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?
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
To the Protestors:
When Wole Soyinka wrote that we, as his audience, needed to perceive his play in a particular way (or more accurately, when he said we couldn’t view it is a specific way), I was upset. I don’t feel that an author, regardless of the medium, should be allowed to determine what his/her audience should think. A lot of people have had a difficult time with the notion that Samuel Beckett (and the shadowy entity known as his estate) would presume to control not only the integrity of the script, which most would agree is within their rights, but to also claim jurisdiction on the production elements. I, however, don’t have an issue with Beckett and his estate controlling these elements. For, though I see Soyinka trying to act as God, I only see Beckett trying to act like a true playwright.
If a playwright wants that control (or doesn’t), then I believe that is within his or her rights. We tend to view playwrights who desire specific production elements to be, at best, meddling and, at worse, theater-ignorant. Why is it, though, that we see these playwrights as unknowledgeable of drama instead of understanding perhaps that these playwrights are extremely aware of the entire process of theater? What I mean is, too often we seem to assume that writers just fell into the medium of scripts. Yet a playwright chooses to write scripts, to write plays. Authors don’t simply construct sentences, pick characters, and decide plots. They also carefully choose their mediums/genres (poetry, novel, essay, short story, script), weighing the pros and cons of each carefully. The choice of genre, of medium, is just as conscious of a decision as is any other element of a writer’s work.
So, when a writer chooses to write a play, he or she is choosing a medium that usually includes a production in the same way that a writer who chooses to write a poem is choosing a medium that includes, amongst other things, a formal recognition of stanzas and lines. Thus, a poet’s work is always printed in the same structure. One doesn’t print two lines together or add a word from line two up to line one; we acknowledge, instead, that meaning can be found in the poet’s stanza and line choice. Why then, understanding that a playwright is aware of her medium, would we be upset when she demands specifics that fall within the realm of her medium; when she acknowledges that script and stage are parts of the same coin of a production?
Thus, if Samuel Beckett wants his plays to always be the same, then isn’t that his prerogative as playwright? Ignoring the issue that if someone doesn’t like his demands then they don’t have to produce his plays, there is another thought to consider. Christine suggested that Beckett would have been a better maker of film because no one wants to see the same play, the same way every time. Why not? We watch the same film over and over, knowing that nothing will be different in what we see. And yet, every time it is different. We, the audience, are different. We have different experiences with which to understand the film by; we see and hear new and different elements that we ignored previously. Why not be able to have that same experience with a play? To know that all production elements are the same as the last time we saw the piece but our experience is still different: that is what Beckett seemed to have desired. That is, I believe, what Beckett seemed to know when he stated that every element has a meaning, a purpose that can not be ignored in our attempt to understand.
Beckett chose to write Endgame as a play so that he could explore various themes using all of the components inherent to the medium of theater, not just some of them. Do we then have any right to protest?
If a playwright wants that control (or doesn’t), then I believe that is within his or her rights. We tend to view playwrights who desire specific production elements to be, at best, meddling and, at worse, theater-ignorant. Why is it, though, that we see these playwrights as unknowledgeable of drama instead of understanding perhaps that these playwrights are extremely aware of the entire process of theater? What I mean is, too often we seem to assume that writers just fell into the medium of scripts. Yet a playwright chooses to write scripts, to write plays. Authors don’t simply construct sentences, pick characters, and decide plots. They also carefully choose their mediums/genres (poetry, novel, essay, short story, script), weighing the pros and cons of each carefully. The choice of genre, of medium, is just as conscious of a decision as is any other element of a writer’s work.
So, when a writer chooses to write a play, he or she is choosing a medium that usually includes a production in the same way that a writer who chooses to write a poem is choosing a medium that includes, amongst other things, a formal recognition of stanzas and lines. Thus, a poet’s work is always printed in the same structure. One doesn’t print two lines together or add a word from line two up to line one; we acknowledge, instead, that meaning can be found in the poet’s stanza and line choice. Why then, understanding that a playwright is aware of her medium, would we be upset when she demands specifics that fall within the realm of her medium; when she acknowledges that script and stage are parts of the same coin of a production?
Thus, if Samuel Beckett wants his plays to always be the same, then isn’t that his prerogative as playwright? Ignoring the issue that if someone doesn’t like his demands then they don’t have to produce his plays, there is another thought to consider. Christine suggested that Beckett would have been a better maker of film because no one wants to see the same play, the same way every time. Why not? We watch the same film over and over, knowing that nothing will be different in what we see. And yet, every time it is different. We, the audience, are different. We have different experiences with which to understand the film by; we see and hear new and different elements that we ignored previously. Why not be able to have that same experience with a play? To know that all production elements are the same as the last time we saw the piece but our experience is still different: that is what Beckett seemed to have desired. That is, I believe, what Beckett seemed to know when he stated that every element has a meaning, a purpose that can not be ignored in our attempt to understand.
Beckett chose to write Endgame as a play so that he could explore various themes using all of the components inherent to the medium of theater, not just some of them. Do we then have any right to protest?
It will all make sense in the end.......
This quote is the driving force that helps most people survive through life. When dealing with trials, tribulations and disappointments, their is always a need to understand what it all means. We say affirmations that give us hope into finding why we experience great sorrow, loss, tragedies and disappointments. Some argue that their is no point and that life is what it is. Some may say we waste precious hours of our lives waiting and hoping for circumstances to change when the the answer or solution is internal. The choice lives within us all to choose our attitude and outlook on what life throws are way.
My reflection stems from reading Endgame. I have a hard time believing a writer writes without purpose. Writing is a cathartic, cleansing experience for most and most writers want to leave the reader with some type of feeling. It was stated during our discussion that maybe Beckett wrote the piece in opposition to the theory that all pieces have to have a definitive meaning. The irony in this is that the piece still has a meaning. If that was his objective, the meaning still exist in his choice to be liberated by literary standards.
The most interesting concept for me to digest is how this world of theatre is so subjective. What makes a piece a profound? What criteria have we internalized throughout the years that helps us identify brilliance in this art form? Right or wrong I always search for a meaning. I always search for a dimension, realm that goes beyond the first read of a script. Innovative writers have the ability to tell several stories within a story. I look for these abstract thoughts in the characters actions, situations and dialogue. I revel in reading or seeing a script that causes some type of epiphany at the end. The question I pose......can it be considered acceptable work when the majority of your audience is lost in the end? Should there be one main connection that all viewers are able to identify?
We are trained to be critical and I agree with searching for what does work instead of picking apart all the things we analyze as being wrong. However ,what accountability do we have for playwrights to produce sound, quality writing? This question will never be answered, because in the arts subjectivity reigns supreme. In the meantime, you will always find me reflecting and searching to find the meaning of it all.
My reflection stems from reading Endgame. I have a hard time believing a writer writes without purpose. Writing is a cathartic, cleansing experience for most and most writers want to leave the reader with some type of feeling. It was stated during our discussion that maybe Beckett wrote the piece in opposition to the theory that all pieces have to have a definitive meaning. The irony in this is that the piece still has a meaning. If that was his objective, the meaning still exist in his choice to be liberated by literary standards.
The most interesting concept for me to digest is how this world of theatre is so subjective. What makes a piece a profound? What criteria have we internalized throughout the years that helps us identify brilliance in this art form? Right or wrong I always search for a meaning. I always search for a dimension, realm that goes beyond the first read of a script. Innovative writers have the ability to tell several stories within a story. I look for these abstract thoughts in the characters actions, situations and dialogue. I revel in reading or seeing a script that causes some type of epiphany at the end. The question I pose......can it be considered acceptable work when the majority of your audience is lost in the end? Should there be one main connection that all viewers are able to identify?
We are trained to be critical and I agree with searching for what does work instead of picking apart all the things we analyze as being wrong. However ,what accountability do we have for playwrights to produce sound, quality writing? This question will never be answered, because in the arts subjectivity reigns supreme. In the meantime, you will always find me reflecting and searching to find the meaning of it all.
Monday, November 16, 2009
End-Theatre. Turn to Film, Beckett.
After talking about Samuel Beckett’s rules that are enforced through his estate, there were a lot of people that seemed upset. I’m also against the enforcing of the rules, and there are a few things that I wanted to point out that we didn’t talk about in class.
First of all, of Beckett were still alive, I would want to suggest something to him that would diminish confusion in the theatre world. I might get in trouble saying this, but he should have written screenplays for film instead of scripts for theatre. There are many reasons why I think that his works would have fit better in film. If he wanted to dictate his texts so that everything was perfect, he could have been a part of the filmmaking process, made sure the products were exactly how he wanted them to be, and the stress that he seemed to have about people messing up or tweaking would be gone. As we learned in class, each time a Beckett play is produced they were played the same. The film versions of his plays would have the same effect.
Don’t get me wrong. I understand the values of the theatre. However, I find that the biggest benefits of working in the theatre are collaboration and interpretation. It seems to me like Beckett was determined to not let others in the production process collaborate by adding their own ideas. Therefore, he should have used another media other than the theatre to bring his ideas to life.
First of all, of Beckett were still alive, I would want to suggest something to him that would diminish confusion in the theatre world. I might get in trouble saying this, but he should have written screenplays for film instead of scripts for theatre. There are many reasons why I think that his works would have fit better in film. If he wanted to dictate his texts so that everything was perfect, he could have been a part of the filmmaking process, made sure the products were exactly how he wanted them to be, and the stress that he seemed to have about people messing up or tweaking would be gone. As we learned in class, each time a Beckett play is produced they were played the same. The film versions of his plays would have the same effect.
Don’t get me wrong. I understand the values of the theatre. However, I find that the biggest benefits of working in the theatre are collaboration and interpretation. It seems to me like Beckett was determined to not let others in the production process collaborate by adding their own ideas. Therefore, he should have used another media other than the theatre to bring his ideas to life.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
A Noh Way of Seeing Things
Watching the stage production of “Aio Nu Ue”, a couple of warring thoughts crossed my mind. “Wow,” was one of them. “Are the people who made the captions (with their use of frenzied and other action verbs) watching the same show I am?,” was another. I’m embarrassed to admit that at one point I even contemplated reenacting the final eye-poking scenes of “Equus” in an effort to end the experience. After we were done watching the film, other people voiced these thoughts and others thoughts. I particularly appreciated Conrad’s comment that watching the film was just such a foreign experience for us as Americans, as Westerners, to fully grasp or comprehend.
That thought stuck with me because of its truth. How do we grapple with material foreign to us on a number of different levels? The script is translated for us into a more familiar language but what about the complexities of the movements, a means of communication that is just as foreign as the language? How do we learn to overcome this barrier of foreignness in order to study and analyze works like that of the Noh style?
The easy and lazy answer would be that we don’t overcome this barrier and that we either don’t bother to challenge ourselves at all or we simply read and watch it, struggle for a few minutes, and then move on. This, of course, is a real disservice both to non-Western cultures, who have much to offer, and to ourselves, who can only benefit from an expanded worldview. So how then can we work to make something like Noh theater more familiar?
Three ideas present themselves with varying degrees of complexity. The first is that we can just keep forcing ourselves to encounter Noh and hope that repetition will negate foreignness. I’m not sure that this is a very good idea or even one that will work. The second idea is to expand upon what Christine wrote about in her letter, to bring some familiar elements into an otherwise foreign land. I liked the idea of her Scream mask and other Western-friendly elements that provided some accessibility to “Aoi Nu Ue.” This removes some of the foreignness but it also establishes the West as the only means of interpretation, in a way suggesting that the West is the only lens that through which the East can be observed. This isn’t what Christine meant by her letter but it is a problem that arises if this is the only means of approaching Eastern theater.
This leads me to my last idea of approaching Noh (or any Eastern) theater. Instead of using the Western lens to study the East, I wonder what would happen if one studied the West through an Eastern lens. Obviously, people unfamiliar with the West would take such an approach but I wonder about the ramifications of a Westerner purposefully looking at their own literature but through an Eastern gaze. For example, Akira Kurosawa’s “Throne of Blood” is an excellent retelling of “MacBeth” but with distinct Noh influences. Watching that film enriched my experience of Shakespeare in a way that was unanticipated but greatly appreciated. I wonder what would happen if we approached other great American classics from the same way? I don’t mean simply seeing similarities between West and East work, like the blogs on “Meadea” and “Aio Nu Ue,” although I think their comments were extremely insightful and helpful to my understanding. Instead, I mean taking, for example, “Joe Turner’s Come and Gone” and infusing it with the specific and intense gestures of Noh. Loomis would step in a slow and methodical rhythm, using specific stylized gestures to indicate his mood instead of acting in a more natural method. “Pygmalion” might feature masks for certain characters to indicate their stock nature.
It might not work. It might be disastrous, but I think it’s worth the try. Instead of seeing how Aristotle applies to “Aoi Nu Ue,” maybe we should see how Zeami’s treatises apply to “Cloud 9.”
That thought stuck with me because of its truth. How do we grapple with material foreign to us on a number of different levels? The script is translated for us into a more familiar language but what about the complexities of the movements, a means of communication that is just as foreign as the language? How do we learn to overcome this barrier of foreignness in order to study and analyze works like that of the Noh style?
The easy and lazy answer would be that we don’t overcome this barrier and that we either don’t bother to challenge ourselves at all or we simply read and watch it, struggle for a few minutes, and then move on. This, of course, is a real disservice both to non-Western cultures, who have much to offer, and to ourselves, who can only benefit from an expanded worldview. So how then can we work to make something like Noh theater more familiar?
Three ideas present themselves with varying degrees of complexity. The first is that we can just keep forcing ourselves to encounter Noh and hope that repetition will negate foreignness. I’m not sure that this is a very good idea or even one that will work. The second idea is to expand upon what Christine wrote about in her letter, to bring some familiar elements into an otherwise foreign land. I liked the idea of her Scream mask and other Western-friendly elements that provided some accessibility to “Aoi Nu Ue.” This removes some of the foreignness but it also establishes the West as the only means of interpretation, in a way suggesting that the West is the only lens that through which the East can be observed. This isn’t what Christine meant by her letter but it is a problem that arises if this is the only means of approaching Eastern theater.
This leads me to my last idea of approaching Noh (or any Eastern) theater. Instead of using the Western lens to study the East, I wonder what would happen if one studied the West through an Eastern lens. Obviously, people unfamiliar with the West would take such an approach but I wonder about the ramifications of a Westerner purposefully looking at their own literature but through an Eastern gaze. For example, Akira Kurosawa’s “Throne of Blood” is an excellent retelling of “MacBeth” but with distinct Noh influences. Watching that film enriched my experience of Shakespeare in a way that was unanticipated but greatly appreciated. I wonder what would happen if we approached other great American classics from the same way? I don’t mean simply seeing similarities between West and East work, like the blogs on “Meadea” and “Aio Nu Ue,” although I think their comments were extremely insightful and helpful to my understanding. Instead, I mean taking, for example, “Joe Turner’s Come and Gone” and infusing it with the specific and intense gestures of Noh. Loomis would step in a slow and methodical rhythm, using specific stylized gestures to indicate his mood instead of acting in a more natural method. “Pygmalion” might feature masks for certain characters to indicate their stock nature.
It might not work. It might be disastrous, but I think it’s worth the try. Instead of seeing how Aristotle applies to “Aoi Nu Ue,” maybe we should see how Zeami’s treatises apply to “Cloud 9.”
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Titles are not fun to create...
Though I do see similarities between the two, I feel like most of the similarities are quite common. Revenge for example is a common concept. Though the female protaganist is less common, than revenge, it is still by no means a rare story trait. Also, the main motivating emotion for Medea is indeed hatred, but it is merely a shadowing projection of much deeper emotion for Princess Rokujo. Rokujo's dominate desires are all based around Jealousy. This is the only true emotion the character has towards Princess Aoi. Though both past "lovers" for the women, are very selfish men, what love driven tragedy about a female doesn't involve a villanous man from a past or current relationship (with the exclusion of Million Dollar Baby.) There is the similarity of a witch, but the definition of the being, is completely different in the two, one is quick witted and rides off in a chariot, and one brings a demon mask wearing, mallet wielding ghost to the scene.
As far as portrayal similarites, though there is a chorus in both, the use of the chorus is much different in the two, as we can see after watching Aoi No Uye in class, it is much more so an actual chorus, than a chorus within the play. Other than that due to the apposing cultures the set up from a Noh plays slow precise movements, and much more plot driven play that moves at a common rate.
In conlusion, though the two have some similarities, I feel they are quite subtle when I really think about them
As far as portrayal similarites, though there is a chorus in both, the use of the chorus is much different in the two, as we can see after watching Aoi No Uye in class, it is much more so an actual chorus, than a chorus within the play. Other than that due to the apposing cultures the set up from a Noh plays slow precise movements, and much more plot driven play that moves at a common rate.
In conlusion, though the two have some similarities, I feel they are quite subtle when I really think about them
Medea and Aio No Uye: Asian Theatre influenced by Greek Tragedy? Or slight plagiarism?
Confused by the title? Let me explain:
Medea is a Greek Tragedy about a sorceress who reaks vengeance upon her husband who recently abandoned her, destroying everything he loves. Aio No Uye is a no play about the Saint of Yokawa and the members of the Imperial court preventing Princess Rokujo from murdering the ill Princess Aoi. At first glance these plays may seem like their similarities are merely coincidental. But if we examine each play more closely we find themes and characters that are much too familiar to be the product of coincidence. Aio No Uye is presented as an Eastern doppleganger to the Western Medea.
Like Medea, Rokujo's hatred and desire for revenge are motivated by her ex lover, Genji's betrayal of her and her affections. To put it simply-Rokujo is Medea; Genji is Jason. Even the Princess Glauca shows up in Aoi No Uye in the form of Princess Aoi, herself. Also, just as there is the presence of a Chorus in Euripedes' play, a Chorus exists in Seami's play as well. Even the actions and motivations of the alleged demon women are clones of each other.
The title character of Euripedes' tragedy attempts to exact vengeance on her ex-lover, motivated by his infidelity. She uses her witch craft to exact her revenge and part of that retribution materializes in the murder of her ex-lover's wife; She succeeds through witchcraft and divine intervention. Princess Rokujo is also motivated by the infidelity of her ex-lover. After part of her vengeance is fullfilled upon murdering one of her husband's lovers, she plans to murder his wife, Princess Aoi, as well. Yet, in the no play the Medea-type character of Rokujo is foiled by witchcraft and divine intervention.
As you can see, the major characters, motivations, and themes of the two plays are virtually identical. The only elements that seem to differ between them are the setting, the people, and the conclusion. So what does this mean exactly?
Here is one theory: This could be an example of Japanese theatre practitioners taking their cues from the Romans and stealing from Greek culture. Just as the Romans "Romanized" Greek theatre, so did the Japanese "Japanesize" Greek Theatre. After first reading this play I thought it might have been the other way around as Eastern Asian culture possesses a much older existence than that of Ancient Greece. However, after examing the notes on Aoi No Uye I found that this play was completed during the era of "anno domini" as opposed to the older bc/"before Christ" era, where the civilization of Ancient Greece exists in history.
Or another theory: Perhaps, this semi-plagiarism can be attributed to the later revisions of Zenchiku Ujinobu who lived from 1414-1499. This during the period we know as the Renaissance where the people who considered this time modern aimed to redesign their art, architecture, theatre, clothing, and countless other aspects of their culture inspired by the Ancient Classical culture that existed thousands of years before. Perhaps Ujinobu's revision of Seami's play was inspired by the spreading Renaissance influence.
Still one thing is certain in my mind: Aio No Uye is Medea re-imagined.
Medea is a Greek Tragedy about a sorceress who reaks vengeance upon her husband who recently abandoned her, destroying everything he loves. Aio No Uye is a no play about the Saint of Yokawa and the members of the Imperial court preventing Princess Rokujo from murdering the ill Princess Aoi. At first glance these plays may seem like their similarities are merely coincidental. But if we examine each play more closely we find themes and characters that are much too familiar to be the product of coincidence. Aio No Uye is presented as an Eastern doppleganger to the Western Medea.
Like Medea, Rokujo's hatred and desire for revenge are motivated by her ex lover, Genji's betrayal of her and her affections. To put it simply-Rokujo is Medea; Genji is Jason. Even the Princess Glauca shows up in Aoi No Uye in the form of Princess Aoi, herself. Also, just as there is the presence of a Chorus in Euripedes' play, a Chorus exists in Seami's play as well. Even the actions and motivations of the alleged demon women are clones of each other.
The title character of Euripedes' tragedy attempts to exact vengeance on her ex-lover, motivated by his infidelity. She uses her witch craft to exact her revenge and part of that retribution materializes in the murder of her ex-lover's wife; She succeeds through witchcraft and divine intervention. Princess Rokujo is also motivated by the infidelity of her ex-lover. After part of her vengeance is fullfilled upon murdering one of her husband's lovers, she plans to murder his wife, Princess Aoi, as well. Yet, in the no play the Medea-type character of Rokujo is foiled by witchcraft and divine intervention.
As you can see, the major characters, motivations, and themes of the two plays are virtually identical. The only elements that seem to differ between them are the setting, the people, and the conclusion. So what does this mean exactly?
Here is one theory: This could be an example of Japanese theatre practitioners taking their cues from the Romans and stealing from Greek culture. Just as the Romans "Romanized" Greek theatre, so did the Japanese "Japanesize" Greek Theatre. After first reading this play I thought it might have been the other way around as Eastern Asian culture possesses a much older existence than that of Ancient Greece. However, after examing the notes on Aoi No Uye I found that this play was completed during the era of "anno domini" as opposed to the older bc/"before Christ" era, where the civilization of Ancient Greece exists in history.
Or another theory: Perhaps, this semi-plagiarism can be attributed to the later revisions of Zenchiku Ujinobu who lived from 1414-1499. This during the period we know as the Renaissance where the people who considered this time modern aimed to redesign their art, architecture, theatre, clothing, and countless other aspects of their culture inspired by the Ancient Classical culture that existed thousands of years before. Perhaps Ujinobu's revision of Seami's play was inspired by the spreading Renaissance influence.
Still one thing is certain in my mind: Aio No Uye is Medea re-imagined.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)