Re: RAT, The dramaturgy of...

[jonoh1@juno.com]

While I don't have the particulars on that production off the top o' me
tete, I believe that the only strong stipulation Beckett ever <really>
had pertaining to his plays was that they not be cast gender-blind. Now
that's a whole 'nother fascinating debate if anybody would like to pick
it up, but my question has more to do with the assertion of Beckett's
purported monopolization of interpretation. To me, Beckett is so
completely fraught with universal threads of meaning that doing what
Beckett recommended (and possibly demanded) could only help focus a
production onto the most <human> elements contained within his work. Lest
an earnest, sincere Director with a "vision" muddy the water Mr. Beckett
scooped from the well. While setting Beckett here or there may be fun to
do as a theatrical artist, does it ultimately serve the work (play)
itself? This, of course, would be Beckett's main concern. And rightly so.
  As far as Beckett being "gotten" in a particular way...well, that's
just inconceivable to me. With Beckett in particular, the most important
factor is what the individual audience member is bringing with them into
the theatre. What suppressed emotions, what current situations, what
depths of despair or heights of joy. To do nothing with Beckett is to do
it all. This is what true art does. Anything else, in this case anyway,
just mucks up the water and becomes about something else entirely.
  "I can't go on..."
  Jonathan

On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 07:15:17 -0800 (PST) Greg Romero
<gregoryromero@yahoo.com> writes:
> Actually, I made a mistake-- I was referring most
> specifically to the 1984 American Rep production
> of Endgame directed by Joanne Akalaitis which she
> set in a subway station.  Didn't Beckett halt
> production, citing that she violated specific
> stage directions?
> 
> Perhaps the argument might be that interpretation
> and stage directions are different things, but I
> think my point may still be valid that Beckett
> felt compelled to have people view his piece as
> closely as possible to how he intended when he
> originally wrote it-- thus leaving scant room for
> alternate interpretation.
> 
> 
> --- jonoh1@juno.com wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 10:14:41 -0800 (PST) Greg
> > Romero
> > <gregoryromero@yahoo.com> writes:
> > > I'm not so sure about Beckett.  Perhaps I
> > might
> > > be misunderstanding the circumstances, but
> > the
> > > way he monopolized interpretation of Godot
> > for
> > > example is legendary.  To me that signals a
> > > definate (insecure?) need for him to be
> > "gotten"
> > > in a specific way.
> > 
> > I'm hoping you would elaborate on what you mean
> > by  "the way he
> > monopolized interpretation...".
> > Thanks,
> > Jonathan
> 
> 
> =====
> Greg Romero
> Dramaturg
> rm 120 theatre
> PO Box 300165
> Austin TX  78703
> (512) 481-8366
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. 
> http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

www.ezrabuzzington.com