and screaming into this fine old world, and to assist us in the pursuit of which, we are all gifted with a certain amount of talent.
Yes, anyone can act, and everyone does act, all the time, as an instinctive and fundamental aspect of human behaviour.
Naturally, there will always be individuals who can instinctively perform one or more of these activities better than others, and some who are infinitely better at them than the majority of their contemporaries. On very rare occasions, there appears a particular individual who is the possessor of such prodigious amounts of natural talent that he, or she, surpasses all human expectations, elevating one or more of these activities to altogether new heights of human creativity, skill, and aesthetic appeal, e.g., Mozart, Pavarotti, Eleanor Duze, William Shakespeare, et alii.
But for most of us lesser mortals endowed with but a mere modicum of natural talent, such creative heights as these are beyond us. Aha! Beyond us they may be, but this fact does not prevent a great number of us having the desire to aspire to equal the very best… many of this group actually have the audacity to, presumptuously and unequivocally, believe themselves at the very least on par with this select few.
Such belief is a wonderful thing… though it does not tell me what to do, or how to do it, or even what I do not know, or what I actually need to know, but when it happens it is a wondrous thing. People of uninhibited, free-flowing talent can act. They may not know anything… about what they are doing or why they are doing it, but they can do it.
However, the majority of aspirants of desire but who are blocked need training to liberate and understand their talent. They need training, and training offers them their greatest hope, and like any other arts aspirant, e.g., a musician, a painter, or a writer, it must be understood that it takes years of exercises to achieve excellence.
I like to say that it takes twenty years to make a good actor; and a lifetime to make a great one.
If we sincerely want to excel in a chosen discipline, and if we want it strongly enough, and for the right reasons, then we need to learn… we need to learn HOW to learn, and how to train. To achieve this we need to also understand what talent IS and how it works; how it can be developed and manipulated to aid us in the pursuit of excellence.
Of course, if you have talent and don’t want to consciously understand or train its process, that is your choice.
No one is forced to learn. But the knowledge is there for richer and deeper than you allow.
I cannot hope to recount how often have I heard this remark during the course of my forty-plus years of strutting and fretting my hour upon the stage.
It is, however, essentially a very true statement… and, by the same token, it must also essentially true that anybody can dance a jig, sing a ditty, draw a picture, tell a tale, or play a tune. These are all activities which we engage in from the moment we are dragged, kicking and screaming into this fine old world, and to assist us in the pursuit of which, we are all gifted with a certain amount of talent.
Yes, anyone can act, and everyone does act, all the time, as an instinctive and fundamental aspect of human behaviour.
Naturally, there will always be individuals who can instinctively perform one or more of these activities better than others, and some who are infinitely better at them than the majority of their contemporaries. On very rare occasions, there appears a particular individual who is the possessor of such prodigious amounts of natural talent that he, or she, surpasses all human expectations, elevating one or more of these activities to altogether new heights of human creativity, skill, and aesthetic appeal, e.g., Mozart, Pavarotti, Eleanor Duze, William Shakespeare, et alii.
But for most of us lesser mortals endowed with but a mere modicum of natural talent, such creative heights as these are beyond us. Aha! Beyond us they may be, but this fact does not prevent a great number of us having the desire to aspire to equal the very best… many of this group actually have the audacity to, presumptuously and unequivocally, believe themselves at the very least on par with this select few.
Such belief is a wonderful thing… though it does not tell me what to do, or how to do it, or even what I do not know, or what I actually need to know, but when it happens it is a wondrous thing. People of uninhibited, free-flowing talent can act. They may not know anything… about what they are doing or why they are doing it, but they can do it.
However, the majority of aspirants of desire but who are blocked need training to liberate and understand their talent. They need training, and training offers them their greatest hope, and like any other arts aspirant, e.g., a musician, a painter, or a writer, it must be understood that it takes years of exercises to achieve excellence.
I like to say that it takes twenty years to make a good actor; and a lifetime to make a great one.
If we sincerely want to excel in a chosen discipline, and if we want it strongly enough, and for the right reasons, then we need to learn… we need to learn HOW to learn, and how to train. To achieve this we need to also understand what talent IS and how it works; how it can be developed and manipulated to aid us in the pursuit of excellence.
Of course, if you have talent and don’t want to consciously understand or train its process, that is your choice.
No one is forced to learn. But the knowledge is there for richer and deeper than you allow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)