posted
Question number one: does anyone know how did the audience understand a play performed by a troupe from a different country? Maybe the actors first told the plot and then acted it in their own language? Or maybe the audience had to think hard Or maybe they all spoke French (not likely, I think)?
Question number two: what do you think about all those "modern" adaptations of the old plays? Shakespeare is the most obvious example: we get so many hopeless performances just because the directors nowadays seem to think it's bad to show Shakespeare's comedy _simply_ as a comedy: oh no, we have to show people what deep and tragic 'message' it conveys! And while the message may well be there, why spoil the play by making it not funny? After all, Shakespeare _did_ write mainly for people's amusement, not for jaded researchers. i don't mind an original approach as long as it makes sense and doesn't make the play seem worse than it really is (Kenneth Brannagh's adaptations are for me a perfect example). But to spoil a play just for the sake of being 'original'? WHY?
Ooops, this is somewhat longer than I planned Posts: 218 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Probably because Shakespeare plays have been done so much, they are trying to stand out. I really can't blame them for trying, but I don't have to like it.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not sure what you are asking with the first question. Certainly educated Europeans of various times would be likely to know French. And plays were often translated. What century are you asking about? And what countries?
As for your second question, I have problems when people "screw up" the classics as well. But I think you answered your own question:
quote: i don't mind an original approach as long as it makes sense and doesn't make the play seem worse than it really is (Kenneth Brannagh's adaptations are for me a perfect example). But to spoil a play just for the sake of being 'original'? WHY?
Maybe their idea of what "makes sense and doesn't make the play seem worse" is different from yours. Doing carbon copies of other productions is not very artistically satisfying. Why bother if you are just going to copy what has been done before? And why bother seeing it? People choose to do plays because they feel that they have something original to say about a certain work. Classics are classics because they have enough layers that there are endless ways of understanding and interpreting them. It also is a way to keep a work "fresh". I agree that, often, a production will "get in the way" of a text, but, once in a while, you get something really marvelous and see a work in a new way.
Not sure what you think about Kenneth Brannagh, but I think some of his stuff has been wonderful. Different strokes, I guess.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You do know "comedy" means, "ends with a wedding", don't you? The Merchant of Venice is a comedy, but is a little thin on the laugh-out-loud hysterics.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
As to your first question, I've been to probably half a dozen plays and operas that were in a language I didn't understand (Czech, Italian, and French), and I enjoyed them immensely. I don't think not comprehending a foreign language precludes one's enjoyment of theater. In fact, I probably enjoyed those more than many of the plays / operas I've seen that were in English. There's a challenge of interpretation that makes it more interesting to me.
Posts: 1368 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The first one: I mean that if there were travelling troups (and there were, I checked it), then when they went to another country, how was the audience able to understand them? (I'm concerned mainly with the sixteenth century).
the other one: I see I must make myself more clear (I'm not a native speaker) First: I love KB: his adaptations are fresh without interfering with the texts. I can also see a point in a play which has been interpreted originally but 'strangely' (as far as it's consistent and you can find _some_ back up for it in the text), even if I myself don't like it.
What really gets on my nerves, though, is when the director tries to be 'fresh' at every cost. Here's an example: I've seen a version of "The taming of the shrew". Some scenes were done in contemporary costumes, some in classical ones (and not renaissance ones, either): there could be a point in it, but very deeply hidden, because _many_ people couldn't find any explanation for it: why these scenes, why these costumes. There was a dialogue ADDED: as far as I can understand, only for the sake of brusque sense of humour. Every moment which could be shown as having sexual connotations was shown in this way. I couldn't shake off the feeling that the director's wish was to make the play 'more alluring to teenage audience' (according to his own views on the teenage audience: I _was_ a teenage audience at that moment ). Sure, he probably had his vision: only if nobody except him can understand it, what's the use?
Posts: 218 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Warden: thanks, that is a possible answer Bob: I used the word comedy in a more contemporary meaning (something to laugh at) Posts: 218 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the sixteenth century, depending on where you were, there was a lot of language crossover. Countries, as we know them, didn't really exist. Italy for example. Boundaries were more fluid. You can't think of Europe in the sixteenth century the way you see it on a map now, with French people speaking french and Spanish people speaking spanish. Also, many of the stories that were acted by the traveling troupes were familiar to the audience already.
While you may be using comedy as "something to laugh at", those theatre folk in the sixteenth century weren't. They meant (as people who study theatre still do) "a play were the proper order of things is restored by the end". There are funny scenes in tragedies, too.
I absolutely agree that many directors make really bad choices and I also agree that often it is because they don't "trust the text". This is, in fact, one of my "pet peeves". But the answer is not to condemn them from trying to do something original, but to learn what are good choices that work and support the text and what are bad choices that don't.
(here's a secret. sometimes directors make costume choices depending on budget and what costumes they happen to have on hand. period costumes can be really expensive. ssshhh.)
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know about the countries, I was simply simplifying What I meant speaking of comedies was that it's irksome when a director makes a scene that clearly is meant to be funny in a way that is clearly not funny and without any reason.
Hmmm, the price of the costumes had crossed my mind, only by that time I had already too much fun go over the top about that particular play On the other hand, if the director knows that he doesn't have the budget to realise his vision, than maybe he should watch out (because with the budget he has the wision may seem seriously warped).
Posts: 218 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: I know about the countries, I was simply simplifying
So what was your question?
quote: What I meant speaking of comedies was that it's irksome when a director makes a scene that clearly is meant to be funny in a way that is clearly not funny and without any reason.
Maybe they are just doing a bad job? Funny is hard.
quote: On the other hand, if the director knows that he doesn't have the budget to realise his vision, than maybe he should watch out (because with the budget he has the wision may seem seriously warped).
Always a balance between budget and vision.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I know about the countries, I was simply simplifying
So what was your question?
grrrrnnnnnaaaaaahhhhhhh!!!!! the question was: Did the people who spoke one language understand a play that was played in another language? But it has already been answered
Jee, I must reeally work on the clarity of my posts Posts: 218 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was about to bring up Sanscrit drama, but that might not have been what you were looking for. Not everyone who watched those pieces necessarily knew the high Sanscrit dialect, but it was performed in such a way that the dialogue wasn't the only way to get the point across -- there was also elaborate dance, music, and gesture used to convey what they were saying
I also feel the rub of modern adaptations once in a while. I saw a production of Two Gents that was a modern retelling, but the process as a whole just didn't seem unified. So the actors are in modern dress...so what? I think if a director has a clear concept that they are communicating well with their design team and cast, a retelling can be fantastic. But that one in particular just sort of fell flat with me.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
EXACTLY!!! EXACTLY!!!! THAT"S WHAT I MEANT!!!
But since we're moving to drama in general, has anyone seen a Beijing Opera?
This is definitely something that needs growing accustomed to, but after the first awkward moment (why are they still singing when the scene has already ended?) it's a great watch, even if you don't understand all the subtleties...
Posts: 218 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Or maybe they all spoke French (not likely, I think)?![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
First: I love KB: his adaptations are fresh without interfering with the texts. ![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
the question was: Did the people who spoke one language understand a play that was played in another language? But it has already been answered ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
