This has been a problem that has weighed on my mind the past several days. My feelings about the situation are well known. But that doesn't change the fact that he probably doesn't care. We all know about Samuel Beckett. An irishman who rejected his past to live in france. The son of a businessman, Nazi fighter, poet, writer, and asshole.
I don't care how many awards he's won. Beckett has signed his own legacy by himself. His freedom of Press will be the nail in the coffin of his legacy. Shakespeare and other classical authors endure because people can do with them whatever they wish. For example: As You Like It in the 1960's. But despite being dead Beckett will shut you down if the costumes are the wrong color. After a while no one's going to care about the movement he's started. His stories don't speak to mass audience of people, like Shakespeare. So he doesn't have that going for him. In fact the only thing he has going for him is a 'theatre of the absurd' movement that he accidentally started. The odds that the average theatre goer has seen at least one Shakespearean Work are great. But even less so are the odds that the same theatre goer has or will see a Beckett performance.
Am I alone in this assumption?
Can too many strictures on ones own work keep people from staging it/seeing it?
Do interpretations enhance the abilities of a play to reach people?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
WEll Jared I hear what your saying. But where is the point where the vision of the director of the work damage the integrity of the work. Quite frankly in some ways I agree with Beckett. If indeed he had a problem with a black actor playing Hamm there is actually a legitimate reason. Hamm asks clove if his face looks white. So quite frankly a black man would not say that. Maybe Clov, Nagg or Nell could be of antother race but Hamm should be cast white.
Also a lot of his issues remind me of August Wilson's views. August did not want a white director directing his works. Is this right or wrong. Personally I can't say if I believe that a white director can have an understanding of black culture and the black experience to really fairly direct an August Wilson play.
I think the real questions are : Is a play an entity in and of itself? Does the playwright ever lose the right to determine how the piece should be interpreted?
My answer to any of the people who have a problem with the demands of the Beckett society is don't even bother trying to produce his work.
Jared, I'm not sure what you mean about "Freedom of Press." Can you elaborate? And I understand that you feel you have the right to call Beckett an "asshole," but I wonder if it's necessary. I always like to remind myself that playwrights and scholars, etc. are people (or were people, if they are deceased), and imagine how it would feel to be personally attacked for my beliefs about art or playwriting. Make sense? In my estimation, everybody deserves respect and consideration. And there's a difference between constructive conversations and personal attacks.
That said, I think the questions you raise at the end are important ones, here. And Triza, you pick up an important implication of those questions. When someone chooses to write a play, does he or she automatically invite a wide range of interpretive possibilities? Who can say where the meaning lies in a play? And where does "interpretation" end and "adaptation" begin? Is it necessary to adapt plays for them to appeal to particular audiences?
I think the question of race and gender in his plays had to do with the fact that Beckett recognized the power struggles among different groups, and that he didn't want racial or sexual politics to be imposed onto the meanings of his plays. I think the parallel with August Wilson is a very good one, Triza. There are people who argue that "colorblind" casting is another means of colonization in that it assumes that all actors can and should relate to European thinking; and because it denies that the politics of race exist in our culture. Among other reasons. It's a very complicated issue, for sure.
I've been thinking a lot about this, and what it all boils down to is the point of the play. Try and think about what Beckett is trying to get across by having it set in such a specific way that it cannot be changed. Don't you think there is higher purpose in that?
The fact that there is lack of detail makes it applicable to people on a whole different level. Beckett's use of nothingness make it able to fit a wide variety of situations, that is not necessarily attainable by adding further definition to it. For example, I read that JoAnne Akalitis's production of Endgame was shut down because of her setting, which was a subway after a nuclear holocaust. What good does that do? What it does, is force an idea upon the audience that doesn't match the text (because if it matched the text, the setting would be bare and nothing but what is called for originally).
Beckett makes a large impression by not making anything upfront. The point is to leave thinking, and if the audience is spoonfed a vision, than it's not longer Beckett's intention.
I think your argument that Shakespeare will last because his work can be adaptable and reshaped to modern times, is strong, but by saying that you must agree that Beckett's can hold its own in the same regard. By not being allowed to be changed and by being as bare and bleak as it is, it will provide an unchanging effect on people for years to come because it is NOT specific to begin with.
Beckett's writings are not seeking to find a reality in which to live, because they are in fact a reflection of the reality in which you are living, currently.
I’m sorry Jared but I have to disagree...
I have been very adamant about directors honoring the integrity of the playwright. I feel like staying truthful to want the playwright wanted is only fair.
I understand what you are saying about Shakespeare. We have the luxury of doing whatever we want to his scripts without retaliation from anyone. But what do you say to the people in the lobby complaining about a weak attempt at adapting a 400 year old play to a time period so far removed from the context of the play that nothing makes sense.
What is the point of a playwright writing a play if directors are going to be allowed to do whatever they want to it? I say if you don’t like the fact that you have to follow the playwrights rules...WRITE YOUR OWN PLAY!
I write plays and when I write I have a very clear vision. I could not imagine a director with a creative flare changing things just for the sake of changing them.
The way people do Shakespeare is not only disrespectful but it makes no sense! Playwrights have rules for a reason and they should always be followed.
Post a Comment