posted
I wonder if OSC ever licenses his plays. Stormy made a good point. Would he be cool with adding curse words in "non-provincial, elitist towns?"
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kayla, if you're referring to me using Schindler's List because you did, I understood your post perfectly fine. I didn't mean to imply that I believed that you agreed with me by using Schindler's List in my post, as well.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nah, it wasn't you Stormy. No worries, mate.
It was more of an out loud brain fart. You know. I think things, I think I write them down, then I realize that one would have to be a mind reader to have guessed it. You really have to live in my crazy head to fully appreciate it.
posted
First of all, thank you Chris, for actually reading about the actual issue this whole thing is regarding. I'm not sure how many people actually did that.
That said, I wish some more people would read Card's article. The point of Card's article is NOT that Simon is a jerk, so Chris's (admittedly VERY valid) point about Card's swift judgement about Neil Simon is tangental to the real point of the article.
The article is basically a plea to the theatres in Greensboro to put on stuff the people in Greensboro want to see. Remember, these articles are written not for us, but for a newspaper in the south, near where he lives. He gives us access to them--at his own expense--as a service, not because we're the target audience.
Consequently, many of his articles lean one way, partly because he percieves his articles are going to be reaching a certain audience who he thinks need moved from that direction. And it cracks me up to see everybody calling him such a conservative reactionary, because having heard him lecture for years in towns that are quite conservative, and seen how riled he gets some of them, too. So don't worry. Eventually something will roll around that will get Card writing his more liberal ideas, and all of you who are left-leaning can proclaim how Card's finally "seen the light" on something, when in reality I think he's been casting quite a bit of light on a lot of things for a long time.
Card is not catagorically opposed to profanity. He avoids it in much of his fiction, but uses it alot as well, when the situation dictates. (Anybody read his novelization of Cameron's "The Abyss"?)
His own philosophy: "There are no bad words. Only bad uses for words."
Kathy Kidd's letter demonstrates she, at least, got what he was really trying to say--that a real artist seeks to communicate through his art, rather than inflict it upon someone.
I find it absolutely logical that this flap occured without Simon's knowledge, and that he may not yet know that it's going on now. That's not really the point, and calling it "yellow journalism" is probabaly overkill.
The question the article asks is this: Which will ultimately find itself more viable? Carbon-copy, mass-produced, "white bread" plays that seek to satisfy everyone? Or ones that take advantage of the unique characteristics of each community?
I saw "Groucho and Me," a three man one man show about the comic at a local theatre. There were maybe eight of us that showed up. This was in a large theatre (I'd seen David Copperfield float a car there three months before) and was a great show (it had been playing to sold out houses in London while I was watching Copperfield float Ferraris).
The guy playing Groucho absolutely, positively adjusted the show for us. He made jokes about every one of us. Best darn show I ever saw.
Look at TV. What's the only stage form that's getting prime time network tv time? Improv comedy.*
What people want is stuff that speaks right to them. And taking plays and stripping them of what makes them unique from movies and TV and even books--the ability to be something different for different people in different towns on different nights--is like taking the big screen out of the movie theatre and installing little TVs to the seats like the ones they used to have in bus stations and airport waiting rooms. Sure, nobody blocks your view, but defeats the point.
In reality, McDonalds DOES alter its menu from state to state to adjust for regional tastes. So do other restaurants and stores. Anybody outside of Utah ever hear of "Fry Sauce"? Anybody outside of Louisiana know about Garlic Tobasco before a couple years ago? I was in a HUGE grocery store in Pennsylvania, and was shocked to discover I couldn't find Tortillas.**
And the really, really, weird part, to me, is how suggesting that such practice is a good idea is "cultural elitism" and engaging in a "culture war." I think people are confusing the issue.
It's going something like this. Card says "Simon feels everyone should accomodate his art, rather than trying to make his art communicate with the people, therefore Simon is an elitist."
Various Hatrackers come back and say, "Card thinks Simon's way of practicing his art is inferior, therefore Card is an elitist."
Thus we create a situation where even the most anti-elitist person can be called an elitist, because, after all, he thinks he's better than somebody else! He thinks he's better than an elitist!
I don't think this definition works. An elitist is somebody who thinks he's better than EVERYBODY, or everybody but a small group of people who are enough like them.
Card is arguing that the tastes of the people in Pleasant Grove or Greensboro are as valid as those of the people of New York. Just how does that make him elitist?
----------------------------------------- *There's actually one more, and that's Pro Wrestling. The scripts for each night are written around the cities the wrestlers are in, and local sports teams, cultural quirks, and colloquialisms.
**Clearly, without tortillas, all we are left with is plain white bread!
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, one of the things I was thinking earlier today was about Sweet Home Alabama. Isn't it funny how many movies have been made about some Yankee stuck in "hell" in the South and comes to realize the charm, love and family values of the South? (Doc Hollywood springs to mind, also, though both of these movies are more a "rediscovering your roots" kind of story.)
I moved to a small town (6,200) and you know what? It's just like the city, only slower. The people are the same, there's just less of them. Kids are playing unsupervised (as evidenced by son spending 5 minutes thinking about jumping off the deck before he actually broke his arm, where was the adult supervising them) unlike like the kids of the fast track yuppies who have nannies raising their kids. I had more stuff stolen out of my yard the first month we lived here than all of the other places I've lived combined. Folksy charm is great and all, but it ain't the end all, be all. Sometimes, it's just down right annoying.
I get really sick and tired of movies preaching the virtues of "the slow and hot country life" like it's the holy grail. Yeah, city folks are all screwed up. It's them Southerners who know how to live.
Give me a break. I like cities. Nothing wrong with that. Some people like small towns. Nothing wrong with that. The South is nice. The North is nice. The California coast is fabulous, if only I could get all the other people in California to leave, I might actually like living there.
If you ask me, "provincial" towns are just as elitist as any other town. They think their way is the right way, and everybody else be damned.
So, you know what? If your town wants to produce Neil Simon, great. If it doesn't, great. Whatever all y'all want. Just stop bitching about it. Do it, don't do it. It's really up to you. But don't buy the rights and try to sneak your way to making it "fit" your town. I won't touch up the Mona Lisa next time it's in town, and I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't either.
There's nothing wrong with wanting to get out of a small town, living in a city, being career oriented. And there's nothing wrong with want to stay in a small town and live the way you were raised. Whatever floats your particular boat. Just don't try and make everyone else live the way you do.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
CJ, are you on crack? Did you read that whole first half of the article? OSC does nothing but slam Simon. Yeah, the second half, he goes on to lecture playrights about how not to snobbish elitists, but I think you missed the point of the article. Card is just ranting about intellecualism. He really hates that. Nearly as much as he hates Meryl Streep.
Let's look at some of the quotes.
quote: A new theatre company in Pleasant Grove, Utah, was recently in rehearsal for a two-week run of Neil Simon’s play, Rumors, when Neil Simon pulled the plug.
quote:And the only producers unable to make changes in his plays to fit the language of their community are those trying to bring New York theatre to English-speaking audiences that haven’t reached the same level of crudeness as New Yorkers.
quote: Among American intellectuals, you know Simon will be generally regarded as an artistic hero for putting those provincial Utahns in their place.
quote: But then, American intellectuals are generally elitist, bigoted twits who are incapable of questioning the biases and shibboleths of their own narrow-minded community.
quote:In other words, this is indeed about the difference between civilized people and barbarians. Simon is simply confused about which group he’s in.
Hardly a plea for putting on plays that Greensboro wants to see.
But wait. Here's that section.
quote: But we don’t want to join that group. We find them provincial, childish and generally dim-witted – for the good reason that they are provincial, childish and generally dim-witted.
quote:Mostly, though, theatre is being killed by the same intellectual pretension that killed poetry as a public art. Art exists as a dialogue between artist and audience, and if the artist stops listening to the audience and instead deliberately drives them away (and here we cheerfully wave to T.S. Eliot and Ezra Pound), the audience learns to stop looking to that art for pleasure.
It’s those producers in Pleasant Grove, not the current incarnation of Neil Simon, who are going to keep theatre alive as a meaningful art in America.
Hey, you know what? If those producers in Pleasant Grove are the last best hope, we're all screwed. Because what they were doing was a perpetrating a fraud. Great values. If you don't like the law, break it. Yet, we're the elitist snobs. Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Card has some excellent points to make in the piece, unfortunately, no one who doens't already agree with him is likely to be swayed in the least by the piece. This is not a pursuasive essay, its a rant. If this essay was turned in by one of my students, I'd give it a D, because it violates the most basic rules of logic.
For example:
quote: Among American intellectuals, you know Simon will be generally regarded as an artistic hero for putting those provincial Utahns in their place.
But then, American intellectuals are generally elitist, bigoted twits who are incapable of questioning the biases and shibboleths of their own narrow-minded community.
This is a classic example of begging the question. Who are these american intellectuals and how is it that we can read their minds and know how they will respond? I personally know a fair number of intellectuals who would not have made that response. Scott would be far more pursuasive if he stuck to the facts and avoided name calling.
quote: So their plays, which are designed to entertain that audience and help them feel smug and superior to people who are raising families and actually have to work for a living.
Who are these intellectuals who have not children and don't have to work for a living. Are they also able to go without food and drink? Do their hearts not beat like our hearts. This is one of the lines I commonly hear from concervatives to discredit liberal ideas and it makes me absolutely livid. The only point of such a sentence is to dehumanize the opposition. It was the tactic Nazis used against their opponents and I am aghast to read it in Card's essay.
I am a university professor, so I guess I am one of Card's "Intellectual elite". Many if not most of my friends and associates qualify as intellectuals and all of them work for a living. They have families just like you do Scott. They love their children just like you do. If you can't make your point without sinking to dehumanizing those who might disagree with you, then you shouldn't be making it in print.
The really sad thing is, that I largely agree with Card's points yet I am still offended by his rant. Rather than being pursuasive, this type of Card's rants on this subject are more likely to widen the divide.
[ August 19, 2003, 12:05 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
But Card isn't writing for the New Yorker. He's writing for a newspaper that appears in the south, where that type of sermonizing, exaggeration, and stone-throwing will speak to his audience.
C'mon, wouldn't he at least get a C?
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure. As long as he doesn't mind if we "alter" it a bit for audiences that aren't in Greensboro.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Morbo: I don't think that's what he's saying at all. I think he means that in the play the [f___] word is simply used as an expletive, so its literal meaning is irrelevant.--Deidre
I know its a hard concept, but I have many friends who NEVER do [curse]. In which there is no situation that would cause them to. Maybe it isn't real to you, but that doesn't mean it isn't real.--Kat
My point, which I didn't take the time to expound upon (the Simpsons were on!) is that characters often have to curse to be true to their roots in real people. Olivet's example of prison movies is great, as is the drill sergeant in Full Metal Jacket. Either example just does not work without beaucoup cursing. Cut versions usually sound ridiculous.
Deidre, cuss words are often (usually?) not taken literally. They are usually used for emphasis, humor or to express surprise or anger by people in all the social classes on occasion. When does anybody mean "f___ you!" literally? My objection was to Card's use of the phrase "ludicrously without meaning." It's fine for you and your friends to never curse in real life, Kat, in fact I envy you friends like that. However, billions of people do curse, and good writing should be true to its characters.
I'd bet real money that some of the posters on this thread who are for letting stage productions edit screenplays (weakening copyrights) were posting the opposite sentiment on all of those digital copyright threads a few weeks back (strengthening copyrights.) So should the artist, in whatever media, control his work or not?
I think the artist created it, he should keep as much control as he wants and is legal. Basically I agree with Chris and others who think the copyright holder should have the final say in how their works are presented.
quote:"In publishing, the writer is a god, in theater the writer is king, and in movies the writer is hired help."
Deidre quoting Rita Mae Brown. Exactly. This is why comparisons between movies and plays are difficult. Movies are so expensive, if you want to write a big-budget feature, you play ball: you don't have final say on your script. Or they get someone else. So in a sense, almost all movie screenplay writers have less artistic integrity than other artists. Until the screenwriter or directer gets the Holy Grail: "final script approval" written into his or her contract. This is extremely rare. I must say, I've learned a lot about the theatre on this thread. Thanks to all the theatre people. I don't know much about theatre, movies are my groove. I had no idea licensing plays was so involved.
Would OSC protest if language he chose not to use were added to his plays (or books, maybe), in order to make them more palatable or "true" for given audiences?
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually my question is "Why didn't Card, a much better writer than I am, write such a lousy article?"
Try a different tack. Explain the situation - without the loaded language, as the second Salt Lake Tribune article did - and then ask why Simon and other playwrights don't offer alternative versions of their plays, minus the profanity.
Spend some time talking about language and how cursing is considered "adult," when oftimes it's just a childish way to shock people or an easy way to get a laugh. Talk about Neil Simon and his history of amazing plays, possibly the greatest living playwright, and ask why someone of that skill must go for the easy laugh.
Acknowledge the playwright's control over the work without sounding sarcastic - again, as the second article did - but ask why, if versions of his movies are made for airline and television viewings, why versions of his plays couldn't be made for school and amateur productions where such language is inappropriate. Then there wouldn't be a question of unauthorized changes, and they would be available to a much wider range of productions. Suggest that Simon try it, and then see which version gets licensed more often.
Talk about how pervasive cursing is in entertainment today, and discuss in glowing terms how wonderful it would be to have quality adult entertainment without the obligatory shock words tossed in to make it seem "real."
Such an article, written with the masterful phrasing and pacing that OSC is capable of, would be something that might make Simon and other playwrights think. It offers a suggestion, not a kneejerk condemnation, and a reasonable one at that.
[ August 19, 2003, 07:53 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Deidre, cuss words are often (usually?) not taken literally. They are usually used for emphasis, humor or to express surprise or anger by people in all the social classes on occasion. When does anybody mean "f___ you!" literally?
Right. Of course.
quote:My objection was to Card's use of the phrase "ludicrously without meaning."
And I still object to your objection because I think he's trying make a point about how expletives lack real meaning so he can make the comparison between the word "f***" used in the play and his hypothetically use of "k***." I really don't think he's saying that "he can't see any reason why a character should cuss."
Posts: 1046 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Chris Bridges that OSC could have written a much better, more convincing piece.
I have an alternative hypothesis as to why the article was written the way it was. I will assign as many motives and possibly negative characteristics to OSC as OSC did to Simon.
I think OSC all of a sudden realized that the Rhino Times deadline was approaching and had an "Oh dear, I have to write something for this stupid column again. Why did I get myself into this?" moment.
So, he jotted down, an off the cuff rant that he felt emotionally passionate about, without finding out the facts first, just to have his column filled. OSC admits he procrastinates until his wife tells them they need money (see the sci-fi interview). He probably procrastinates in real life on other stuff too. When he does this, with short articles it is more glaringly obvious because they don't go through the critiquing rigors that he goes through in his novel.
Normally, even when I disagree with OSC, he appears to have put more thought into an opinion than he did into this one. But, OSC is human. Let him be lazy and rant once in a while. We all do. It doesn't really harm us, does it? It just reminds us that we always have to be questioning everything anyone tells us, because they may not have our best interests at heart.
AJ punctuation round up edit (and it is still lousy)
posted
Banna, I'll bet you're right. It isn't flattering to Uncle Orson, though. Whatever the intent, the essay could have been written better.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Frankly, i'm much more willing to explain this essay over this, since i, at least, have been a chronic procrastinator most of my life, rather than writing OSC off as becoming more and more crotchety.
Posts: 4482 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just mean that it isn't flattering to a writer to tell him he published some seriously sloppy writing.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not fond of OSC's rants againsts elitists and intellectuals.
But...
I think that the idea that theater scripts should be inviolate is laughable.
Plays are not novels -- confined to the page, dependent only on the words to convey meaning.
Directors and actors and the demographics of the audience should be part of the equation when it comes to staging a play.
I'm not saying that I support fully-sanitized versions of plays. And because of the parameters and condtions of the modern marketplace, I am a supporter of copyright law.
But not allowing changes to a script seems to me to run counter to the entire history and goals of dramatic performance.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I'm making an unflattering judgment on OSC in this case My other point is though I am making it on about as little evidence as OSC appeared to have about Simon.
In the few personal interactions I've had with OSC I've liked him as a person very much, and he was willing to listen to a passionate rant I had about some of his characters.
Once you get to know a person regardless of their field, and actually know some of their motives, for the most part, you tend to not include them in the broad "elite" brush. A very few people could retain that "elite" title. The person I always picture in my mind as an "elite" is the guy that does the interviews on Inside the Actors Studio. But, when he interviewed himself for one of their anniversary shows, he showed quite a bit of humanity.
I think we've probably established that OSC doesn't know Simon personally. If OSC did, I think he would have written a very different more compassionate article, even while probably disagreeing. The problem is that that is the standard we are used to him writing to, and he didn't do that this time and we are disappointed.
posted
In light of your earlier request for someone to comment, Banna, I'll just say that what you're saying makes all kinds of sense, and that I agree with you completely.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's worth pointing out that OSC HAS to maintain pretty strict control of his OWN intellectual property. If he's quoted without permission, or someone makes a tribute website with fan fiction or some such, he'd whack 'em.
Think about the Mona Lisa. She's everywhere. They put funny hats on her. They put someone else's lips on her and make her talk on used car commercials.
You know why? She's in the public domain. Leonardo da Vinci is DEAD, and has no estate or survivors controlling his creations (as , say, Rembrandt does). My husband's old company had a color management product called the da Vinci, because they would have had to pay royalties to use the name Rembrandt.
Then they proceeded to make a very suggestive training video ("That's it, now do it faster") designed by Germans (German company) that many American customers found offensive.
It was a debacle. Simon may be unwilling to give an inch because stuff like that can happen.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm, all of Rembrandts works are definitely in the public domain throughout Europe and America. He's been dead longer than even the heavily extended copyright terms of recent years.
Perhaps they've managed to get the name protected as a trademark.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Glad to think people still think I make sense sometimes. I don't know if I will have a shred of dignity left once people read my story in the fur thread. Though, I guess sense and dignity are not necessarily the same thing. And I posted that story voluntarily.
I hope I haven't offended OSC in what I've said about him if he's reading this thread.
quote: Kathy Kidd's letter demonstrates she, at least, got what he was really trying to say--that a real artist seeks to communicate through his art, rather than inflict it upon someone.
What letter are you referring to, CJ?
Before the thread dies, let me point out that I don't disagree with Card's belief that giving your audience what they want is often a good idea and can make your work more accessible. I do disagree with the tone of his piece, his assumptions about Simon specifically, and the motives and rationale he ascribes to people who don't change their work in general.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I hope I haven't offended OSC in what I've said about him if he's reading this thread.
Banna, are you kidding? It's possible that you're wrong, but you certainly weren't offensive. You put forth a very plausible scenario, based on information OSC has made public about his work habits. Where could the offensive part of that be?
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Welcome to the club. Man, you and Dragon in the same day! You know, this is going to involve extra snacks and everything. Are you trying to ruin everything?
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm. I think I found that article to be mildly offensive. What does he mean by provincial or elistist? I still don't understand it... To me, speaking as someone who wants to be a writer, a person has every right to object to cuts and changes made in their play or story or whatever. I know I would. After all, good art, interesting art should not have to cater to the taste of the masses otherwise we get things that are so bland. But, on the otherhand, the F word is often overused as if a person is saying, ooo, how edgy, using the f word fifty times in a row. Am I alone in thinking the term "f word" is really funny? Anyway, I can see it from both sides but to me it's unfair to call someone so many names just for not wanting their play cut. If they don't like the language they out to use some other play or write one of their own.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I shall quote Tristan from page three of Ryan Hart's thread The New Dictators.
quote: Uhm, since we are talking about posting styles, may I lodge a complaint with you, Morbo? Your habit of ending most sentences with a line break makes your posts flow weirdly and is, to me, stylistically difficult to read. If I slow down it doesn't bother me much, but I usually scan the threads very quickly and when, if in a hurry, I get to a post that is formatted out of the norm, I tend to skip it. I don't know if I speak for more people than myself, but if you wish to increase the chances of your posts being fully read and appreciated by people of my sensitivities, you might perhaps consider changing to normal paragraphs.
I'm rather on the random side myself... I still wish people would stop saying stuff like "cultural elite" and "that's too PC" because for some reason I can't figure out it drives me loony.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Somehow I don't think that Mr. Simon is thinking, "Aha! I've got those backward middle-Americans now!" Give me a break.
Posts: 903 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Syn, line break=line feed=hitting return or enter. I tend to hit enter after many sentences, instead of only to start a new paragraph. At least in your 11:25 pm post, you do to. Tristan (and others, I suppose) think it chops up the flow of my posts when read.
I'll try to change, but it's a tough habit to break. I had to delete about 3 <enter>s just in this short post, and I was thinking about it!
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
At the risk of reviving the whole culture war debate, I'm tossing this article, Is It Curtains for Theatre?, into the fray. In it, theatre critic Toby Young raises a lot of issues that come up in OSC's invective:
quote:So what kinds of plays are likely to appeal to my peer group? Within the theatrical community, the general consensus is that what’s needed is a John Osborne or an Arnold Wesker, an Angry Young Man who’s going to light a fire under the Establishment. Ask any broadsheet critic and they’ll tell you that the West End has become too ‘safe’ and ‘middle-class’, much like it was in the 1950s…
Much the same thinking led to the Royal Court backing a new, provocative school of writers in the 1990s led by Sarah Kane. Her play Blasted managed to outrage Middle England by including scenes in which a man is raped, has his eyes plucked out and then eats a dead baby. Kane’s succès de scandale gave rise to a new movement called ‘in-yer-face’ theatre, but it quickly became apparent that, stripped of its obscene content, it contained little that was new or exciting. Today, too many young playwrights think that the only criterion of success is whether a leader appears in the Daily Mail condemning their work as an affront to public decency.
Rather than yet another attempt to épater le bourgeois, what’s needed is a counter-revolution, a new respect for the traditional virtues of the well-made play. Admittedly, I’ve been working as a critic for only a year, but the new plays that I’ve enjoyed the most have been the ones that combine a fairly highbrow intellectual content with a lowbrow sense of just how to keep an audience entertained…[Their authors] realise that if you want to take an audience into new territory it’s sensible to re-use some of the old guy-ropes.
(I'm stepping out for a bit, but I'll respond to any thoughts people might have on the article when I get back.)
posted
Wow, I didn't realize there had been more posts.
CJ, I'm not sure what you were talking about when you said Kidd 'got it'? Her letter had virtually nothing to do with Card's letter that I could tell beyond the kind of tangential fact that they were irritated by a performer/artist. What does her letter say about an artist in relation to the standards of the community? Maybe the rest of her audience really got into the Peter, Paul and Mary act....
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Great link, Deirdre. Here is a quote that I think epitomizes the "intellectual elite" OSC so despises:
quote: The rot began with Samuel Beckett. He, more than any other playwright, was responsible for the idea that in order to be considered ‘art’, a play has to be difficult and inaccessible. Never mind that Shakespeare constantly threw in bits of business designed to appeal to the groundlings, or that Ibsen and Chekhov knew everything there is to know about keeping an audience on its toes, Beckett was applauded for refusing to compromise, for being resolutely non-commercial. After Beckett, any concession to the popular audience was regarded as ‘selling out’
posted
While I don't necessarily disagree that we began to see such things most dramatically with Beckett, a few observations.
First, I'd put the beginning of the change more with Camus, who won the Nobel Prize for Lit before Beckett was popular. His writing isn't much closer to traditional writings, but the indicators are pretty clear.
Second, Beckett never intended even his strangest plays to redefine art. Beckett was a writer convinced he would live out his life in obscurity (until proven otherwise) because he didn't think his work would or even could fit in with mainstream art. He wrote what he felt he had to write.
Third, while Beckett's writing appears "difficult and inaccessible", it is not. In fact, one of the remarkable things about it is that while it defies traditional analysis (and is the nightmare of most english lit majors), it is incredibly enjoyable to experience. Audiences can go see Beckett plays and be baffled over what exactly they are about but also be greatly moved. This is not inaccessibility, but direct accessibility, a bypassing of the social filters that are on most other works. This is not to say that bypassing social filters is the right way, and that otherwise is wrong, but that Beckett did things one way, and others do things their ways. It is not at all uncommon for me to read a Beckett short story out loud to someone, and for them to be incredibly moved by it, being made happy and sad, yet having little idea what goes on in the story.
So while Beckett may have been the greatest pioneer of the movement to obfuscate meaning in performances, I would not consider him part of the movement.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, Jacare. I’m glad you pulled out that bit about Beckett, since the article’s critique of Beckett’s influence was one of the main things that endeared it to my heart. I would have quoted it myself, only I didn’t want fugu to think I was baiting him again.
I also liked the next paragraph:
quote:Beckett’s pernicious influence on postwar British drama was compounded by the ideas of Bertolt Brecht. Brecht was an unashamed Stalinist who harboured a puritanical contempt for the idea that people might actually enjoy themselves at the theatre. In his communist vision of the future, theatres were to be the indoctrination centres where the workers received instruction on how to become better citizens. To this end, he railed against such ‘capitalist’ conventions as sympathetic characters, colourful sets, incidental music, atmospheric lighting ...anything, in fact, that threatened to keep theatre-goers entertained. The object of a good production, he believed, was to ‘alienate’ the audience, to unsettle them, to shake them out of their complacency.
Never mind that I love Brecht. I still can’t deny that he is largely responsible for the contemporary notion that good theater should be offensive and medicinal.
Posts: 1046 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
It's them Southerners who know how to live.![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Whatever the intent, the essay could have been written better.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
I'm paranoid ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
