The theatre thread

[leftyderek]

So, since theatre doesn't occupy a thead here I'll start one.

I am a freshman in my uni, although I'm not officially declared theatre major, I'll do so once my second year begins- so, just either consider me as a kid who fancies theatre or a serious theatre student. Either way will do for me.

I hope this thread can be a place for theatre lovers (actors, techs, theorists, goers, students, pros...) to hang out and discuss stuff. Also through this thread I would like to raise interest for people- to bring The Beauty back to life as TV and movies have taken over these days...

Let me start with something.

I think these days, we have lost the idea of theatre. Too many massive money making productions were put on. I reckon (is it the right word?) the value of pure-entertainment (and possibly a little message), but I think there should be more productions that make major breakthroughs. Somehow I think the theatre makers compromise too much with the audience's taste- they dare not to offend and shock the audience anymore. Maybe they can't afford to, maybe money made them not to.

Feel free to rant about profit-oriented productions instead of meaning- or creativity-oriented productions are made, or talk about the most effective or ideal theatre form in your mind. I did derive a mini theory a while ago- but I lost the hand written notes. I have it in my little head though. I can try to explain if someone's interested.

I know my argument isn't very complete, or maybe not even coherent at all. Try pointing where I'm not making sense and I'll try to elaborate.

[sadistikdreams]

I see what you're saying man. Some of the absolute best plays I've seen weren't these big huge productions at the Paramount or the 5th. They were at smaller, lower budget places like Theater Schmeater. OH BOY, or like... 48-7 or something. The writers and directors write short scenes in 48 hours, and rehearse in that same 48 hours, then perform it the next 7 days. Something like that. But it was phenomenal.

[Derwood]

I've been a lighting and scenery designer for the past 13 years. You can't look at Broadway (particularly the musicals) and consider them to be the standard for American Theatre. Go to NY, Chicago, San Francisco, etc. and you can see hundreds of shows that challenge, motivate, broaden, offend, etc. your heart and mind.

[Kostya]

Just got back from watching a stage production of 'He Died with a Felafel in his Hand' one of the greatest pieces of gonzo literature ever produced in Australia or anywhere for that matter...

You know it's legitimate theatre when there's a line like this:

"She was the kinda chick that you'd swim a a river of shit ten miles long just to suck the dick of the last guy who fucked her."

Probably not going to make it to Broadway, but still entertaining...

[fresnelly]

First of all, thanks Lefty for starting this thread. I had always thought about it, but given the slant here towards gaming, movies and music, I didn't think there'd be much interest. Good on ya.

I've been working professionally behind the scenes for about 12 years now and am thankful for the privilege.

As to your question of whether we've lost the 'idea' of theatre, it's hard to say. What is your idea of theatre? I think there is as much a place for frivolous spectacle as there is for thought provoking drama. As long as we don't lose the idea of coming out to share events together as an audience, theatre isn't going anywhere.

As a mass, people are always going to drift towards upbeat and safe entertainment rather than challenging works no matter what the medium. It's up to us, the creators, to produce works that reach out with energy and truth to draw the audience in.

So why aren't some people interested in live theatre? I bet it mostly comes down to the following three prejudices.

1) Theatre is a dull academic pursuit like philosophy or history.

2) Theatre is elitist, self indulgent and just plain weird.

3) Theatre is fruity.

For the first, I blame every dry high-school english class reading of Shakespeare ever forced on suffering students. I can't imagine a more opposite experience than live heartbreak echoing around you and line by line text analysis. Theatre is not about ye olde englishe translation. The best show I saw this year was The Wild Duck, by Ibsen. I can imagine the pain of reading the script for a test or essay, but onstage in the hands of a skilled cast and creative team, the show was incendiary.

As for the second, what can I say, sometimes this is true. I admit it. At a live performance the actors on stage feed off your reactions and vice versa. The audience becomes part of the show. This connected energy is thrilling with a strong work, but deadly otherwise. Being stuck at a clunker is truly painful. This is the real risk of theatre and one reason why many people drift towards other more detached forms of entertainment. It's also why some like me get hooked.

As for the third, well, that's just sad. You can't please everyone, and we shouldn't try. If Grandma would rather stay on the Casino floor playing the slots, and Dad just wants to watch the game, so be it. We can't get too discouraged by this and have to keep trying to reach out.

I'd like to hear what theatre(er) means to the members here. Do you have one of these three perceptions of theatre as an artform? What have you seen and liked or disliked? What would draw you into a basement theatre independant show instead of just a mega-musical?

[Elphaba]

Hub and I had season tickets for the 5th for three years until our relocation to Cali. We picked up a few theatre experiences since in Cal, Tex, and NY.

Sadistik, I suspect you may have been too young to see Kate Hepburn in "Westside Waltz", or the Richard Harris version of "Camelot" at the 5th. I saw "Cats" in NY, which I loved. But I agree that I am weary of the "big" productions of FLW. "Starlight Express" was soooo bad. I exclude "Phantom", of course, from the FLW crap list.

I have yet to see "Wicked". How, ironic.

[thespian86]

I'm just, recently, finished the two year musical theatre program at Sheridan College in Oakville Ontario and I plan to move onto another school; hopefully National Theatre in Montreal or AMDA in NY... it all depends as you know fellow theatre student.

One I'd say that if you want to see a stellar example of big money, big risk musical theatre you could find it on Broadway in Avenue Q... I sadly feel like I should be supporting the off broadway, darker and far less known shows but, alas, I am a sucker for the neon lights and big sounds and sights of Broadway. At the same time, as Derwood said, you are going to easily find shows that provide social commentary and push the bouderies of entertainment through taboo themes and such; explore dude, especially if this is something you want to pursue.

I feel as if we have the same ideals. Small ensemble casts in a black box theatre at a university... scraping by but changing lives. To answer Fresnelly's question about the draw of small company theatre, no chorus casts, small production costs... there's two ways to answer this. First there is the idealist in me, the one who is in love with the process, the heart, soul and guts of theatre, so to speak, (especially musical-theatre) and say that there is more heart, less of an iron and plastic atmosphere, in those tiny unknowners... you feel as if you should love them because they are a part of you. At the same time there is the second answer... it's almost like this sad pseudo-bohemian elitist culture where we rank each other based on talent, lack of financial success, and knowledge of underground/off broadway hits. It's almost orgasmic when you suggest a show someone has never heard of... makes you feel like a big man to tell someone that "Tick, tick... boom!" is Larson's original Rent and that Pucini's La Boheme is the real classic, that Jason Robert Brown's real genious is found in Songs For A New World and not in The Last Five Years and that it's silly to think so... it's rediculous but true.

Do I love Broadway... fucking right I do; I love every part of it except perhaps the horrible competiveness. But I would never admit that.

The best show I've ever seen is an amature company I used to be part of doing A Chorus Line... amazing director, spectacular talent (dance/vocal/acting), and minimalist set.

[Willravel]

Homophobia is killing theatre. I wish people could understand that 1: not all theatre actors are gay, 2: gay people can be excelent actors, 3: homosexuality isn't contagious.

I love the theatre.

[Kostya]

Originally Posted by willravel

Homophobia is killing theatre. I wish people could understand that 1: not all theatre actors are gay, 2: gay people can be excelent actors, 3: homosexuality isn't contagious.

I love the theatre.

Well in one way at least it's filtering the bigots out of theatre audiences...

[Derwood]

Originally Posted by fresnelly

1) Theatre is a dull academic pursuit like philosophy or history.

2) Theatre is elitist, self indulgent and just plain weird.

3) Theatre is fruity.

4) Theatre is very expensive. Sadly, as funding is cut at the national, state and local levels (plus 9/11, whose effect on private funding is still being felt) has caused even small, local theatre to be $20+ per ticket. That makes the outrageous movie prices seems paltry. One of the main theatres I've worked for (About Face Theatre in Chicago) charges $25-$30 a ticket, and that covers less than 60% of the operating costs of the show.

[keyshawn]

hey hey,

I'm pleasantly surprised that this has elicited this much reponse in a relatively brief amount of time

Anyways, as the same with derek, I'm a college frosh. However, I'm just entering the theatre scene.
In high school, I took one theatre arts course and liked it, but never got the nerve to try out for a play, nor make a commitment to actually participate in it at all, besides attending the plays. It's actually something [probably the only or one of very few things] I regret that I did not do in high school.
So, a couple weeks ago, I took the plunge and applied for the light board operator, and got the position. The position may appear small, (it's only a one act play too) but I'm really enthusiatic to get my feet wet in actual theatre.
As of now, I'll stick to the technical behind the scenes aspect. Aftering taking an intro to acting class for the spring quarter, I may audition for a frontal role.

Derek - ever been in my position before ? :P I actually don't even know what the play is about, I'm on winter break right now, and the first produciton meeting isn't until the 1st week I go back.

In regards to the theatre stereotype, I've encountered it quite a bit amongst certain members of family and friends. Fresnelly hit the nail on the head with regards to popular stereotypes.
Some of my classmates in high school were in theatre and loved it; it exposed me that there was more than just the lame academia facade of theatre and other stereotypes.

The last play I saw was about a month or two ago, while at school last quarter. It was a one-man show, produced written, and performed by an alum; called Catch-86. The play was his experience of returning to the ukraine, his native homeland, and interviewed several people about the chernobyl's effects. I remember walking out of the theatre that night, amazed, a feeling of awe and chagrin (this story is one that sorely forgotten by many in today's world).


catcha back on the flipside,
will.

[Derwood]

Originally Posted by willravel

Homophobia is killing theatre. I wish people could understand that 1: not all theatre actors are gay, 2: gay people can be excelent actors, 3: homosexuality isn't contagious. .

You really think so? I've been in the scene for almost 15 years and have absolutely no sense that this is keeping audiences away

[longbough]

Sondheim fan here ...
Nothing compares to the original Broadway cast production of Sweeney Todd with Angela Lansbury and Len Cariou as Sweeney Todd. The depth and breadth of psychological and dramatic angst in the performances and production makes it one of the most profound stage experiences I've ever had ....

[leftyderek]

Sorry for the late reply- I'm studying for a final exam for wednesday which I know noth about (I took math by accident- thought it'd be easy.. but well. anyway.)

Wow- at least this thread has quite a few replies. I'm really glad.
It would also be nice to hear from the professionals/experienced about how to get employed after graduating...

will: I've been in your position- I've been the head electrician for a rather small black box production. It was some upper years' directing projects and they needed the lower year tech class kids to help and I got the chance to fiddle around with the board and all that. It was great working with the more experienced lighting designers and co. I really learnt a lot, especially the do & don'ts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Answering an earlier question about what's theatre to me- or what is my ideal theatre like:

To me, theatre is a tool. A tool to express ideas and ideals of the playwright, director and to a certain extent designers and actor. And it is an effective tool if used properly because it's virtually man-to-man communication in contrast to television or radio, which is man-to-machine-to-man. Some might say there's a 'machine', the 'fourth wall' in theatres. In my theatre such thing should not exist. There are a few ways to achieve this. Generally either by staging or by style.

Apparently reducing the distance between 'the show' and the audience is the goal, and the solution by different staging methods is simple- so I won't try to explain the obvious and make a fool out of myself.

It's obvious that traditional prosenium or thrust theatres have a 4th wall. As I said, it can also be destroyed by style. Simply make the show a sledgehammer or an explosive and tear the 4th wall down is the other solution.

But how?

In spite of 'higher (as they say) intellegence' of humans, I still believe the mankind is afterall animals. We are merely beasts. Humans want all kinds of advantage in life- money, power, appeal. What do we actually want? The answer is the same for all kinds of animals and it is embedded in our brains. We do want to mate, to have a family (humans are social animals like chimps). It's the instinct. So the most effective method to communicate with mankind, in this case to the audience, is to talk to their primitive side in a primitive language that one understands by instinct.

The only way to communicate with the subconscious 'animalistic' side (I don't like this term because we are animals anyway) is to do it like an animal: take a wooden club, grab them by their hair, look them right in the eyes, tell them what you want to express and give them a good smack on their brains with each, every single word you say. Scenes should be brutal, explosive or dream like in order to touch the audience's subconscious instincts. They don't even have to be anything coherent. The existance of a clear storyline is not neccessary. The more unexpected (it's another topics about expectations. I might explain later on.), violent, obscene and surreal, the better the effect would be. Remember, we are not asking the audience to understand the story if it exists, not to understand the play. We are in a way nailing our ideas hard into their read-only memory. Or I should say, we are bringing it back to life. We are just opening the petrol can and making a spark in their heads. We want it direct, unexpected, strong and scary. Traumas make the deepest impression in people/animals' heads. I don't want a 30-minute applause after my productions. I want to leave the audiences speechless and leave the theatre quietly. Absolutely quietly. Enlightened, shocked, disgusteed, scared, amazed- whichever way they like. It all depends on how the audience are. I once said in a discussion, 'I hate it when people came up after [a certain play I wrote and directed] and asked what this and that means, blah blah blah. Well I don't care if they audience understand me and I won't bother to explain what my play means. I have done my job trying to tell what I wanted to tell. Some might see nothing, some might see even more, but who cares? It is amazing how they don't bother to be in touch with their inner(instinctive)-self but they actually bother to come up to such a weirdo like me and dare to ask what it meant.'

The use of language is also a problem. I admire Artaud's vision in that we need to find a new language of theatre. He saw that roughly 100 years ago. Ideally we invent a language. Brand new. Something that is so easy that one can understand what the actors are trying to say just by hearing the tone of the voice (plus the action and the set), yet so complicated that can deliver both (fragments of) stories and complex hidden meanings (that's the important thing) at the same time. I'm still in search of this. I have tried to invent a language in a part of a play I wrote but it was a total failure. I have tried to use merely screams and moans (that's the ideal) but I was not good enough to catch my thoughts fast enough and to represent to my actors- easy to think of, hard to represent. Thus in compromise, minimal verbal languages can be used when it is absolutely neccessary or when the development of the production's language is not progressing.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you guys get the idea of how roughly my Theatre of Trauma is. I can try to go into a bit more detail but I doubt if I would be able to access the internet when reply comes (I'll be away from roughly the 9th dec to 8th jan). I'll try my best since I value people's opinions and comments. It will help me develop a much clearer idea.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So what the hell? We have the audience pay to watch us and instead we smack them on their heads?

As Heiner Müller said, directors and actors are scared of silence. It's one form of expectation- people play to see the performers perform, not to be silent. Here it develops into two discussions: expectations and adapting to expectations, but somehow it comes down similar: nowadays the majority of audience expect to see something entertaining and does not require much thinking. They want entertainment and thus theatre-makers 'create' such productions. I do see the value in them as I said, but I think theatre is just more than this. Why should we do what the others expect us to do? Why? Did we sign a contract when they buy a ticket saying 'we will play what you want us to play (like the Players in (damn)Hamlet)'? No we f---ing did NOT!

Aye- I have lost track of my ideas. It flows faster than I type. Scheiße... I'll try to explain the expectation thing- I'll try. Do expect me to.

*Thanks for make it to the end of this long and maybe nonsense post*

*Hugs*

[leftyderek]

Originally Posted by Kostya

Well in one way at least it's filtering the bigots out of theatre audiences...

Nah-ah

Those are the ones who need to go to theatres the most. They need to learn something. To be reformed maybe, in a harsh way of saying it.

(Hey the avatar! The avatar! I loved the book, and the movie itself isnt bad either.)

(By the way, I might appear to hate cinema.. No I don't. I enjoy good films. Well, again, not profit-oriented ones though.)

[leftyderek]

Originally Posted by Derwood

I've been a lighting and scenery designer for the past 13 years. You can't look at Broadway (particularly the musicals) and consider them to be the standard for American Theatre. Go to NY, Chicago, San Francisco, etc. and you can see hundreds of shows that challenge, motivate, broaden, offend, etc. your heart and mind.

Oh I notice, of course, Broadway does not represent standard American Theatre. I just want to point out that those profit productions are taking over- soon enough if we don't do more, they will become standard. Then again I'm also talking from experience about theatre in Hong Kong- well it does not quite exist but I'm happy to see more alternative semi-professional productions being put on.

Also if anyone's interested, have a look at Odin Teatret (Odin Theatre) from Holstebro (sp?), Denmark. It was started by Eugenio Barba (sp?), a guy who worked closely with Grotowski while the legend (G. I mean) was still alive. I was there for two weeks on a kinda... workshop thing- like, getting to know how the OT works, learning some techniques and stuff. It was not anything special and their type of theatre might not be exactly my type- but they sometimes have little groups touring around- go see them if you have the chance, it's worth it.

[Pip]

I did amateur theatre for seven years, all sorts of stuff. Started in the workshop building and painting sets (my trompe l'oeil stone walls are unsurpassed) making and managing props, then moved to costumes and make-up. I've also done some script-writing, acted in minor roles and managed the finances for a year.
I'd love to get back into theatre, but not with the old crowd, because their productions are gargantuan.
One of my favourite aspects of theatre is the script, the lines, the language itself. Sometimes I prefer to read a play rather than to see it performed! Although it's always interesting to see how a play is put up. I usually go and see stuff that aren't depending so much on speech though - ballet, opera, cirque noveau. So I also like a good visual spectacle.
Favourite playwrights include Tom Stoppard, Henrik Ibsen, Samuel Beckett, August Strindberg. I also think Mats Ek (choreographer/director) is the best thing since ice cream, I recently saw his producton of The Merchant of Venice and it blew me away.

[ratbastid]

I did some acting in college. I was in an independant production of Christopher Durang's The Marriage of Bette and Boo as the protagonist/narrator/Durang-autobiographer/straightman. That was a blast. I was in a one-act called "The Dying Wife". I played the wife.

It was really a shock moving away from Minneapolis after college, where there is a VERY lively theater scene. Here in NC, we have some regional theaters, but it's just not the same.

This year at Triad Stage in Greensboro, NC, I've seen Streetcar, which was a brilliant production, and, last week, "Santaland Diaries", with the theater's artistic director playing Sedaris. This theater is great--it really tries to reach out to the community and include a greater range of people in the theatrical experience. For Streetcar, they had a "Stella-Yelling Contest". People came in and yelled "STELLA!!!!!" for various prizes. Fun!

[leftyderek]

Originally Posted by Pip

I did amateur theatre for seven years, all sorts of stuff. Started in the workshop building and painting sets (my trompe l'oeil stone walls are unsurpassed) making and managing props, then moved to costumes and make-up. I've also done some script-writing, acted in minor roles and managed the finances for a year.
I'd love to get back into theatre, but not with the old crowd, because their productions are gargantuan.
One of my favourite aspects of theatre is the script, the lines, the language itself. Sometimes I prefer to read a play rather than to see it performed! Although it's always interesting to see how a play is put up. I usually go and see stuff that aren't depending so much on speech though - ballet, opera, cirque noveau. So I also like a good visual spectacle.
Favourite playwrights include Tom Stoppard, Henrik Ibsen, Samuel Beckett, August Strindberg. I also think Mats Ek (choreographer/director) is the best thing since ice cream, I recently saw his producton of The Merchant of Venice and it blew me away.

Stoppard and Beckett are just good- I really like them too.
Hmm it's interesting to see you like Ibsen too, like, among Stoppard, Beckett and Strindberg... I dunno, their styles seem pretty different.

(Well except Strindberg's talent- I can see why you like him- he's a Swede too isnt he?)
(oh well, being studying in norway in the last two years...and I thought Swedes don't like Norwegians that much do they? :P)

[Derwood]

A link to my website in case anyone is interested:

www.geocities.com/darinkeesing

[Pip]

Originally Posted by leftyderek

Stoppard and Beckett are just good- I really like them too.
Hmm it's interesting to see you like Ibsen too, like, among Stoppard, Beckett and Strindberg... I dunno, their styles seem pretty different.

(Well except Strindberg's talent- I can see why you like him- he's a Swede too isnt he?)
(oh well, being studying in norway in the last two years...and I thought Swedes don't like Norwegians that much do they? :P)

Oh I love Norweigans... with onion sauce. They do have different styles but I like different kinds of music, so why shouldn't I like different kinds of playwrights?

Anyway, random question for all you backstage people. Do you, when you go see a performance, pay way too much attention to stuff like lighting, sets, and costumes? I can drift away completely in contemplation of the painting on the backdrop. The first time I visit a theatre I always "measure" the stage, and side areas if possible, to see if my old company could possibly play there. (I'm going to a "new" place on Saturday! Glee!)

[maleficent]

Originally Posted by Pip

Anyway, random question for all you backstage people. Do you, when you go see a performance, pay way too much attention to stuff like lighting, sets, and costumes?

In high school, college, and a few years after in a summer theater program, I was very involved in costume design (even thoughm y artistic talent was non-existant) and makeup... I was all about the details...

One show I had gone to -- I don't remember the show-- but it drove me nuts tha thte costumes had zippers... the period the play was taking place in zippers didn't exist.. they should have had buttons -- had i been doing costume design for that show-- they would have had buttons.. I also see hems that are coming down or not properly hemmed... or just things that are wrong...

I don't enjoy the theater because i can find too much to nitpick over...

[leftyderek]

Oh it happens to me sometimes. Sometimes I just can't stop thinking what I would do if I were the director...

Btw no one cares to have a look at my ultra long post a little bit above?

[fresnelly]

Hey Derwood, that's a really nice portfolio of work! I'm only just starting to get my images together online.

Your point about ticket price being an obstacle is very true. Add a high price on top of one of the other misconceptions and you have someone renting a movie

Am I distracted by the production details when I see a show? You bet. If my mind is wandering, I'm trying to figure out which colours are in the lights, breaking down the construction materials and imagining the load-in schedule.

Although if the show is a strong one, I quickly forget about this sort of thing and get drawn into the story. I admit, my first thought when the curtain goes up is often <i>"Why didn't they bloody well hire me for this?"</i>



Here are a couple of photo links for some recent productions I lit:

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a1...o/132_3270.jpg

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a1...io/Tinker2.jpg

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a1...hing0270AL.jpg

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a1...o/132_3282.jpg

Also

[leftyderek]

Hey fresnelly (what a name ), those were some nice pics.

I really love the first one- like the contrast within. downstage is nearly going to black and upstage is focused- and the second one, i've a question: how did you light the guy? (i assume he's sitting and facing downstage...)

Although i'd like to be a director- i'm really interesting in lighting design and operation. I just think Lfx's and Sfx's are pure magic. it's like an equation looks like that:

human+tech=magic.

[shakran]

Originally Posted by fresnelly

For the first, I blame every dry high-school english class reading of Shakespeare ever forced on suffering students.

Good point. Teachers always do that wrong don't they? They bore the hell out of you for a month while kids who can barely read the directions on an oatmeal packet try to figure out how to pronounce "whither," and THEN they show you the movie. Show the damn movie FIRST so the kids can see that they are dealing with a story, not a chore. THEN analyze the play if you must.

[fresnelly]

Originally Posted by leftyderek

...and the second one, i've a question: how did you light the guy? (i assume he's sitting and facing downstage...)

Thanks Lefty! He's actually facing Downstage Left. There are 2 tiny lights embedded in the rocks around the fire pit. (MR11's with some amber gel) That show was on a thrust stage so we had to positition them in such a way as to light the actors but not blind the audience. Props did a great job hiding them. Also, there are a couple of x-mas lights under the "ashes" of the fire, but they just create a red glow rather than cast light on the actors.

[leftyderek]

Thrust stages are always difficult IMO- gotta satisfy the audience from all 3 sides.

Hmm- MR11's did the actor complain about the heat? (I assume (again) that it's actually pretty close to him)



It's a great idea to hide the lights with props btw-

x-mas lights? Like those which goes around a x-mas tree? Hmm, maybe I'm just not experienced enough or I'm not 'technical' enough (I'm more into directing as I said)- I have to say it's a really good idea... like, y'know, all those 'non-theatre' instruments can actually be used and give a good effect (from what I see in the picture).

Great job.

It's also interesting to see actually there are pro's in TFP. Maybe someone can help me getting employed a few years later- or maybe for the ones in Canada, hopefully you'll hear my name some years after. I'm determined.

[leftyderek]

Originally Posted by shakran

Good point. Teachers always do that wrong don't they? They bore the hell out of you for a month while kids who can barely read the directions on an oatmeal packet try to figure out how to pronounce "whither," and THEN they show you the movie. Show the damn movie FIRST so the kids can see that they are dealing with a story, not a chore. THEN analyze the play if you must.

Yeah, I think it's just the problem of the teaching method- not Shakespeare himself. Whether he's a good playwright is another question (I think he's alright but not anything special)...

Then again I actually think ol'William's overrated. Way overrated IMO.

[fresnelly]

Originally Posted by leftyderek

Whether he's a good playwright is another question (I think he's alright but not anything special)...

Then again I actually think ol'William's overrated. Way overrated IMO.

I don't think Shakespeare is overrated. I'll agree that he may be overproduced (often poorly) but if you look at his contemporaries, you can better appreciate his strengths.

I've worked on plays by Thomas Middleton and Cyril Tourener who came just after WS, and they really pale by comparison. The sense I got, is that these playwrites are grasping at all of the standards cemented by Shakespeare: Double crosses, Cross dressing, star crossed lovers, evil twins, mistaken identity... You name it and they've tried to stuff it into a single story. The plots are ridiculously complex and the cliche that everybody dies at the end holds true. Think Pulp Fiction vs. Very Bad Things

Obviously, Shakespeare stole from his predessors and contemporaries, but his voice pokes through with a clarity that the others don't. I don't have a great quote for you and I'm no scholar, but his later play Pericles (I like to call it The Fantastic Adventures of Pericles) is a good primer on how he rises above the material.

He didn't write the whole thing and it shows. It's a rollicking adventure/fantasy that vears in a number of directions, but every once and a while, the text snaps you to attention and if you're keen to it, you'll recognize his voice.

You can dismiss him if you like, but he's not going anywhere.

I apologize to those I have offended by comparing Quentin Tarantino to Shakespeare .

[leftyderek]

Originally Posted by fresnelly

I don't think Shakespeare is overrated. I'll agree that he may be overproduced (often poorly) but if you look at his contemporaries, you can better appreciate his strengths.

I've worked on plays by Thomas Middleton and Cyril Tourener who came just after WS, and they really pale by comparison. The sense I got, is that these playwrites are grasping at all of the standards cemented by Shakespeare: Double crosses, Cross dressing, star crossed lovers, evil twins, mistaken identity... You name it and they've tried to stuff it into a single story. The plots are ridiculously complex and the cliche that everybody dies at the end holds true. Think Pulp Fiction vs. Very Bad Things

Obviously, Shakespeare stole from his predessors and contemporaries, but his voice pokes through with a clarity that the others don't. I don't have a great quote for you and I'm no scholar, but his later play Pericles (I like to call it The Fantastic Adventures of Pericles) is a good primer on how he rises above the material.

He didn't write the whole thing and it shows. It's a rollicking adventure/fantasy that vears in a number of directions, but every once and a while, the text snaps you to attention and if you're keen to it, you'll recognize his voice.

You can dismiss him if you like, but he's not going anywhere.

I apologize to those I have offended by comparing Quentin Tarantino to Shakespeare .

Haaa why apologize?

Well, I do think Shakespeare's amazing considering how he manages to put so many elements and to stick storylines together into one play, but don't you think sometimes his plays are extremely long?

I have never really worked on plays by Thomas Middleton and Cyril Tourener so I can't really tell, but I'll make sure I check them out and maybe then I can tell more about if Shakespeare is good or not...

How about anyone more 'recent'? For example Artaud- I think it's interesting how some people think he's genius and some think he's merely a madman BSing while he's on opium. I think he's on the genius side though. It's clear that some of his ideas are not complete or even some are just plain weird, but one must also notice the fact that he inspired quite a lot of playwrights and theorists (I forgot the right word for that- English isn't my first language... )

Anyway I'll be away for a whole month from Friday on- hope this thread will be alive when I'm back!

[snowy]

Originally Posted by shakran

Good point. Teachers always do that wrong don't they? They bore the hell out of you for a month while kids who can barely read the directions on an oatmeal packet try to figure out how to pronounce "whither," and THEN they show you the movie. Show the damn movie FIRST so the kids can see that they are dealing with a story, not a chore. THEN analyze the play if you must.

Here's part of my sample curriculum for "Romeo and Juliet"--a lot of the ideas were taken from the Folger Library guide for teaching R&J. I taught this unit a couple of years ago at a high school in Washington.

1. Students read scenes aloud.
2. Students, after reading scene where brawl between Montagues and Capulets takes place, get to act out said scene complete with prop swords. Yes, swords in the classroom. They're plastic. The kids have fun with them.
3. Students, after reading party scene, get to re-enact it--students may learn to do a Renaissance-style dance for extra credit, and a class party is held while the group performs their dance (this works best on the Friday before Christmas).
4. Other scenes get acted out as well, though perhaps with not as much gusto. But by the time you've done the activities above, the kids are hooked.
5. You finish every day by watching the scenes you've read on video--be it the old Zeferelli R&J, the BBC production, or another.
6. You save the modern Baz Luhrmann video for the very end of the unit so the kids feel they have something they're working towards (a movie day).

Using these activities and others, these kids got really excited about Shakespeare. They asked about a million questions regarding other Shakespeare plays and what I would recommend for them to read next! I was amazed. I also brought in my "serious" Shakespeare books alongside my silly ones (my huge Penguin annotated Shakespeare, some critical books from the university library, etc along with Shakespeare for Dummies,The Guide to Everything Shakespeare, etc). I also revealed that for some of Shakespeare's works even college students need Cliffs Notes. That put them at ease by letting them know I had once been in their shoes and occasionally, with other plays, continued to be in their shoes. It also gave them some fun references to look at.

[Derwood]

Once kids understand that Shakespeare is not written in some foreign language, they can get into it. As I've said before though, it's a tough sell when there are SO many horrible productions being mounted every year. I mean, I saw "As You Like It" at the Goodman in Chicago and it was HORRIBLE. It's really tough to do right, and for some reason so many directors feel like they need to set the plays in some weird time period which does nothing but distract from the production. There are clearly exceptions to this, but how many productions of "Twelfth Night" do I need to see set in the 1930's?

[Pip]

Originally Posted by Derwood

I mean, I saw "As You Like It" at the Goodman in Chicago and it was HORRIBLE. It's really tough to do right, and for some reason so many directors feel like they need to set the plays in some weird time period which does nothing but distract from the production.

Yes, As You Like It must be one of the most abused Shakespeare plays ever. Every director who wants to make a statement about utopian societies uses that one, just like every theatre company that wants to be edgy (yet have ol' Willy's name on the posters) does Titus Andronicus. (The movie with Anthony Hopkins is awesomly brilliant though.)

Completely random: Is there anyone else who celebrates the Ides of March (March 15, the day Julius Caesar was assassinated) by reciting parts of Shakespeare's play for an unwilling audience? I usually do Mark Anthony's lovely speech "Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears..." Try it, it's fun! (For Brutus is an honourable man)