Currently Reading: Invisible Man by Ralph Ellison
(Yes, I’m giving Invisible Man another shot as I feel invincible after Moby Dick and I’d really like to finish this book before the end of the year.)
Cliché as it may sound, there’s something magical about seeing a live performance of a play. The lights, the costumes, the makeup, the sets – everything and everyone has been transformed to transport you to another world; to sweep you away from whatever is occurring in your life and suck you into the fictitious world of the actors. The scene is set, the lights dim, the curtain rises…
… and you’re sitting in your comfy chair at home, snuggled in your bathrobe with a good
book to begin?
Even though we’ve all done it – most likely in a Shakespeare
unit in school – there’s something slightly incongruous about reading a play.
Although there are plays that fall into the genre of “closet dramas” (which are
plays that are intended to be read and give little to no consideration of the actual
staging of the story), most plays are meant to be performed; they were
written to be turned into a production that others could watch rather than
read.
For this reason, a play is often enjoyed more when it’s
acted out. Case and point: I took my roommate to see the Folger’s production of
Romeo and Juliet this past Friday. It
was his first time seeing Shakespeare performed live and at the end he asked,
“Why don’t they teach Shakespeare this way? It makes so much more sense!”
For my roommate – and I’m sure for many others – seeing a
production of a Shakespeare play actually makes the language much more
accessible and therefore the story more enjoyable. He was simply astonished
that Shakespeare was so often read like a novel when it’s not one; it’s writing
that’s meant to be spoken and heard, not read.
So why is it that we consistently read plays? How on earth
does this benefit us?
After giving it some thought, I’ve decided that there are
several reasons we shouldn’t just stop reading plays entirely.
First, a play can still be considered a work of literature
even if it’s a slightly different format from other works. Plays can be just as
richly infused with themes, symbols, plot structures, and character
developments as novels. Thus reading a play affords one the opportunity to
dissect the literary devices used and to deeply analyze the story and
characters that watching a play just doesn’t allow for as the action in a
production is continuous. The audience can’t take time to ponder a particularly
insightful monologue or sort through a confusing exchange of dialogue at a live
performance as the actors will move on with the story whether you’re ready to
move on or not.
Second, reading a play without seeing any performance of it
means you’re working with a blank slate; you won’t have any preconceived
notions of how a line should be said or how a character should look. A
performance can very much color the way you view a play. This is especially
true if a director or actor has decided to highlight certain aspects that you
may not have thought were important. Perhaps he believes one theme is the main
message of the play, but in reality, it’s just his perception of it. Maybe an
actor decides to play to extreme subtext. Now you will be much more likely to
only notice that theme or to read that subtext, which may or not be there. In
much the same way that a movie version of a book can ruin the way you read that
book afterwards – I’m looking at you Harry
Potter films – seeing a play can also ruin your opportunity to let your
imagination do what it will with the text provided.
Third, and probably the most important, reading a play
allows for quality control. Again, a production of a play is subject to so many
variables – like the director’s or the actors’ choices – and sometimes those
variables don’t just affect the interpretation, they affect the quality. Ever
see a production of Guys and Dolls in
which Sky Masterson is going through puberty? Ever go to a play and the main
actress has an extremely annoying habit of flapping her arms a certain way or
maybe she just has a voice that sounds like nails on a chalkboard? Ever see a
performance of Jekyll and Hyde in
which the title character(s) has a lisp? I have. It’s not pleasant. If a play
is a really good play, the text can stand alone. Reading it saves it from a
potential mauling and therefore can save your opinion of it.
Don’t get me wrong. I do mostly agree that a play should be
seen. I’m just arguing that maybe there’s some logic to the idea of introducing
a play as text rather than performance. Perhaps the best option is to do both.
No comments:
Post a Comment