catapult magazine

I’ll be there in a week and a half. What should I see? And where’s your bookstore? I’ll visit!

J

Fewer and fewer people getting it? Ya’ll got to come on up to Chicago and see something that Chicago Shakespeare company does — anything really. They are presenting Shakespeare in a way that is relevant, and faithful. Good stuff. I’ve seen some bad, mostly verbal Shakespeare and I know that nothing is worse — but when it is done the way it should be, I doubt anything is better.

To paraphrase Artaud: If the public isn’t responding to Oedipus Rex, maybe it’s the fault of Oedipus Rex and not the public.

I think he’s right. People only respond to something that moves them — something that excites them and strikes them as good, true, interesting. The public has absolutely no obligation to respond to something they don’t feel like responding to, or enjoy anything they don’t enjoy. The producers of the play that flops (sometimes) say, “The philistines! They wouldn’t know good art if it bit them in the butt! Doesn’t anyone appreciate Shakespeare anymore?”

And I think that’s just bullshit. It breeds mediocrity and leads to artistic elitism and nothing’s deadlier than that. Art becomes ghetto — artists working to look good in the eyes of other more powerful artists. THAT’S what is going to kill real artistic experience in society. And what’s going to save it is not “art appreciation” courses in school, whatever that means — forcing kids to like something. It’s artists producing something that will please, delight, and interest.

Is Shakespeare outdated? Absolutely not. I think Shakespeare is the best playwright that ever existed. He continues to and should continue to be our model as artists. It’s just that very few people get him right. Some do, and like you say BBC, it’s an amazing thing when it happens. And we need more. Shakespeare is great but he can’t cover the whole of our experience. There’s lots of good art out there and there should be even more.

I agree with what you are saying Jason. Somewhat. This brings up one of the most fundamental questions. How important is the insight of the playwright (author, artist, whatever) as opposed to the viewer/critic? Is not the audience responsible in some ways as well. Must art cater to a lazy general public? I agree that art is way too often elitist, but does this elitest art not sometimes…sometimes…challenge the audience to deeper understanding and a higher view of aesthetic normalcy? The problem is not totally that of the artist.
I met and chatted with Bill Romanowski (how’s that for name dropping) a couple weeks ago. Yesterday he sent me a copy of his Eyes Wide Open. In it he speaks of contemporary culture not playing an active enough role in what they view. They are simple consumers and never reach the point of critics and creators (especially, unfortunately, Christians).
How do we balance this with Artaud’s concept?
I’ve got to read the Theatre and its Double again.

Those are rough issues. Its too bad directors don’t let their imagination be freed by Artaud.

Last summer I saw Peter Brook’s Hamlet and the Blue Man group.

Taking in Hamlet was hard work for me. Though the actual experience was a bit of a chore, afterwards I walked out of the theater with a richer sense of existence and a renewed sense of wonder at the world.

Taking in the Blue Man group was the easiest thing in the world. I was fully engaged in it the entire time. Afterwards I felt a bit let down though. It was as if the experience was some ‘apex’ of life. The walk home seemed a bit too normal.

Is there such a thing as good aesthetic escape?

This is so fun and exciting to talk about and I’ll certainly add more when I am able. I have to go to Canada for a while, again, so my web access will be limited. I’ll try to connect though. BYE for now…

It is true, though, isn’t it, that the works that engage one the most deeply require the most of one. I don’t care if that work were written today or in the 1600s — if I am going to get a lot out of it, I have to put forth some emotional effort. I love Pirindello’s Enrico IV. But it is an exhausting experience for the audience (and the actors). Blue Man Group is fun and though provoking, but I don’t think it engages me much on an emotional level. I leave it feeling good about myself because I am clever enough to figure it out. The best stuff, though, grabs me and shakes me. Blue Man Group just kind of chucks me on the shoulder.

I’ll second BBC’s plug for Chicago Shakespeare. My wife and I have been season ticket holders there for nearly a decade. We keep our tickets for one simple reason—the work is amazing. Here is the very best playwright presented by some of Chicago’s best actors and directors. I see people from age eight to eighty there, and they are all “getting it,” enjoying it, and being pushed to see the full range of what it means to be human. There is nothing better than Shakespeare performed well. I will be the first to agree with those who dislike the Olivier / pretentious rhetoric approach to Shakespeare. That is bull shit. But when good actors and directors play Shakespeare’s work in a visceral, blood-sweat-and-tears fashion, nothing is finer. (My wife and I joke that Shakespeare isn’t really Shakespeare until we see some spit flying on the stage.) We see humanity’s best and worst, and we leave the theater refreshed.

In response to Norb,

Sure, the audience is responsible as well as the artist. Art should never cater to a lazy public. But I do think art should always give people what they want.

Now.

People don’t want monster trucks or Hummel figurines. They might think they do, and it may seem like they do, but I don’t think they really do. People want real, deep, meaningful experience.

Artaud says, “The public has a sense of the true…and will respond to it when it is manifested.” As an artist, I’d rather hold myself up to a higher standard of art by believing what Artaud says than keep making art that is out of tune with the public and keep blaming them for not responding.

I guess I’m saying: So contemporary culture doesn’t play an active enough role in what they view? I believe that. But what are we gonna do about it? Say, “Hey, you…public! Start taking an active role in what you view!”? Or are we going to start making some art that enriches experience…that speaks the truth…that people CAN and WILL respond to?

I whole-heartedly argee. Shakespeare is great.

I just can’t wait till I get to to to see THE TEMPEST at Chicago Shakespeare Theater.

Oh wait, I get to go tomorrow!

(pardon my exuberance)

If you had plopped me in a theatre seat to watch Shakespeare before I went through English classes which involved his plays, I would have had a fairly difficult time understanding what people were saying. This would not have meant, however, that if done correctly I wouldn’t have understood Shakespeare.

Wasn’t Shakespeare’s original audience the so-called “uncivilized society”? The only hinderence I see in people not “getting it” is the language. After reading Shakespeare in English classes and acting in plays some of his plays I don’t entirely “get” every word said but I certainly seem to understand what’s going on in the play enough to enjoy it immensely! I’m not the most intellectual person in the world so I don’t see how, with a smidgen of effort more people can’t understand Shakespeare.

I recently saw a play at the aforementioned Chicago Shakespeare(what a coincidence ;-P) and had a blast!
Heaven forbid the banning of Shakespeare!