Last night I ended up not having rehearsal, but instead of doing something “constructive” like working on lines or washing the sinkful of dishes, I spent a lot of time thinking about the play, our culture, and Shakespeare in general. Basically, the question of relevance kept gnawing at me. I know that our production (and the Bard’s entire cannon) is relevant, but knowing it in my gut and being able to support that assertion are two different things.
Why is Shakespeare still the gold standard for dramatic literature? I think one reason is the plays are both theatrical and poetical. The drama doesn’t overshadow the voice, and the voice doesn’t slow down the drama. Indulgently, I love Shakespeare because the words are so delicious and if you listen to them, they propel you forward on your character’s journey.
There are so few stage directions, so we have to glean everything from the text. As Chris said the other day at rehearsal, there is no subtext. That makes the rehearsal process full of constant discoveries. Nothing is laid out for us, so we are responsible for figuring everything out from the text. Because we have to search, it demands that we go with our characters through their journeys, and we experience their journeys as our own in our time on stage.
But it’s more than just the solvable mystery. I am convinced that the way the words are put together resonates at the same frequency as the human body. It’s not just the iambic pentameter, even though some people like to attribute their power to the meter’s imitation of the heartbeat. But there are plenty of Shakespeare’s contemporaries who wrote in iambic pentameter but whose dialogue is clunky and cumbersome in ways that don’t serve the character or the actor or the play. Though the iambic pentameter contributes, there’s more. The parts that we can’t define, sometimes can’t even identify, are the ones that really give these plays their sticking-power.
Changing gears slightly, I don’t think a single interpretation can make an old piece pertinent; rather, that productions set in any era are capable of enlightening proves the plays’ persisting relevance. During this rehearsal process, we have talked about our characters’ relationships to each other through contemporary lenses. For example, Guildenstern and I have talked about how we are only “facebook friends” with Hamlet, not real friends. These relationships are infinitely translatable to our own culture.
One of my favorite columns to read is The New York Times’ Modern Love. Every week, a different person writes about how love has surprised him or how her perception of love has changed. It’s written about love between parents, children, spouses, ex-spouses, friends, strangers, siblings.
Drawing on inspiration from those articles and other things I’ve read recently, I started thinking about what relationship would be the subject of the column if each of my characters wrote an installment. Every person in the play could write rich, enlightening perspectives on what love is (“More than Kin and Less than Kind” would be an excellent article), stories that would inform and shock us. It makes me think that maybe our love isn’t so modern and that the story isn’t so old. The story is relevant. It could be a column in the newspaper or it could be a masterpiece for the stage. But we understand it and it moves us.
This is my first blog entry ever, but if you have managed to make any sense out of it, do you have any thoughts? Why is Shakespeare still so powerful, 400 years after it was written?
One last thought: Happy Birthday, Jessica!
April 28, 2010
Categories: Marcellus, Osric, Rosencrantz . . Author: serahrose . Comments: Leave a Comment