To make good on my promise to myself to read more from certain lovable authors, I ditched the John le Carré novel and started in another Atwood novel; Hag-Seed. Now this is not just any novel; Hogarth is doing a series of Shakespeare-retellings by contemporary authors in contemporary settings, and Hag-Seed was inspired by The Tempest. Or rather, not just inspired by, it is basically the story of The Tempest, including a thwarted theatre director, who aims at getting revenge through staging The Tempest. This sounds very forced, and it probably could have been in the hands of a lesser author, but the novel is actually brilliantly constructed.
Before we get into that, let me get this out of the way; I have never read The Tempest, nor have I ever seen a staging of it. It was one of those 'we won't go there' plays during my studies, and it isn't one of the plays that ever shows up at the local theatre (or not-so-local Shakespeare theatre). There is apparently a film version with Helen Mirren as 'Prospera', but I managed to miss that too.
So, no prior knowledge of the play or the story, although I did read up on the main plotlines and themes on Wikipedia (I found out in the end that there is a short synopsis at the back of the novel, but I'm one of those people who stays very far from the final pages of any novel). Also, the main theme is pretty obvious from the get-go; revenge. The main character, Felix/Prospero, has been thwarted out of his profession as artistic manager of a Shakespeare festival, and now that he has fallen low, he wants his revenge. After an exile of twelve years (not unexpectedly the same amount of time elapses in The Tempest), he finally sees his chance when his former enemies visit the prison in which he now works in a Literacy through Literature programme. It isn't hard to persuade the juvenile delinquents to work with him to get his revenge, and the end result is somewhat disturbing, but also a very entertaining read.
The 'actors' are asked to add their own thoughts, scenes and songs to the play, resulting in some very nice raps (I never thought I would ever write the phrase 'very nice raps'), which gives a triple layer to this retelling (the original play, the novel-as-the-play, and the 'modernized' version they perform). Again, this might have been very forced, but even though you can see what will happen way in advance, the plot never gets in the way of the story. One funny thing that happened was that I kept thinking the play was set in England, and it took about a third of the book to realise it was actually set in the US. Somehow, 'Shakespeare festivals' feel like something Britain-only, and the whole novel oozed Britishness to me. (And then it turns out that Margaret Atwood is actually Canadian, so I have been putting her novels on the wrong shelf of my bookcase for years!)
Anyway, it's a great read, maybe less so if you're not a Shakespeare/theatre geek like me, but even then the whole development of the main character and his young actors will still bring a smile to your face. Amazing, how something that should have been very heavy and deep with Literary Meaning, can still be so very light and pleasant.
Showing posts with label theatre. Show all posts
Showing posts with label theatre. Show all posts
Monday, 10 July 2017
Monday, 6 April 2015
Queen Lear
To keep up on my Shakespeare, which is something they command you to do before you are given your MA in English Literature, I've visited no less than two Shakespeare plays so far this year (and I foresee a third in the summer, when the open-air Shakespeare Theatre in Diever will stage Romeo & Juliet). But in winter we decided to stay indoors, and watched the plays at the Stadsschouwburg in Groningen.
The first was Hamlet, my fifth or sixth Hamlet in all, played by The Tiger Lillies. I had never heard of them before, but Wikipedia tells us they are "a cult British musical trio", which is not who you expect to put on a Shakespeare play. To this end, they teamed up with 4 actors, who played the main characters during the real 'acting' parts of the play, while they connected the acted bits through song and dance and a bit of cabaret. There wasn't much in the way of props or setting, just one big panel with some windows and doors, which could be tilted all the way to the ground when they didn't need it. It was brilliantly done; good acting, wonderful music, the (sometimes very high-pitched) singing was great and very relevant to the play. It also showed that you don't need to put on all of Hamlet exactly as Shakespeare has written it; you can just take 4 people and the main scenes and the gist of the story, and it will still work. I've seen Hamlet done with 6 actors who also played their own musical instruments at the Globe in London, and that one was slightly better on the acting part, but this one was better on the musical part. Anyway; a great show.
There were several other Shakespeare performances in the Stadsschouwburg this year, but we decided to stick with the one as there were other plays to be watched and it is still pretty expensive. But then one of the other plays was cancelled because the theatre went bankrupt, and we decided to visit another Shakespeare play just because we could. This was to be Queen Lear, an adaptation of King Lear by Toneelgroep Amsterdam.
Now while Hamlet had been basically the play that Shakespeare intended, with some scenes and characters removed and some musical intermezzos added, this was something completely different. Not only had they translated the play from English to Dutch, but they also reversed most of the gender roles. King Lear became a queen, his three daughters were now three sons, and their two spouses (the dukes Albany and Cornwall) had become gold digging women. Kent was there, still a male, and the fool was also still male. These were all the characters, but they proved that you can play Lear with only 8 people (with one doubling as the madman on the heath). But if all that change wasn't enough, they also changed the setting to the current time; not a kingdom divided, but a company, with several obvious references to the recent banking crisis. You might think that this is a bit too much for poor King Lear, and in some ways it was. At first you kept trying to remember what the 'real' play was about, and what they changed and why they may have done that, and what was going to happen next. But then the story got underway and you kind of forgot that you were actually watching Lear, until some of the typical Lear stuff started to happen, like the storm or the blinding of Kent or the 'Never never never never never' line. Which was good, because it is recognisable, but it also felt a bit tacked-on, as if they were trying to prove to themselves that they were still really playing Lear and not something else. They play in itself was well done, great acting and a good atmosphere, but during these typical Lear things it all felt a bit too contrived. King Lear is a universally recognisable story about old age and seeing your inheritance dissolve into nothingness, and they could have kept it just like that. I can imagine that when you tell people they're going to see Queen Lear you feel like you're obliged to keep in some of the typical Shakespearean stuff, but to me, it was not really necessary. The story was good enough on it's own.
But anyway, this was enough Shakespeare for a while, until Romeo & Juliet will start in Diever. That play will also be translated to Dutch, but otherwise they usually keep things original, and they have a large cast of volunteers so lots of characters will be there. It's good to see so many different versions of these classic stories, it shows how timeless and universal they are, even when translated to music or our modern times. But once in a while, it's still good to see the original thing, with lots of actors, in the open air.
The first was Hamlet, my fifth or sixth Hamlet in all, played by The Tiger Lillies. I had never heard of them before, but Wikipedia tells us they are "a cult British musical trio", which is not who you expect to put on a Shakespeare play. To this end, they teamed up with 4 actors, who played the main characters during the real 'acting' parts of the play, while they connected the acted bits through song and dance and a bit of cabaret. There wasn't much in the way of props or setting, just one big panel with some windows and doors, which could be tilted all the way to the ground when they didn't need it. It was brilliantly done; good acting, wonderful music, the (sometimes very high-pitched) singing was great and very relevant to the play. It also showed that you don't need to put on all of Hamlet exactly as Shakespeare has written it; you can just take 4 people and the main scenes and the gist of the story, and it will still work. I've seen Hamlet done with 6 actors who also played their own musical instruments at the Globe in London, and that one was slightly better on the acting part, but this one was better on the musical part. Anyway; a great show.
There were several other Shakespeare performances in the Stadsschouwburg this year, but we decided to stick with the one as there were other plays to be watched and it is still pretty expensive. But then one of the other plays was cancelled because the theatre went bankrupt, and we decided to visit another Shakespeare play just because we could. This was to be Queen Lear, an adaptation of King Lear by Toneelgroep Amsterdam.
Now while Hamlet had been basically the play that Shakespeare intended, with some scenes and characters removed and some musical intermezzos added, this was something completely different. Not only had they translated the play from English to Dutch, but they also reversed most of the gender roles. King Lear became a queen, his three daughters were now three sons, and their two spouses (the dukes Albany and Cornwall) had become gold digging women. Kent was there, still a male, and the fool was also still male. These were all the characters, but they proved that you can play Lear with only 8 people (with one doubling as the madman on the heath). But if all that change wasn't enough, they also changed the setting to the current time; not a kingdom divided, but a company, with several obvious references to the recent banking crisis. You might think that this is a bit too much for poor King Lear, and in some ways it was. At first you kept trying to remember what the 'real' play was about, and what they changed and why they may have done that, and what was going to happen next. But then the story got underway and you kind of forgot that you were actually watching Lear, until some of the typical Lear stuff started to happen, like the storm or the blinding of Kent or the 'Never never never never never' line. Which was good, because it is recognisable, but it also felt a bit tacked-on, as if they were trying to prove to themselves that they were still really playing Lear and not something else. They play in itself was well done, great acting and a good atmosphere, but during these typical Lear things it all felt a bit too contrived. King Lear is a universally recognisable story about old age and seeing your inheritance dissolve into nothingness, and they could have kept it just like that. I can imagine that when you tell people they're going to see Queen Lear you feel like you're obliged to keep in some of the typical Shakespearean stuff, but to me, it was not really necessary. The story was good enough on it's own.
But anyway, this was enough Shakespeare for a while, until Romeo & Juliet will start in Diever. That play will also be translated to Dutch, but otherwise they usually keep things original, and they have a large cast of volunteers so lots of characters will be there. It's good to see so many different versions of these classic stories, it shows how timeless and universal they are, even when translated to music or our modern times. But once in a while, it's still good to see the original thing, with lots of actors, in the open air.
Thursday, 7 June 2012
Modern theatre
As many of you will know by now, I am taking a class in modern theatre. This means I've been studying Ibsen, Strindberg, and Chekhov, Beckett, Miller, and Williams, and Albee, Churchill, and Kushner. I've enjoyed most of their plays, and seeing how they influenced each other, and were influenced by society and other literary movements. I know most of the plays I studied were "classic" modernist plays, plays on which most of our contemporary and experimental theatre is built. So when the program for the new theatre season came out, I was curious to see whether I could maybe see one or two adaptations of plays that I'd read.
It turned out that I could.
Even more, it turned out that every single play that I've read for the past semester, with the exception of Ibsen's Hedda Gabler, will be performed next year. Most of these performances will be in Dutch, and very few will be "modernised" (per the description, I am unsure how you "modernise" a "modernist" play, but there you go), but on the whole, I can just see the entire course pass me by on stage.
Now that made me think. I mean, I know most of Shakespeare's plays are still being performed (I can go see Othello and Macbeth), but these are generally modernised and show some interpretation of the play (such as the Hamlet production I saw last year, where they changed the whole thing so that Hamlet is in a psychiatric asylum and experiences the whole play inside his head, very creative). But why would we keep repeating all the "old masters" of modern theatre, without changing them? (This obviously does not concern plays in which the copyright holders forbid any productions that do not follow the original texts to the letter, such as in the case of Waiting for Godot, but those are extreme cases.)
Are they still relevant? I'm not sure if watching Death of a Salesman in Groningen in 2013 will give you the same insights about 1950s America as it did 60 years ago. Do we not have any inspiration? Not true, the adaptation of Shakespeare's plays clearly shows that things can be done with these plays, and that other interpretations are possible. Do we have too much reference for these great theatre masters that we do not dare to adapt their plays? Well, Shakespeare is even more the "grand maister" of theatre, so this can't be true either.
What is it then?
I think that people are just playing safe. If you translate a play from Norwegian or Russian or even English, you've already done 'something' to it. Even more, most of these plays take place in some Russian or Irish country house or French landscape or whatever, so maybe for us Dutchies, that is already so strange and unfamiliar that changing even more would become dangerous. Or even worse, maybe most people don't know these plays (I have to admit I didn't know them before I took this course, although I had heard about most of them, but then I didn't go to the theatre to watch plays before this course, and people who go to the theatre to watch plays generally know something about theatre). If you don't know the classic version, then the contemporary interpretation won't make any sense either.
Now I could say "this worries me" and pretend to be some cultural conservativist person, but that's not how I feel about this. It's not that I'm worried, I'm just surprised. I am very happy I get to see all these plays performed, even if it is in Dutch (generally, Dutch translations of plays tend to be not so great), and I'm happy to see them in their original forms because I haven't seen them that way yet. But I do think that 130 years after something was first performed, we could have done more with it, really. And I would just as happily go see a 'modern' interpretation of Hedda Gabler where Hedda is trying to do her research and her husband is being bored and tried to seduce the female judge hanging around their house. Either way is fine with me, I'm just happy I get to see them at all. But still, it makes you wonder...
It turned out that I could.
Even more, it turned out that every single play that I've read for the past semester, with the exception of Ibsen's Hedda Gabler, will be performed next year. Most of these performances will be in Dutch, and very few will be "modernised" (per the description, I am unsure how you "modernise" a "modernist" play, but there you go), but on the whole, I can just see the entire course pass me by on stage.
Now that made me think. I mean, I know most of Shakespeare's plays are still being performed (I can go see Othello and Macbeth), but these are generally modernised and show some interpretation of the play (such as the Hamlet production I saw last year, where they changed the whole thing so that Hamlet is in a psychiatric asylum and experiences the whole play inside his head, very creative). But why would we keep repeating all the "old masters" of modern theatre, without changing them? (This obviously does not concern plays in which the copyright holders forbid any productions that do not follow the original texts to the letter, such as in the case of Waiting for Godot, but those are extreme cases.)
Are they still relevant? I'm not sure if watching Death of a Salesman in Groningen in 2013 will give you the same insights about 1950s America as it did 60 years ago. Do we not have any inspiration? Not true, the adaptation of Shakespeare's plays clearly shows that things can be done with these plays, and that other interpretations are possible. Do we have too much reference for these great theatre masters that we do not dare to adapt their plays? Well, Shakespeare is even more the "grand maister" of theatre, so this can't be true either.
What is it then?
I think that people are just playing safe. If you translate a play from Norwegian or Russian or even English, you've already done 'something' to it. Even more, most of these plays take place in some Russian or Irish country house or French landscape or whatever, so maybe for us Dutchies, that is already so strange and unfamiliar that changing even more would become dangerous. Or even worse, maybe most people don't know these plays (I have to admit I didn't know them before I took this course, although I had heard about most of them, but then I didn't go to the theatre to watch plays before this course, and people who go to the theatre to watch plays generally know something about theatre). If you don't know the classic version, then the contemporary interpretation won't make any sense either.
Now I could say "this worries me" and pretend to be some cultural conservativist person, but that's not how I feel about this. It's not that I'm worried, I'm just surprised. I am very happy I get to see all these plays performed, even if it is in Dutch (generally, Dutch translations of plays tend to be not so great), and I'm happy to see them in their original forms because I haven't seen them that way yet. But I do think that 130 years after something was first performed, we could have done more with it, really. And I would just as happily go see a 'modern' interpretation of Hedda Gabler where Hedda is trying to do her research and her husband is being bored and tried to seduce the female judge hanging around their house. Either way is fine with me, I'm just happy I get to see them at all. But still, it makes you wonder...
Monday, 19 March 2012
Modernists
So this semester I'm taking a theatre course, because I don't know that much about theatre and wanted to learn more (in sharp contrast to several other students in the course, who already know everything about theatre, and are just there to get an easy grade). I really wanted to do the Shakespeare course, but because that alternates with the modern theatre course, I am doing the latter. Now I will say up front that I don't really like modern literature. I can't tell you exactly why I don't like it, but most things written from 1880 until around 1960 don't really grip me and entice me as texts from before or after that period do. There are always some exceptions of course, including Sherlock Holmes, the war-poets, and Tolkien, but generally speaking, it's true.
Now we've been reading some more "conventional" modernist plays for the last few weeks (which still caused huge riots when they were first produced, but are not something we would lift an eyebrow over), but now we've really gotten to the good modernist stuff. Jarry's Ubu the King, and Beckett's Waiting for Godot. And while I was reading the former, I suddenly realised why I don't like it. It is just too contrived. It's shocking just to be shocking. It's absurd just to be absurd. Just like Woolf or Joyce were writing in a new way, just to write in a new way, although for them of course there was a higher purpose. Here there isn't one. The point is that there is no point, which is all very existentialist, but it does not really get us anywhere (think about it, if we were all constantly thinking about the fact that there isn't really a point, nothing would ever happen again. Also, see Calvin & Hobbes and another one and another one). There is no message, no goal, except to say "hey, look at how absurd and weird and non-conventional I am! Look at how different I am! I bet you're jealous now, stuck in your conventional boring society/literature/art!" There is absolutely no reason for Jarry to put "shit" into his play about 100 times, he just does it to shock the audience (and it worked, I can tell you). Why would you do that? Why would you irritate people just for the sake of irritating them? There is so much beautiful art out there, there are so many beautiful plays, why not direct your energy towards something that people can enjoy and love, instead of something that will shock and anger them?
I can see how it works when you want to tell something about society, or about people. Sometimes you need to shock people before they can realise or see things that they are so used to that they won't see them any more. Comedians are good at this. But if you want to shock just to shock, then you're not creating art, in my opinion (remember: it's just my opinion. Although I do think most people agree that art should both entertain and educate). And we can see the end result of this process on tv every night, all those "Shock docs" and "The bride of 500 kg" and "Embarrassing Bodies" and whatnot programs.
So yes, modernists, especially modernist playwrights, do not appear to be my thing. Which does not mean I don't enjoy taking the course; I think it's fascinating to see what people though of as "disturbing" and "horrendous" just 100 years ago. And you can still study something even though you don't like it or agree with their point of view. Maybe that even makes it easier, because you're somewhat more distanced and can look at it more objectively. And who knows, maybe I'll come to like it in the end!
Now we've been reading some more "conventional" modernist plays for the last few weeks (which still caused huge riots when they were first produced, but are not something we would lift an eyebrow over), but now we've really gotten to the good modernist stuff. Jarry's Ubu the King, and Beckett's Waiting for Godot. And while I was reading the former, I suddenly realised why I don't like it. It is just too contrived. It's shocking just to be shocking. It's absurd just to be absurd. Just like Woolf or Joyce were writing in a new way, just to write in a new way, although for them of course there was a higher purpose. Here there isn't one. The point is that there is no point, which is all very existentialist, but it does not really get us anywhere (think about it, if we were all constantly thinking about the fact that there isn't really a point, nothing would ever happen again. Also, see Calvin & Hobbes and another one and another one). There is no message, no goal, except to say "hey, look at how absurd and weird and non-conventional I am! Look at how different I am! I bet you're jealous now, stuck in your conventional boring society/literature/art!" There is absolutely no reason for Jarry to put "shit" into his play about 100 times, he just does it to shock the audience (and it worked, I can tell you). Why would you do that? Why would you irritate people just for the sake of irritating them? There is so much beautiful art out there, there are so many beautiful plays, why not direct your energy towards something that people can enjoy and love, instead of something that will shock and anger them?
I can see how it works when you want to tell something about society, or about people. Sometimes you need to shock people before they can realise or see things that they are so used to that they won't see them any more. Comedians are good at this. But if you want to shock just to shock, then you're not creating art, in my opinion (remember: it's just my opinion. Although I do think most people agree that art should both entertain and educate). And we can see the end result of this process on tv every night, all those "Shock docs" and "The bride of 500 kg" and "Embarrassing Bodies" and whatnot programs.
So yes, modernists, especially modernist playwrights, do not appear to be my thing. Which does not mean I don't enjoy taking the course; I think it's fascinating to see what people though of as "disturbing" and "horrendous" just 100 years ago. And you can still study something even though you don't like it or agree with their point of view. Maybe that even makes it easier, because you're somewhat more distanced and can look at it more objectively. And who knows, maybe I'll come to like it in the end!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)