Musing about Shakespeare

[michellcat]

I am currently working with two directors doing two different Shakespeare comedies. Neither one of them is Oxfordian, nor is either of them sufficiently familiar with Shakespeare to really understand the authorship controversy

Comments

[masterae]

I can see cutting Shakespeare, for various reasons. I am much less sanguine about changing him, if only for preserving the internal meter and rhythm.

I am agnostic on the question of Oxford vs Stratford, although I did have Felica Londra for Theater History at UMKC. The authorship is important as a scholarly matter, not as a matter relevant to performing.

If youre going to update Shakespeare, why not just go whole hog and rewrite the play using the words *you* want to use? There are plenty of good and even great adaptations. Why do a weird synthesis?

William Ball and I

[michellcat]

cut some 45 minutes out of Taming of the Shrew. I think it's fine to cut or make changes.

I agree about "updating" Shakespeare, although Robert Woodruff did so to good effect, in his all-juggling, zany rendition of Comedy of Errors in 1987.

I agree

[michellcat]

It's not central or essential to performing the plays, but the authorship issue is very helpful to understanding the text. Imagine someone saying, "It doesn't matter," regarding who wrote Long Day's Journey into Night, or Streetcar Named Desire.

If you're going to play Jacques, Hamlet, or Benedick, it helps a little to know the man who wrote them, as they are pretty much self portraits. To me it's pretty important, when directing any play, to understand the author as well as you possibly can.

From a directing standpoint, knowing him can really help you to understand the master/servant relationships, and can give you very important tools for dealing with the female characters as well.