|
I heard Edward Albee speak here in Mpls a
couple of years ago and he talked about not liking color blind
casting--particularly for Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf because he felt the
play had certain social setups and conditions that wouldn't. I disagree in this
day. Perhaps in the 60s, when there wasn't as prominent a black middle
class--but I think it could work very well with a black cast or even an
interracial cast today. However, I think it brings up issues that Albee
was not intending to address.
But isn't that how a work survives and becomes
a classic? When it can transcend the issues of its day and continue to
address evolving contemporary issues?
Likewise, playing Godot with an interracial
cast -- particularly between Pozzo and Lucky -- can do many things that may or
may not have been intended, some of which would probably make a contemporary
audience very uncomfortable.
(Sidelight: while in the restroom after
the Albee talk, I overhead someone say "I think the color blind casting could
work. After all,in the old days white actors used to put on
blackface.")
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 10:45
PM
Subject: Re: RAT, The dramaturgy
of...
That's the production... JoAnne Akalaitis cast an African
American as the main character and set it in an abandoned subway
station.
*caden
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=
caden
manson
big art group
212-726-1161
http://www.bigartgroup.com
Winner:
Citysearch.com Audience Award for NYC Best Theatre Company
2000
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
on 1/17/01 10:16 PM,
Laura Winton at fluffysingler@prodigy.net wrote:
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.
Laura
Winton
fluffysingler@prodigy.net
www.karawane.org
<http://www.karawane.org>
----- Original Message -----
From: jonoh1@juno.com
To:
rat-list@whirl-i-gig.com
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
<http://www.ezrabuzzington.com>
|