"I Am The Very Model of a Modern Rude Mechanical"
Lyrics by Elise Berg, to a tune by Arthur Sullivan
I am the very model of a modern Rude Mechanical;
I act the Bard's works - comical historical and tragical,
I've played the kings of England, and I quote the fights historical
York, Lancaster and Agincourt, in order categorical;
I'm very well acquainted, too, with matters directorial,
I understand both blocking and the language metaphorical,
For Shakespeare and his antique works I try not to chew scenery,
With cliches old and awful in the grumpy Dane's soliloquy.
I'm very good at sponge-paint and emergency duct tape repairs;
I build the flats and kick the cats, rewire the lights and paint the chairs.
In short, in theatre comical historical and tragical
I am the very model of a modern Rude Mechanical.
Monday, 8 June 2009
Sunday, 7 June 2009
A Wedding Announcement.
The Bard of Avon & Mak Yong in Wedlock
A theatrical event took place the other evening which provoked me to consider marriage; marriage, as considered from a point of view that suggests such unions are best made in heaven.
Shakespeare’s magical romp through the woods, “A Midsummer Night’s Dream”, and ‘Mak Yong’, an ancient theatre-form of the indigenous Malays of the eastern parts of the Malaysian peninsular, came together in a marriage of what appears at first glance embarrassingly like ‘political-convenience’, if one were to be cynical, but on reflection provided a freshly-painted platform from which to dive into a refreshing stream of theatrical exploration.
An adventure it certainly was, and I commend those match-makers responsible for having the courage to undertake such an enterprise.
If only this marriage can sustain itself beyond the honeymoon, that it be allowed the chance to evolve, develop and mature into a relationship that provides a progeny born of love, of mutual respect and understanding, that is worthy of it’s illustrious ancestry… the genius of Shakespeare and the profound heritage of Mak Yong.
This hope lies in the acceptance of change… there exists no place for the ‘purist’; no place for those who would happily condemn Shakespeare to infinite academic incarceration, and Mak Yong to the museum of mindless fossilisation.
There are few absolute rules about playing Shakespeare, as there are infinite possibilities for style and interpretation, but the heart of Shakespeare lies in his amazing ability to frame the essence of human nature and behaviour.
He was an incredible storyteller, who created universal narratives which are translatable into any culture or language.
He also wrote for the full strata of society; he knew his audience and there is always something in his plays for every level of society to identify with, from the highest aristocracy down to the lowly street-worker. It crosses social and cultural divides.
It is all these reasons that a Shakespearean story can be successfully told through the genre of Mak Yong, despite it being a form of theatre that is uniquely Malay in structure, character and personality, with it’s own stock characters and imagery, that has evolved over the centuries to what it is today.
Lately, Mak Yong has been, arguably, in a sad state of decline, for a number of political and religious reasons, but has now perhaps been given a change of air… a fresh dose of oxygen… it is now breathing freely, unconstrained by the strictures of censorship.
For contrary to popular belief, like Shakespeare, Mak Yong is not about it’s stories. It’s about the manner in which the stories are told. Telling a Shakespeare story after the manner of a Mak Yong performance is to me a natural progression of ideas as a culture broadens it’s cultural boundaries, and it’s society evolves and develops as result of it’s enhanced engagement with the rest of humanity. To attempt to suppress it at all is to smother it to extinction.
Though I would nit-pick like crazy if asked for a professional opinion of the production and performance of “Titis Sakti” I witnessed, and would argue many of the choices made by the writers, director, and actors, particularly in terms of the ‘balance’ and ‘rhythm’ of the marriage, I would wholeheartedly support any future conjugations of this nature.
A toast to the Happy Couple!
Dr. Emanio
A theatrical event took place the other evening which provoked me to consider marriage; marriage, as considered from a point of view that suggests such unions are best made in heaven.
Shakespeare’s magical romp through the woods, “A Midsummer Night’s Dream”, and ‘Mak Yong’, an ancient theatre-form of the indigenous Malays of the eastern parts of the Malaysian peninsular, came together in a marriage of what appears at first glance embarrassingly like ‘political-convenience’, if one were to be cynical, but on reflection provided a freshly-painted platform from which to dive into a refreshing stream of theatrical exploration.
An adventure it certainly was, and I commend those match-makers responsible for having the courage to undertake such an enterprise.
If only this marriage can sustain itself beyond the honeymoon, that it be allowed the chance to evolve, develop and mature into a relationship that provides a progeny born of love, of mutual respect and understanding, that is worthy of it’s illustrious ancestry… the genius of Shakespeare and the profound heritage of Mak Yong.
This hope lies in the acceptance of change… there exists no place for the ‘purist’; no place for those who would happily condemn Shakespeare to infinite academic incarceration, and Mak Yong to the museum of mindless fossilisation.
There are few absolute rules about playing Shakespeare, as there are infinite possibilities for style and interpretation, but the heart of Shakespeare lies in his amazing ability to frame the essence of human nature and behaviour.
He was an incredible storyteller, who created universal narratives which are translatable into any culture or language.
He also wrote for the full strata of society; he knew his audience and there is always something in his plays for every level of society to identify with, from the highest aristocracy down to the lowly street-worker. It crosses social and cultural divides.
It is all these reasons that a Shakespearean story can be successfully told through the genre of Mak Yong, despite it being a form of theatre that is uniquely Malay in structure, character and personality, with it’s own stock characters and imagery, that has evolved over the centuries to what it is today.
Lately, Mak Yong has been, arguably, in a sad state of decline, for a number of political and religious reasons, but has now perhaps been given a change of air… a fresh dose of oxygen… it is now breathing freely, unconstrained by the strictures of censorship.
For contrary to popular belief, like Shakespeare, Mak Yong is not about it’s stories. It’s about the manner in which the stories are told. Telling a Shakespeare story after the manner of a Mak Yong performance is to me a natural progression of ideas as a culture broadens it’s cultural boundaries, and it’s society evolves and develops as result of it’s enhanced engagement with the rest of humanity. To attempt to suppress it at all is to smother it to extinction.
Though I would nit-pick like crazy if asked for a professional opinion of the production and performance of “Titis Sakti” I witnessed, and would argue many of the choices made by the writers, director, and actors, particularly in terms of the ‘balance’ and ‘rhythm’ of the marriage, I would wholeheartedly support any future conjugations of this nature.
A toast to the Happy Couple!
Dr. Emanio
Monday, 1 June 2009
The Feather or the Hammer?
We have lived the age of the Sledgehammer!
We have become bloated to the point of torpidity on the visual extravagance of extreme violence and cupidity served up by the brotherhood of film and television ostensibly in the name of ‘creativity’ and ‘art’, but in actuality, in the causes of greed and aggrandisement.
We now live in the age of the Voyeur!
And yet the Sledgehammer persists!
We have become more and more desensitised to the profound, yet often fleeting, sufferings and joys experienced by individuals during the course of their day in the simple act of living, of earning a desperately needed crust. We no longer register the subtle nuances of the human psyche. All is visual… “In yer face, dude!”… “Don’t ask me to think or to empathise, just let me gorge!”
Schadenfreude Rules OK!
We are becoming more and more excited by watching from the comfort of the couch, and ensconced in the security and privacy of one’s own nest, rude mechanicals exposing their inadequacies, both as actors and as human-beings, in masturbatory exercises in socio-futility.
Is it then any wonder that Theatre audiences are diminishing and decaying?
The theatrical establishment is feeling this growing decay with great acuity, and in the effort of regeneration, nay, resurrection, is committing itself to noble acts of theatrical vandalism to persuade audiences away from it’s couches and back into the theatres.
Has the notion of what constitutes ‘Theatre’ been redefined?
Has the face of the contemporary audience evolved to the point where traditional conservative values have lost their relevancy?
Of course, a little conservatism is no bad thing, since it keeps certain traditions alive which have value and can be relied upon when doing Chekhov revivals or Shakespeare. But contemporary audiences, and especially the young need, to see themselves in our work so that their tastes may be expressed. Notwithstanding their tastes may be spurious, such as the need to see a handsome movie actor in a classic, on the whole the youth of today has a sharp nose and knows when to keep away. Youth's threshold of tolerance is not as high as those for whom theatre is also a means of assuaging cultural guilt - they do not need to go to the theatre.
We in the business of making ‘Theatre’ are defined by our audience, and if audiences cannot see their own faces in our work, then perhaps we have become the anachronism. The demoralising state of much of today’s theatre is so because it is not engaged by youthful vision but by the old linear world familiar to us all.
To encourage our audiences away from their couches and back into our theatres, to see our audiences change, we must approach theatre as a constant challenge… to engage the audience by continual experiment… to put the face of the audience back into our ‘Theatre’ without succumbing to the use of the sledgehammer and ‘noble vandalism’, and rejecting the ideology of voyeurism and schadenfreude.
Bring back the Feather!
Toss the Sledgehammer!
We have become bloated to the point of torpidity on the visual extravagance of extreme violence and cupidity served up by the brotherhood of film and television ostensibly in the name of ‘creativity’ and ‘art’, but in actuality, in the causes of greed and aggrandisement.
We now live in the age of the Voyeur!
And yet the Sledgehammer persists!
We have become more and more desensitised to the profound, yet often fleeting, sufferings and joys experienced by individuals during the course of their day in the simple act of living, of earning a desperately needed crust. We no longer register the subtle nuances of the human psyche. All is visual… “In yer face, dude!”… “Don’t ask me to think or to empathise, just let me gorge!”
Schadenfreude Rules OK!
We are becoming more and more excited by watching from the comfort of the couch, and ensconced in the security and privacy of one’s own nest, rude mechanicals exposing their inadequacies, both as actors and as human-beings, in masturbatory exercises in socio-futility.
Is it then any wonder that Theatre audiences are diminishing and decaying?
The theatrical establishment is feeling this growing decay with great acuity, and in the effort of regeneration, nay, resurrection, is committing itself to noble acts of theatrical vandalism to persuade audiences away from it’s couches and back into the theatres.
Has the notion of what constitutes ‘Theatre’ been redefined?
Has the face of the contemporary audience evolved to the point where traditional conservative values have lost their relevancy?
Of course, a little conservatism is no bad thing, since it keeps certain traditions alive which have value and can be relied upon when doing Chekhov revivals or Shakespeare. But contemporary audiences, and especially the young need, to see themselves in our work so that their tastes may be expressed. Notwithstanding their tastes may be spurious, such as the need to see a handsome movie actor in a classic, on the whole the youth of today has a sharp nose and knows when to keep away. Youth's threshold of tolerance is not as high as those for whom theatre is also a means of assuaging cultural guilt - they do not need to go to the theatre.
We in the business of making ‘Theatre’ are defined by our audience, and if audiences cannot see their own faces in our work, then perhaps we have become the anachronism. The demoralising state of much of today’s theatre is so because it is not engaged by youthful vision but by the old linear world familiar to us all.
To encourage our audiences away from their couches and back into our theatres, to see our audiences change, we must approach theatre as a constant challenge… to engage the audience by continual experiment… to put the face of the audience back into our ‘Theatre’ without succumbing to the use of the sledgehammer and ‘noble vandalism’, and rejecting the ideology of voyeurism and schadenfreude.
Bring back the Feather!
Toss the Sledgehammer!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)