I love Shakespeare, because I "get him." No, seriously. I've gotten better at understanding him, but I don't think I was COMPLETELY lost, at what he was trying to say. George Bernard Shaw, a much smarter man than I, couldn't stand Shakespeare. Partly it was political. Shakespeare often wrote propaganda for the noblesse oblige, and Shaw was a Socialist at heart. But part of it, was simply that he found him to be a self indulgent writer. And yeah, I get that. I get where he's coming from. Although the revolution of "economy of style" wouldn't truly begin 'till Hemingway came along, I get, and appreciate the value of "saying what you mean in as few as words as possible," I've written my fair share of haiku's.
Still, I mean, I get where he's coming from. Shakespeare was writing on the fly. He gave himself very little time for re-writes, and often he was writing for his "buddies." Members of his troupe. Trying to keep everyone happy. Trying to write to their strengths. And often, he'd belabor the point, or take his time getting there. But as a writer by practice (if not by trade), I get it. I know, sometimes, you write a clever turn of phrase, and follow it with another, until you arrive at the point you're trying to make. And you go back, and you look at what you have written, and you really love how you got to the end. And it would take a few weeks to re-write, and you got only a few weeks to rehearse. And you say, "fuck it", it's good enough as it is."
And I'll say this for the man, to anyone, alive or dead. For all his meandering, for all his belaboring of the point, NO ONE, has captured the argument and dichotomy of the soul... or expressed it so beautifully, as William Shakespeare. If you think you can do better, if you think you can do so in poetic terms, go ahead! Knock yourself out! Show us all, how it's done!
The fact is, George Bernard Shaw isn't a dingleberry on the ass of Shakespeare.
And so, yeah, I get the language is difficult, and off times self indulgent, but I get where he's coming from. I see the argument that he's making, and I don't have to be a misogynist to play Petruchio in Taming of the Shrew!
The fact is, Shakespeare's characters are very easy to play. Most of them are very earnest, and forthright.
With say, Pinter or Mamet, you can't always trust what the character says. Often, what they say, has NOTHING to do with what the character is trying to achieve. As an actor, and as an audience member, you have to look at their behavior. And it is often not reveled until the end of the play, what the characters are trying to achieve.
In Shakespeare, the opposite is the case, and in the rare exceptions (Iago, Lady Macbeth, King Richard III) they'll always tell the truth to the audience, at least.
If you know how to break an argument down to its components, if you know how to stress the right word or phrase, you can make the language intelligible, for yourself, and anyone who cares to listen..
Some people won't get it. Some people will never try. You can't fix stupid. This is something you have to realize.
But if you put in the effort. If you just open your mind... There are vast worlds to explore, which you never knew you could find.
No comments:
Post a Comment