It’s time for some show and tell. I’m curious to hopefully find some new reading material…So who’s reading some good books right now?

Currently I’m working on a very interesting piece called The Shakespearean Dramaturg: A Theoretical and Practical Guide by Andrew James Hartley. He’s the resident Dramaturg at the Georgia Shakespeare Festival. There’s a lot of cool thoughts on editing scripts; working with directors, designers, actors; and lots about how to effectively serve the production rather than become “The Shakespeare Police.” I’ll post a write up after I’m finished.

Next on my list will be Think On My Words: Exploring Shakespeare’s Language by David Crystal, co-author of Shakespeare’s Words. I’m very excited to read that. I don’t know too much about it but I’m a fan of the author.

And after that I enter into the world of Shakespearean fiction novels for the first time. What’s on your reading list?

“The play as written is 4 1/2 to five hours long,”
“Depending on the staging, a full, uncut production of Hamlet can last four to five hours.”
“Uncut, Hamlet runs a good five hours”

Or does it?

Those few random statements I found in articles online are everywhere. Reviews, books, classroom lectures, essays, and in people’s mouths. Where does this number come from?

How many of the people who say this have seen an uncut Hamlet, I wonder. I must confess that I have not seen an uncut version ON STAGE, but here’s what I do know:

• Arkangel’s audio Hamlet, uncut, includes plenty of music between scenes, as well as before and after the play with credits, etc — 3 hours, 25 minutes
• BBC Hamlet, uncut, with Derek Jacobi — 3 hours, 30 minutes, including intro and end credits.
• Kenneth Branagh’s “complete” Hamlet – uncut, plenty of cinematic sequences between text, extra action, and feature film length opening and closing credits! — 4 hours and 2 minutes.

So how could an uncut production take five hours?

In general films move faster than theatre does. It’s quicker to show something than to say something. But the BBC complete works series is basically filmed versions of the stage play, just on a sound stage and not in front of an audience.

What about scene changes? If you have a different complicated and giant set for every scene, sure, you’ll probably add an hour with scene changes… but who’s gonna do that? With a well designed unit set with smaller bits and pieces brought on and off for locations it’s not too difficult to keep the action moving with minimal or no pauses.

How about when Hamlet was first performed? For starters, we don’t know which text was used when it was performed in Shakespeare’s day. The text from the First Quarto, Second Quarto, and First Folio are all of various lengths. The most “complete” Hamlet that you’ll see in most published editions today is around four thousand lines of text, and close in length to any of the three versions of the play that I mentioned above. And if that full text was used, it is speculated that plays were acted at a much brisker pace than they are today. Perhaps in the 18th century, with more theatrical technologies and the use of spectacle becoming popular, it is possible that there were different complicated giant sets for every location and an hour was added on… but that extra time has very little to do with any performing, or anything to do with the text itself.

I have a feeling that the 5 hours long myth is meant to “wow” the audience, and make them be thankful before the curtain rises that they will only be seeing an edited, 2 and a half hour version.

The Taming of the Shrew is a wonderful play that we theatre artists all love for the great characters, the comedy, the language…

But what about the “problem” of the audience? This play is one (of many) of Shakespeare’s works that has elements that just seems to rub we moderns the wrong way. Will spectators ever be able let that go and enjoy the play or will there constantly be a battle between an auditor’s conscience and the attempted justifications made in the director’s notes?

In a recent review of Baltimore Shakespeare Festival’s production, the critic states

There’s no getting around the misogyny at the core of William Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew. You can try to talk yourself out of it, as dramaturg Jen Plants does in her program notes … You can try to restore the usually discarded framing device in an attempt to pass the whole thing off as a drunken dream. You can even cast a real ball of fire … as Katharina, the shrew who must be tamed.
Nothing works.

Theatres will usually try to present productions that are relevant today, that speak to modern generations. Most audience members watching Shrew will know in the back of their mind that this play was written 400 years ago for a very different audience with different thoughts about, well, a lot of things. But how can you convincingly justify putting on the play as something relevant?

It’s impossible just shrug relevance away and say “It’s a good play,” or “because it’s Shakespeare!” I’m sure no matter what you say there will be people flocking to come see it if it’s well acted. But the parts of the play that are relevant today are for the director to find or create.

You may have noticed that I don’t really have an answer for you. I’m a little conflicted over it. I enjoy the play for a variety of reasons that I have mentioned: the characters, the comedy, the language. But if I were an artistic director of a theatre company getting my chosen season approved by the board of directors and was asked to justify my choice of Shrew I might have a hard time convincing anyone. How would you justify it? Or would you at all?

William Shakespeare is quite possibly the most quoted author on the subjects of love, life, death, words of wisdom, and clever insults. When naming a baby, a new product, a group, or other we may hear Juliet’s words, “What’s in a name?” And perhaps later in the evening, “Parting is such sweet sorrow.” When washing my clothes you may hear me say “Out, damned spot!” and in reply to when I’ll take out the garbage: “Tomorrow, and Tomorrow, and Tomorrow.”

Some phrases have found their way into our every day lives; more importantly, some have found their way into our hearts. When reading a work of the Bard it isn’t too difficult to find a line or short passage that has immense meaning to you at that moment in your life. Maybe it expresses the way you are feeling or is very good advice for something pertinent in your life.

Now it’s time for show and tell! What are those phrases you use regularly (and for what?) and are there any passages that you have found apply directly to your life now, or maybe some that you connected with some time ago?

One that seems to keep me semi-optimistic through life (especially in hellish situations) is “there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.” – Hamlet (II.ii). And Feste’s words in Twelfth Night seem to ring true for the way I am in public… “Better a witty fool than a foolish wit.” I think of more soon to post in the comments…

Now it’s your turn!

I really enjoy all the singing that Shakespeare writes into so many of his plays. It can do so much for a production: Give time for a costume change, give an audience a break from so much speaking they might not understand, lets an actor or two show off their musical skills, maybe even allows an audience to connect more to the current action. Music has a way of affecting people in some cases that words alone just can’t.

The Willow song in the Emilia/Desdemona scene near the end of Othello has such gravity to it. Most of us know what’s going to happen to Desdemona and hearing this words with mellow music could provide a very cathartic experience.

The songs in As You Like It can easily transport us away from the court to the more relaxed, more harmonious Forest of Arden. Feste’s songs in Twelfth Night have the potential to be very entertaining as well as moving. Orsino seems to be deeply moved by a song he sings. Folk songs are sung by very merry (or drunk) characters, just like merry (or drunk) people in real life do of course.

Some of the music of these songs still exist — a few were actual popular songs from Shakespeare’s day. In performance however, most theatre’s don’t search for the original tune. It usually doesn’t fit their concept. In fact, many directors will cut songs out of the plays. Saving time is always an issue when producing one of these works, but so much can be lost when cutting a song. It’d be much better to cut out a passage of banter with humor or very old references that no one will understand than to cut something that could be much more entertaining.

When a production chooses to keep the songs and has some really good music to accompany the words, the effect can be really fun. Even magical. The inverse is also true. Really bad music or a horrible singer can really kill the moment. Who wants to listen to Titania being sung to sleep with a song and a voice that would make the dogs of the neighborhood howl?

The music is another wonderful piece of the wonder of Shakespearean performance. Music is another element that can be different in every production of a play. Composers will always be able to come up with new music to go with the words and fit the play’s concept – just as new actors and new directors will continuously be able to bring their own unique work to Shakespeare’s text.

Play on, give me excess of it…

I’m currently involved in a production of Twelfth Night, not too far into rehearsals. During a recent discussion of the text involving the director the question of “who is protagonist and the antagonist” was raised. There didn’t seem to be a happy answer. Before the conversation took a turn to something else, the last view that was pressed upon us was that Viola was the protagonist, and Malvolio (although he does not strongly hold this position) is the antagonist.

Malvolio is really less a part of Viola’s story and more a strong figure in the sub plot involving Maria, Toby, Andrew, etc. who play a really nasty trick on Malvolio. I heard some interesting thoughts on who Viola’s real antagonist is… what are your thoughts?

A few of us could have kept the discussion going for quite some time, but we had things to do. We also compared the characters to Commedia dell’Arte stock characters, which is somewhat part of the concept. I was having trouble with a lot of what was going on…

Shakespeare’s characters and stories are not simple. They usually don’t have one easy plot with a clear single protagonist and antagonist. These are not stock characters. Some fall into categories nicely while others are a little harder to pin down.

You might think this is all obvious but I think it’s something that shouldn’t be taken for granted. As I re-examine the primary and secondary plots in the plays and think about the complex characters it’s all rather exciting, wouldn’t you agree? Clean cut and simple can be boring sometimes. The Bard gives us many complex stories with twists and turns with plenty of ambiguity… but the possibilities created from the unanswered questions are what keeps the plays alive. New works of art are created every day that use one of Will’s scripts. It’s truly awesome.

In case you were wondering what my involvement with this production is (and I know you’re so curious about my activities): I’m playing Feste, the clown. I need to brush up on my juggling skills.

On numerous occasions I have been reading an edition of one of Shakespeare’s plays and come across an unfamiliar word. I find the corresponding footnote, and lo and behold! the unfamiliar word is defined with an other unfamiliar, albeit more modern, word. If I didn’t have internet access or my healthy library of research materials on my bookshelf I would be very very very peeved. With all the aforementioned at my disposal, I usually am only just peeved.

All of the “standard” editions of Shakespeare (Arden, Penguin, etc) have a few of these in there. I should call them scholarly editions. There is another type of Shakespeare edition out there where this does not occur. I call these the “for dummies” editions. But these editions attempt to translate Shakespeare’s words, and I have already discussed how I feel about that. One of the problems with this type of editions is that Shakespeare seems inaccessible without of one these editions. To the student (or perhaps the average adult) who picks up a scholarly edition may find Shakespeare completely inaccessible and the book they have may not help at all. Some of them are packed so full of definitions that one can easily read the definition of every word and not understand the story at all. So the published edition may be partly to blame for the common assumption that Shakespeare is only accessible to the intellectual snob. If you had little to no Shakespeare experience wouldn’t you be frustrated too? Maybe give up halfway and read the sparknotes summary and try your luck on the quiz at school, if you happen to still be in school.

So where is the marriage between the intellectual and the creative parts of the Shakespeare’s plays? I don’t really have a good answer for that. It seems to be a zig-zag or roundabout way to find it — and it’s unique to every person I’ve talked to — and some do give up along the way before getting too far. If you’re reading this and have any recommendations please share. I’d love to let the masses know, “This is what you need to read,” and end the Bardophobic pandemic.

I’m almost inspired to create my own edition of a Shakespeare play to see if I can do a good one. One that is readable by the young student, actor, and “smartie.” Might be fun! I’ll find the time some day… some year.

It is not very uncommon here in the USA for people without much experience with Shakespeare, when asked to speak his text, will attempt to do so with an English Accent. Usually a bad one, by that’s a different story for another blog (if I feel so inclined to start a new blog about my experience as a dialect coach… which isn’t likely).

What is it about Shakespeare that warrants so many – both young and old – to attempt to do away with their normal pronunciation and adopt another for reading this author? Simple. Shakespeare was British. Okay, maybe not so simple.

The fact is that most Americans hear Shakespeare’s words spoken by our friends across the pond. I have previously mentioned this problem but I feel that I should bring it up again a little differently. If you didnt know before reading this post… now you know not to speak Shakespeare in an English dialect just because you think it sounds more correct. If you’re Amerian.

But wait! Many of the plays – all of the histories – mainly take place in England! That’s really up to the director to decide. Maybe they’re not even setting their production in England. Let’s move on.

So how are Shakespeare’s words to be given life? What accent is best? There’s no real answer to that question. It is disputed by scholars, actors, directors, and especially teachers. Some say whatever dialect the actor has. Some want the region-neutral General American dialect. Other prefer an older, upper-class, east coast pronunciation… which sounds rather British. Before starting rehearsals as an actor, be sure to ask the director what he/she expects of you in this area. A range of accents can sound bad to an audience in certain situations.

Any range of accents can work, depending on where the director sets the production. It should match, if at all possible. Before I end this post I feel that I should mention that this isn’t just an American issue. In the UK it was required for some time for actors to only use Standard British/Recieved Pronunciation. As an auditor to one of the History plays, I enjoy hearing the corresponding modern accent of the historical figure, based on where he is from. I learned of a recent production of Richard III whose title character, who is from the house of York, spoke with a Yorkshire accent. Cool!