|
Interestingly, I just had a conversation this
evening with someone (in person!) who told a story of Beckett suing a director
for doing Endgame with a black cast and setting it in a subway.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 10:22
AM
Subject: Re: RAT, The dramaturgy
of...
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
|