Shakespearean Acting

[ParadoxPlayings]

Hello all, I'm new here, but I'm here because of my passion for Shakespeare, first, as an actor, second, as a writer. I'm addressing the issue of shakespearean acting in this particular thread. I bring it up so that it may be discussed, debated, compromised upon, and concluded, even if it means concluding it with different arguments. Now, I was first introduced to Shakespeare as an actor, in an American setting, with an American understanding of theatre, and with, what some would say, and American bias toward all things the great poet and author wrote. But, I find that the last criticism, that of an American bias towards shakespeare, is very prevalent, both in London and in America. I simply come here to state my thoughts and feelings on how Shakespeare "should" be played. I first have to start off rather bluntly, as it is the initiating disagreement I have with those who say the general American form of portrayal in Shakespeare is flawed. The only argument I've heard for this case is, "That's not the way Shakespeare's supposed to be read?" My immediate and even long term reaction to this is a giant assumption (and a well fitted one at that) of pretension on the part of the one saying this. It's as if Shakespeare means nothing if it's said with feeling. Why should we sacrifice emotion for Iambic Pentameter. Sure, Shakespeare masterfully wove the poetic style into his works, and I believe this is one way of doing it, but I tell you I don't believe it to be the most effective. Upon my first reading of Shakespeare in my room one evening, I didn't read it in Iambic Pentameter and when I heard that this is the "correct" way of doing it, I almost had to laugh. My response was simply that if one focuses on the rhythm alone, how can the emotion even basely be felt. In regards to retaining any form of the rhythm, it was best said I think that if one truly begins to understand the feeling and thoughts that are driving the characters, the rhythm may and probably will come, but it should not be the end of the actor to find the rhythm of his character but rather that he portrays it truthfully. I could not agree more. It is the person in the character that does it. All people I've seen play Hamlet while sticking to the canon of pretension that is the curriculum of Shakespearean acting came across as unfeeling, inexperienced actors, not as Hamlet. The best I've seen is Mel Gibson. It almost infuriates me to watch the special features of that film because even after seeing what an amazing performance Gibson gives of Hamlet, the "Shakespearean" actors still meet it with, "Well, I've certainly never seen it done that way before," and they don't mean it as quite a complement. Thoughts on this?

[xman]

Welcome PP,

I'm an actor too with a good number of Shakespeare's plays under my belt and I both agree with you and disagree. Personally, I am exhaustive about my approach to the text. I note all imagery used by and about my character. I compare Folio to Quarto wherever possible and carefully mark all variations. I explore the rhythm of each line completely. I know where the pentameter is held to and when it is broken and I try to discover why that might be when it occurs. I even predetermine my preferred moments to breath, but all that is part of my text work which also includes a Stanislavski approach to each moment. I ask myself what my objectives are from moment to moment and in the scene as a whole (indeed the whole play), what obstacles prevent me from achieving those ends, the circumstances and relationships which colour my journey and consider my best options for actions to dramatically succeed in those moments. By the time I'm in rehearsal, I've left most of that text work behind and am busy engaging in the job of acting with my fellow performers and listening to what they are giving me. My usual result is to craft a performance which is true to the poetry of the writer as well as compelling to the listener and I am frequently complimented on how accessible I make it, even and especially for the uninitiated audience member.

In my book, Shakespeare is "supposed" to be played in a dramatic, compelling and comprehensible manner, but ignoring the high lyrical drama of the language is one way to fail.

X

[ParadoxPlayings]

Oh i definitely see what your saying and I don't want it to come across that the language of shakespeare should be lost. That's actually what I'm emphasizing as I find modern language variations to lose loads and loads of such amazing depth, complexity and emotion. I love the Stanislavski method and am, myself, working on it further and have a great envy for those accomplished in it, but an envy in kind of "man, I wish i was there already" terms, not in hatred or jealousy. That being said, can there even be a said way to "act" the line? I mean what if someone breaks rhythm on a line that is usually always played rhythmically? Is it therefore a wrong interpretation? If we're going for the method only we lose all meaning. I do agree though with everything you were saying, thank you so much for sharing, I learned some things

[xman]

Originally Posted by ParadoxPlayings

... can there even be a said way to "act" the line? I mean what if someone breaks rhythm on a line that is usually always played rhythmically? Is it therefore a wrong interpretation?

Well, I think with Shakespeare there might be less grey area because he's just that kind of writer, but performance interpretation is up to the artist and not the scholar. One choice may resonate more with an audience than another and be a better overall choice, but I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say that it'd be the "right" choice as opposed to a "wrong" one. What works for an audience from one performance may not work for another.

X

[ParadoxPlayings]

Very True. Thank you

[Theaprof]

I've always liked what John Barton argues in Acting Shakepseare: for the contemporary actor to succeed with Shakespeare, it's important to synthesize an understanding of heightened language with the psychologically-rooted methods of Stanislavski, et. al.

[xman]

Originally Posted by Theaprof

I've always liked what Robert Barton argues in Acting Shakepseare: for the contemporary actor to succeed with Shakespeare, it's important to synthesize an understanding of heightened language with the psychologically-rooted methods of Stanislavski, et. al.

Exactly my approach.

X