Quote:
Originally Posted by Ishmael
I'm actually an actor in Macbeth, I play Malcolm. We've had good responses, not a great review but with the Washington Post I hear a not great review is excellent.
|
Congratulations, and welcome to the Cellar, Ishmael.
Quote:
|
I'm thinking there are a couple things that interest me: 1) I'm surprised and a little excited that people even care enough to offer a few passing thoughts. 2) I'm curious how people have thoughts on something they presumably won't see or haven't seen, or don't know the contexts. Is that how most of these blogs go? Opinions but without context or experience?
|
I assume you've read the thread. If you have, then you should know it's not about you, your production. The announcement of your production, which I opened with, only sparked the question of reimagining Shakespeare. As you said, it's been done often with mixed results.
My question is, if you change (reimagine) the costumes and language to a different context, a different setting/era/culture, how can it still be called Shakespeare? It's a different play. Is it the plot that makes Shakespeare, Shakespeare?
Hell. I'm no theater expert by any means, but I agreed with cowhead, that the language, the dialect, the word play, were always an important part of the experience of watching one of Willie's plays.
So that brought me back to the same question? How much can you reimagine one of his plays, how much can be changed and still consider it Shakespeare? Of course to know that, you have to know what's necessary to keep.
Since you have working knowledge, (ok sorry, that was a bad pun) of the play(s), can you help me out here?
Quote:
I can agree mostly with disappointment at Shakespeare being "reimagined" for its own sake. I hate Shakespeare in a Nazi camp or on the moon just because that's what a director wanted to do. That's why I didn't really like Ian McKellen's Richard III. But I LOVED Kurasawa's Throne of Blood. It depends on what you do with it, I suppose.
But, clearly, there are opinions on this thing without folks actually having a chance to see it for themselves. I'd love it for folks to see it and gain their own perspectives. Otherwise, what's the point of even a passing thought on the thing? The energy it takes to type on a keyboard and post a blog? To take time out of the day to read other people's thoughts on something they haven't seen? To form an opinion on something that is imagined, self-constructed? If you hate it, why not hate it for what it is, or love it for what it is.
|
This tells me you did think it was about your production, which is not the case at all.
Quote:
It's been great to be a part of this play, for me, personally. Generally, the audiences have been great, and the cast has been a great group. I'm excited that we are sparking some debate, striking some cord. Thanks.
Ishmael
|
Glad you had fun, that's a great reward in itself. Yes, you have sparked a debate. Cloud was appalled that I could question Shakespeare in any form, but why not? You said there were some reimagined productions you didn't care for, so evidently you agree there must be some line that should not be crossed. Saying Shakespeare on the marque doesn't guarantee a good show.
A million thanks for stopping in. If I'd known, I'd of had a beer for you. I'm really hoping you'll stop back an give us the benefit of your knowledge, trying to come up with at least a rough answer to my questions. Even if you feel it's just your opinion, I'd like to hear it. Thanks again...oh, and break a leg.
PS, are they recording video, or even audio, of any of the performances? If not, please put a bug in their ear....only two days left.