Is Shakespeare "as boring as bat shit "?
Sun, 9 Nov 2008, 10:00 pmstinger102 posts in thread
Is Shakespeare "as boring as bat shit "?
Sun, 9 Nov 2008, 10:00 pmWhen I was in high school and Shakespeare was compulsory, I used to love the stories (plenty of sex and violence) but hated the language. Why could he have not said the same thing in plain and simple words? And why should we Aussies have to learn about old Pommie poets anyway?
When I was at uni in the 70s, I had a small part in the scottish play. I had one long speech to remember. It was most daunting, until it was pointed out to me that it was written in iambic pentameter, so that once the actor got into the rhythm, the actual words just seemed to flow.
As I matured, I began to appreciate the whole canon more and more. I realised that Shakespeare had contibuted more to the development of the English language than any other single person (with the possible exception of Chaucer). Moreover, it was not only great literature, but if you could tap into the language, it was great theatre as well.
Nowadays, it stikes me that any theatre actor worth his or her salt has done, and yearns to do more Shakespeare, as an important aspect of their artistic development. Not only that, but the plays never seem to lose their audience appeal.
Finally, I regard myself as a devotee of Australian dramatic works and historical narratives. I value our national heritage to the point of jingoism. Having said that, I regard Shakespeare as just as much a part of our heritage as Britain's.
I therefore categorically disagree with the above proposition.
Drama turgid
Wed, 12 Nov 2008, 11:59 pmThe exact meaning of a Dramaturg (I've just tried looking it up) is a little bit vague. There are several definitions, some which I would describe more as an 'Artistic Programmer', responsible for choosing the plays in a company's season.
But my understanding and usage is that dramaturgy is defined as 'shaping a story or like elements into a form that can be acted'. Dramaturgy gives the work or the performance a structure. More than actual writing, a dramaturg's work might be closer defined as designing.
So I disagree with your notion that a dramaturg 'tells a writer how to rewrite his plays'. A dramaturg tells the writer how to make them work onstage. If this means the playwright then needs to edit or rewrite, so be it.
If the playwright has a different 'agenda', maybe s/he should be writing novels instead.
Yes, often a good playwright is effectively their own dramaturg. But having witnessed many scripts offered by writers who considered it 'performance-ready', only to then go through extensive change and redrafting before it was actually fit to be performed...I can attest that many playwrights (even established ones) benefit from someone acting as dramaturg (even if it means the director and actors) before it becomes a workable drama.
As I've said before a script isn't a play...it's a blueprint to give the builders. The writer shouldn't see it as a perfect finished product. If it was, it would be a piece of literature to be read and not to be performed. When really it's merely the first step of a work-in-progress.
And if the dramaturg isn't already conducting readings with experienced actors, they're probably not doing their job.
Cheers,
Craig
~<8>-/====\---------
(PS 'dramaturg' and 'dramaturge' seem to both be correct and interchangeable in the sources I looked up.)
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···