What's In A Name?
I just finished Ron Rosenbaum's The Shakespeare Wars. It took some doing. It's not a bad book, but at 550 pages, it could profitably be cut by a third.
He discusses many of the controversies over Shakespeare that still trouble scholars and theatre people, and how surprisingly vehement they can be. What's the proper text of Hamlet, or the correct portrayal of a Shylock or Falstaff? And that points to another question--is Shakespeare primarily a dramatist whose work should be seen, or a poet whose work should be read.
Rosenbaum is a journalist, not a scholar, but he's obviously done a lot of research, and more obviously, loves his subject. And this may be what I like best about the book. These plays are too important to only be interpreted for us by Harold Bloom or Peter Hall. Shakespeare wrote plays for an audience to enjoy directly, so when it comes to the Bard, we're all groundlings.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:01 AM
3 Comments:
ARe there seriously people who believe there are "correct" portrayals of Shakespearean characters? I can understand arguments over text, but over how an actor should play a role? Ian McKellen played Richard III's infirmity as a useless arm, Antony Sher played him on crutches as a scuttling insect. Neither one is probably historically correct, and both were brilliant. And don't get me started on Hamlet. The character is most likely in his late teens/early twenties, but where do you find an actor that age with the skills to play the role?
I would echo the last paragraph but expand it beyond Shakespeare. All art is for the audience. Its great fun to have academics and great minds aid in interpretation and create more opportunity for appreciation but they are not exactly necessary.
Art may be for everyone, but many in the Academy feel it's their job to shelter it and explain it and protect it for (and in some cases from) the masses. They feel they're not only the ones who understand it best, but also are the ones who keep it alive.
Post a Comment
<< Home