Jarrod Buttery wrote: > >We know that Will's plays have little, if any, stage directions, making > them extremely susceptible to interpretation. (Is that one > of the reasons they've survived for so long? Thoughts?)
I seem to recall annoying quite a few people, mostly writers, when I once declared that you can pretty well ignore scripted stage directions. I believe they are a literary tool, to allow a reader to understand what the writer is intending, in the absence of it being acted out in front of them; but not necessarily a dramatic one...meaning directors should make up their own minds about how to move the play, and use or ignore stage directions as they see fit.
The opposing argument seemed to be that the writer has carefully crafted what they want to happen onstage, and tampering with them is treasonable without seeking the writer's permission.
In my opinion, that's a writer also wanting to be a director. The process of creating a play (or film) is an evolving one, where everyone contributes but must surrender to the larger process...the writer gives the play or film script to the director and let's it go; the director passes on to the actors and others, but come opening night must let go; the actors take it and run with it and the audience is the final recipient (in a film, the actors must relinquish to the editor...). Obviously there is cross-talk and loops; a director can give ongoing notes and feedback, and has the most control over the process; writers or actors or anyone in the loop can have greater or lesser involvement at various stages; sometimes one person wears several hats.
Jarrod's point about interpretation is the key, I believe. There are no surprises in Shakespeare or any other well-known script, everything comes down to interpretation. I think you should be free to create whatever you like in order to make sense of the lines, and if it serves the play, it's a good choice.
It appears that Stephen Lee has choreographed every line, and that has been a succesful interpretation. The writer obviously hasn't felt the need to dictate the presentation; his trust in the process has been well-vindicated, I would say.
(Ha - you asked for my thoughts, oh foolish one!)
Cheers, Craig
[%sig%]
Reply
This discussion is closed: you can't post new comments.
Date: 08/03/2003 - 12:21
Jarrod Buttery wrote:
>
>We know that Will's plays have little, if any, stage directions, making
> them extremely susceptible to interpretation. (Is that one
> of the reasons they've survived for so long? Thoughts?)
I seem to recall annoying quite a few people, mostly writers, when I once declared that you can pretty well ignore scripted stage directions.
I believe they are a literary tool, to allow a reader to understand what the writer is intending, in the absence of it being acted out in front of them; but not necessarily a dramatic one...meaning directors should make up their own minds about how to move the play, and use or ignore stage directions as they see fit.
The opposing argument seemed to be that the writer has carefully crafted what they want to happen onstage, and tampering with them is treasonable without seeking the writer's permission.
In my opinion, that's a writer also wanting to be a director. The process of creating a play (or film) is an evolving one, where everyone contributes but must surrender to the larger process...the writer gives the play or film script to the director and let's it go; the director passes on to the actors and others, but come opening night must let go; the actors take it and run with it and the audience is the final recipient (in a film, the actors must relinquish to the editor...). Obviously there is cross-talk and loops; a director can give ongoing notes and feedback, and has the most control over the process; writers or actors or anyone in the loop can have greater or lesser involvement at various stages; sometimes one person wears several hats.
Jarrod's point about interpretation is the key, I believe. There are no surprises in Shakespeare or any other well-known script, everything comes down to interpretation. I think you should be free to create whatever you like in order to make sense of the lines, and if it serves the play, it's a good choice.
It appears that Stephen Lee has choreographed every line, and that has been a succesful interpretation.
The writer obviously hasn't felt the need to dictate the presentation; his trust in the process has been well-vindicated, I would say.
(Ha - you asked for my thoughts, oh foolish one!)
Cheers,
Craig
[%sig%]