Speaking Shakespeare

I've been engaged in a lively email discussion over the last few days with Robert Hurwitt, theatre critic at the San Francisco Chronicle, about how actors approach Shakespeare's verse.

The debate was sparked by our very different reactions to British thespian (and 22-year Royal Shakespeare Company veteran) Roger Rees' Shakespeare-infused solo show, What You Will.

Here's an extract of what I wrote about Rees' way of delivering Shakespeare's verse in my review for SF Weekly (which won't come out till next Wednesday):

"Rees has been living with Shakespeare's language for so long, that he seems to forget that people need to decipher the words in order to keep up with him. The actor monotonously barrels his way through Hamlet's soliloquies with little care for the iambic rhythm, coming across more like dog race commentator than a tragic hero. This misplaced casualness bleeds into other parts of the actor's performance. Rees' habit of peppering his speech with "uh"s and "uhm"s, is perhaps intended to make the Bard more approachable. But this tick mainly distracts."

Hurwitt disagrees with me. He liked Rees' delivery. Here's an extract from his review, which appeared in the Chron a couple of days ago:

"The Shakespeare speeches (and one sonnet) are delivered with mastery...He more than does justice to speeches ranging from the "muse of fire" from "Henry V," Macbeth's dagger vision and Hamlet's "To be" and "rogue and peasant slave" soliloquies (Rees holds the Stratford-Upon-Avon record for playing Hamlet) to both a smitten adolescent Romeo and garrulous old Nurse from "Romeo and Juliet." But it's the way he sets up these passages that distinguishes "Will" as much as his trippingly-on-the-tongue delivery."

I guess we like our soliloquies delivered in different ways. Said Mr. H, in an email: "I thought there were wonderful subtleties and nuances and interesting interpretations in his speeches. And I rather like his way with the meter much better than the Peter Hall full-stop method."

"I don't much like Hall's way of speaking Shakespeare either," I responded. "I guess Rees and he are at opposite ends of the spectrum and to be honest I don't think either approach works. I like my soliloquies to sound like poetry, but poetry that flows so organically that it almost sounds like a 'conversation.'"

It's a good thing that us critics don't see eye to eye on everything. The world would be a dull place if we did.

In other news, a white-bearded Florida man by the name of Tom Grizzard just won an Ernest Hemingway look-alike contest, a highlight of a festival that ended Sunday honoring the late Nobel Prize-winning author. Here's a piece about the competition from USA Today.
July 24, 2008 12:22 PM | | Comments (3)

3 Comments

I don't have a great viewpoint on the situation because I am not completely understanding when it comes to Shakespeare. What that said, however, I am a big fan of his. I may not always understand what he is saying, but it is always beautiful.
I found a post on some of the greatest speeches...and Shakespeare made the list, of course. Thought you'd enjoy...
http://www.petermanseye.com/anthologies/great-speeches/318-the-art-of-persuasion
Cheers!

For what it's worth, I absolutely agree. It is poetry, but it's also meant to be understood, and the characters are having conversation, either with each other, or in the case of soliloquies, with the audience and him/herself.

BUT:
To be (grammatical) or not to be (grammatical): "us critics"?!? Really now. :-)

Not having heard Roger Rees's version, I may not be at total liberty to say anything, but as a person who absolutely adores and appreciates Shakespeare' existence, even in the 21st century, there are 2 points I would like to make. The first is that the concern with iambic pentameter is highly over rated by all, and is far too technical an approach to the passion inherent in all of Shakespeare's dialogue. It is used as a way to understand and communicate Shakespeare for those who simply are not familiar or comfortable with this early form of English dialogue, without which the English would not be even a speck of what it is today. And let's face it, the general public does not use good english most of the time.

Secondly, is not appreciation of communication in the eyes of the person receiving, appreciating, listening, or observing the intended communication. Reasons for the existence of critics is for their criticism, their opinions, oftentimes based on subjective perspectives and not usually receptive from a heartfelt sensibility. There exists a place of facts and feelings in communication, a place, or space, where subtext exists, and is more important than dialogue. This is why Shakespeare is fantastic; he manages to give us the best in British verse with subtext, and the actor must communicate this. This is an actor's life, if a critic is not receptive, there may be multitude of reasons for his or her lack of receptivity.

Of course, it could have been an 'off' night for one critic and an 'on' night for another critic, and all the actor's fault of course!

Thank you for your receptivity to my comments!
Best,
Gwyn

Leave a comment

Me Elsewhere

Blogroll

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by lies like truth published on July 24, 2008 12:22 PM.

Daniel Powter: Secret Government Weapon was the previous entry in this blog.

Of Cupids And Clowns is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

AJ Ads

Introducing
AJ Arts Blog Ads

Now you can reach the most discerning arts blog readers on the internet. Target individual blogs or topics in the ArtsJournal ad network.

Advertise Here

AJ Blogs

AJBlogCentral | rss

culture
About Last Night
Terry Teachout on the arts in New York City
Artful Manager
Andrew Taylor on the business of arts & culture
blog riley
rock culture approximately
CultureGulf
Rebuilding Gulf Culture after Katrina
Dewey21C
Richard Kessler on arts education
diacritical
Douglas McLennan's blog
Flyover
Art from the American Outback
Life's a Pitch
For immediate release: the arts are marketable
Mind the Gap
No genre is the new genre
Performance Monkey
David Jays on theatre and dance
Rockwell Matters
John Rockwell on the arts
Straight Up |
Jan Herman - arts, media & culture with 'tude

dance
Foot in Mouth
Apollinaire Scherr talks about dance
Seeing Things
Tobi Tobias on dance et al...

jazz
Jazz Beyond Jazz
Howard Mandel's freelance Urban Improvisation
ListenGood
Focus on New Orleans. Jazz and Other Sounds
Rifftides
Doug Ramsey on Jazz and other matters...

media
Out There
Jeff Weinstein's Cultural Mixology
Serious Popcorn
Martha Bayles on Film...

classical music
The Future of Classical Music?
Greg Sandow performs a book-in-progress
On the Record
Exploring Orchestras w/ Henry Fogel
Overflow
Harvey Sachs on music, and various digressions
PostClassic
Kyle Gann on music after the fact
Sandow
Greg Sandow on the future of Classical Music
Slipped Disc
Norman Lebrecht on Shifting Sound Worlds

publishing
book/daddy
Jerome Weeks on Books
Quick Study
Scott McLemee on books, ideas & trash-culture ephemera

theatre
Drama Queen
Wendy Rosenfield: covering drama, onstage and off
lies like truth
Chloe Veltman on how culture will save the world
Stage Write
Elizabeth Zimmer on time-based art forms

visual
Aesthetic Grounds
Public Art, Public Space
Artopia
John Perreault's art diary
CultureGrrl
Lee Rosenbaum's Cultural Commentary
Modern Art Notes
Tyler Green's modern & contemporary art blog
Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.