My Concept
of Direction?
ON DIRECTING - by G.L. Horton
My concept of direction?
Well, I try to find the basic emotional shape of the piece--
the author's if it exists, an invented one if necessary-- and
make sure that every element of the eventual performance contributes
to its realization. (Meaning I'm anti-postmodern)
Inspire mutual trust by being trustworthy. Provide the actors
and other contributing artists "permission" and "appreciation"
so that they will feel they have the freedom and security to make
bold choices and deep committments; and pay serious critical attention
to details of behavior and background that flesh out the Big Truths
with realistic and individual substantiation.
OK, you asked for it. The following is only my opinion, and clearly
not humble at all-- humility is quite banished by passion!
Sam Fisher wrote: I have been asked to direct Taming of
the Shrew next year, for a community theatre group this
is a means to an end as I've not directed Shakespeare before
and I intend to use this as a dry run for a production of Measure
for Measure, which I am very keen to work on.
Don't DO this! K2 may not be Everest, but it's still a matter
of life or death.
Fisher continues: The group have insisted on Taming of the
Shrew as they are puttingon Kiss Me Kate later in the year.
Good reason, and a strong vote for doing a "traditional Shrew"
to keep the original/derivative illustration clean and clear.
I've been through the script a few times now and, well
it was written 400 years ago, but, well, it's terribly sexist.
True: but it ain't just women who are second class citizens,
oppressed and humiliated if they step out of line. Servants have
to obey too, and this also is enforced by beating and starvation
and verbal abuse as well as milder social sanctions. Notice it
isn't anything inward that makes a servant inferior -- Tranio
disguised is an excellent Master. A dog's obeyed in office, kicked
around when collared, tortured or killed if running around loose.
Ditto the lower classes generally. The Chain of Being is assumed
to be a chain of command. To be out of place is to be an outlaw.
There are only two women's parts, well there is a third.
There aren't enough good male actors and there is a surfeit
of much better women.
Shakes' Co. produced it perfectly well without using any women.
It is written in a non-realistic style which lends itself to being
performed by either sex. The problem is that OUR performance conventions
are tightly gender-linked, and you will have to work hard to compensate.
I will need to reverse some parts.
I've seen many reversals, including a total gender-switch. Some
work, others never. The biggest problem for the director IMHO
is a shortage of actresses who can put on male privilege-- and
a loud lower register voice-- with the costume. The safest parts
to switch are servants and old grandpas. If you do cast a brilliant
woman in a macho role, for heaven's sake give her a beard and
padding and other symbolic aids, so that you don't obscure the
point of the play, which is patriarchal male dominance. (and its
attendent woes. None of the relationships in the play are loving,
all are based on force or manipulation-- that's why P & K's battle
to truce can seem a happy ending)
The broad options as I have seen them to date are: (a) Do
it as is, straight. Probably in Elizabethan (mock Paduan) garb.
It's sexist, but it's a great 400 year old play about taming
a woman who really doesn't know her place.
Stop thinking about it. No, no, no! The reason to do it "Straight"
is so that the audience can experience it in full force, and THEN
think about it. The more you and your cast think as you create,
the better it will be-- so long as your thinking doesn't muddle
things. Do a great comic beating scene-- and then, when the Master/star's
attention is elsewhere, let the audience see that the victim is
a person who was "really" hurt, and take note of the heartless
laughter they just enjoyed.
(b) Perhaps make all the parts androgonous and in so doing
make some comment about gender stereotypes.
This is a noble ambition. Do you have a year or so to think it
through and rehearse it till it isn't "some" comment, but a cogent
one?
(c) Play it differently. Put it in another time. Say today
in a western city somewhere.
I've seen this done. It works fairly well, and gets VERY interesting
if the servants are blacks and/or Latinos. But you'd need to be
absolutely convinced that this transposition was for the sake
of illunimating the Truth of the text, and not fudging it so that
it flatters modern biases. However, it makes the pairing with
Kiss Me Kate pretty pointless, no?
(d) Soften the way some of the things are done so that although
Katherina submits to Petruccio she loves him and he her and
if she does things he commands becasue of that respect and he
would probably do the same for her, if she commanded even though
he's just a lovable old sexist.
This is fine, IF you can do it without lying, fudging, trimming,
or parody. There's some truth in the old tale yet, love conquers
all.
(e) Go to work now on the text. Edit it. Soften the sexist
stuff.
Then write your own damn play! Do you really think "we" understand
the past better than it was understood by the genius of emotional
perception who lived in it? Or that you can express it better
than the supreme poet of our theatre?
Cut only what your people can't act, or can't make comprehensible
with a changed word or two.
(f) Strengthen the stuff about her being undisciplined and
out of her mind.
This is a great impulse! Strengthen everything, play up the internal
contradictions, but stick with the original plot's resolution.
With luck, your audience will believe for 15 minutes that they
have seen a happy ending, and think about it for years afterward.
Archives—Essays and Commentary
|
by 
