I finished the Arden intro tonight, and so much of what it brought up is really fascinating. The discussion about how editors, directors, and actors often try to mitigate the impact of Valentine's offer at the end particularly held my attention.
In particular, Collier's idea on p. 114 struck me as very interesting and even potentially plausible.
But I don't really think it could work. If ideas like his had their origin in anything other than discomfort with the plain meaning of what seems to be happening, they would be more persuasive. As it is, that is the only motivation: "This is terrible. Surely he can't mean that."
I suspect that the right thing for actors and directors to do with such moments is not to shrink from them and their rightly uncomfortable awfulness, to find an escape hatch through which to avoid playing something really twisted, but rather to play them with honesty and courage.
That's not to say I'm not open to alternate readings of Valentine's offer. As with every rehearsal so far, I'm sure when we get there I'll make discoveries in rehearsal that I never anticipated in my preparation work. But I think my instinct is to reject any idea whose primary motive seems to be discomfort at the tension Shakespeare deliberately forces us to experience between the conflicting loyalties of different types of human relationships.
Also, I really loved Matt Davies' Peter Hall document, the one he sent by email. The Launce monologue really is like a stand up routine! In light of all he discussed, he was definitely justified in asserting that the scene's precision is "worthy of Samuel Beckett."
I also found this quote particularly relevant and helpful:
The primary need in speaking prose is to feel the rhythm of the sentence so that the requisite words can be emphasized in order to point the paradoxes and the comparisons.
Looking forward to tomorrow!
No comments:
Post a Comment