Video: "Much Ado About Nothing," Grassroots Shakespeare 2009

Video of a complete performance of our Grassroots Shakespeare Company touring production of Much Ado About Nothing is up on Facebook, if you'd like to check it out. Here are the links.
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
You have to be a Facebook friend of me or someone else in the cast to watch it, but, if you're reading this, you probably are. Enjoy!

"Adam and Eve" at the Provo Theater this Friday and Saturday

This is a bit late-notice, but my play "Adam and Eve" is being produced this weekend at the Provo Theater (105 E 100 N). It will be performed in conjunction with "Puzzle Pieces," a one-act play co-written by James Goldberg, Matthew Greene, Lyvia Martinez, and Zach Kempf. For $5, you get an Old Testament romantic comedy and a play about illegal immigration. What more could you want?

"Adam and Eve"
written & directed by Davey Morrison
Starring
Becca Ingram
and
Tyler Harris

Friday, November 6th
7:30PM
and Saturday, November 7th
2:00PM

Provo Theater
105 E 100 N
Provo, UT

Admission is $5

"Adam and Eve" was originally produced in July 2008 by New Play Project, and has also been produced at Payson High School. It will be published in an upcoming edition of Mormon Artist magazine. I'll be uploading a video of tomorrow's performance for those unable to attend.

"Cycle" - Staged reading of my first full-length play

"Cycle," by Davey Morrison - WDA Staged Reading

The first public staged-reading of my first (finished) full-length play, "Cycle"! You'll laugh, you'll cry, and you'll get to hear Satan sing--this will truly be an historic event, dawgs. It will make you happy like the man in this picture, or your money back (note: admission is free).

Thursday, October 22nd, 2009
5:00-7:00pm
BYU Nelke theater (2nd floor of the HFAC)
Admission is free.

After the reading we'll have a talkback session where you can tell us what you thought, what you liked, didn't like, what questions the play raised, etc., etc. I want your feedback like a koala wants eucalyptus.

A Fairy Tale

Once upon a time, in a far-off kingdom, there lived a prince, the son of a great king and queen. When he was born, the stars shone brighter, and when he let out his first cry, the birds stopped their singing to listen.

Now, it happened that on the day of his eighth birthday, the king and queen had a wonderful banquet for their son. All the citizens of the kingdom brought food—the sweetest fruits and biggest vegetables and meatiest of meats. The men harvested their grains and the women baked them into rich, enormous cakes. The table in the grand hall was so packed there wasn’t room for another peanut.

When the time came for the food to be served, the king announced, “For the young prince’s birthday, he will eat of the first dish.” Four men dressed in four long, flowing suits appeared, and put on the prince’s plate everything he asked for: cucumbers, chicken breasts, ripe, plump tomatoes, raspberry tart—and the king, queen, and citizens of the kingdom watched as the prince devoured it all. When he was done, the young prince wiped his mouth with his napkin and politely asked for more. Again, the four men in the four suits appeared, and again they filled the prince’s plate with all his requests—long orange carrots, mashed potatoes, cranberry sauce, pudding, apple pie, chocolate cake, radishes, turkey, bread, gravy. And once again, the king, the queen, and all the kingdom watched as the prince licked every morsel clean. The same thing happened again: a third time, a fourth time, a fifth time, and still the prince asked for more.

It was well into the second day of the feast when the king called the court physician. “What’s wrong with our boy?” he asked. The court physician listened to the prince’s heartbeat, checked his pulse, felt his forehead. He didn’t get a chance to look at the boy’s tongue, as he normally might have, because it was too busy slurping plate after plate of the most succulent dishes. “I can find nothing wrong with the boy,” said the physician, and he was dismissed.

The king and queen gave the citizens leave to go home to their empty tables, for each of them had brought all their food for the great banquet. Four more men in long, flowing suits were brought to replace the first shift. And still the young prince kept eating.

Years passed. The good king and queen grew very old. Every day they would wake up at dawn and go to the table in the grand hall, where their son, now a young man, was still eating. “You must find yourself a princess to marry,” they would say, “So that together you can rule our kingdom when we are gone.” But the young prince would never answer, for he was swallowing a cantaloupe.

Then after many more years, one morning came when the good king didn’t wake up. The queen came down at dawn, as she had every other day, and found her son, still eating, and still as small and as thin as ever, for although he had been eating every moment since his eighth birthday, even eating while he slept, he had not grown an inch—indeed, he had even shrunk just a bit.

“My son,” the queen cried to the young prince, but he did not respond, he only shoved a slice of fruitcake into his mouth. “My son, your father the king has died, and still you eat!”

Through tears, the queen made orders that throughout the kingdom a special fast would be observed in mourning of the good king’s passing. No one ate or drank anything for three days—no one, that is, except the young prince.

“My son,” the queen cried. “My son, your father the king is dead, and all the kingdom is fasting in his honor, but still you eat! You dishonor yourself, and your father, and this kingdom that is to be yours, if ever you should stop eating—but you do not!”

Then, for the first time in twenty years, struggling between bites and chews and swallows, the young prince spoke: “I’m just so hungry.”

“Hungry?” the queen responded. “But my son, you’ve been eating every moment of every day for the past twenty years. Many hunters have had to journey to far-off lands to find food for you, for you have swallowed our forests clean. Farmers from ten kingdoms have had their crops stripped bare trying to feed you. You have drunk two oceans, sixteen lakes, and four rivers, and you have made the unicorn, the griffin, and the dodo all extinct, but still you eat! How can you want more?”

“I don’t know,” said the young prince, tears streaming down his face and into his mouth, which had grown so tired from so many years of chewing. “Each day I eat more than the day before, and each day I wake up with an even greater hunger rumbling in my belly.”

The prince stayed at the table in the grand hall eating for many more years. The good queen remarried, and with her new husband she had a daughter, who grew to marry a prince and, when her mother was gone, they ruled as the new king and queen. The young prince, meanwhile, grew older, and hungrier, and then, one day, his jaw stopped moving. When four more men in long coats came the next morning, they realized he was dead.

Grandma & Grandpa Sonderegger's 60th Wedding Anniversary

A little montage I made for my grandparents' 60th wedding anniversary a couple years back.

"Blue, Blue Sky": 24-hour Theater Madness

I haven't been posting as frequently on here the last few months, due to the fact that the projects I've been working on have been longer-term and more time-consuming (i.e., full-length scripts, a wedding, etc.). Yesterday, however, I had the chance to participate in the BYU Experimental Theater Company's 24-Hour Theater Project. The way it worked was this: Five playwrights (including myself) gathered at 7:30pm Friday night. We were arbitrarily assigned five performers (actors and actresses auditioned to fill 25 slots earlier that week), and two randomly-created titles. We picked one title, used all five actors, and had until 7:30 the next morning to write a 10-minute play, which would be rehearsed until 7:30 that evening. 24 hours after the five playwrights showed up, five entirely original plays with five different directors premiered in the BYU Nelke theater. It was lots of fun to see the scripts and the productions--what worked brilliantly, what worked less-brilliantly--and see what crazy things a few people can do in the span of a single day. Here is my script:


“Blue, Blue Sky”
by Davey Morrison

(Two couples. GWEN and JIM sit together in silence, pantomiming the eating of dinner; JORDAN and GREG—JORDAN’s a girl— pantomime the washing dishes.)

GWEN
Did you forget to feed the dog?

JIM
You do that.

GWEN
What?

JIM
You always do that.

GWEN
Always do what?

JIM
Not, “did you feed the dog?”, “did you forget to feed the dog?” You’re always doing that.

GWEN
I’m sorry…

JIM
You immediately assume the worst about people. “Did you forget to run the dishwasher?” “Did you forget to take the cookies out of the oven?” That’s the problem with you. You have absolutely no faith in the inherent decency of the human spirit.

GWEN
Did you?

JIM
Did I what?

GWEN
Forget to feed the dog?

(Beat.)

JIM
Maybe.

JORDAN
Oh no.

GREG
What?

JORDAN
Oh no oh no oh no.

GREG
What’s wrong?

JORDAN
Oh no oh no oh no oh no oh NOOOOO!

JIM
Did you hear that?

GWEN
These walls are so thin.

GREG
Sh sh sh! Quit yelling, the neighbors will hear you.

JIM
(shouting through the walls)
We already heard her.

JORDAN
(shouting back)
Well we can hear you too!

JIM
Every idiotic little argument, every time he forgets to compliment you on your outfit, or he slices the cucumber too thin for you, we’ve got to hear about it.

JORDAN
Well we’re very sorry to disturb you, your highness.

GWEN
Jim.

JIM
This endless squabbling, it’s driving me mad.

GWEN
Jim.

JORDAN
Why don’t you just go feed the dog?

JIM
I beg your pardon?

JORDAN
Instead of all your armchair philosophizing psychotherapy bullcrap, why don’t you just get off your butt and go feed the dog?

JIM
(to GWEN)
I’m not talking to her anymore.

JORDAN
What?

JIM
(shouting)
I said I’m not talking to you anymore!

JORDAN
Well don’t you tell us how to run our marriage, it’s not like yours is exactly a walk in the park!

JIM
Mind your own business!
(Silence.)
We should really move.

GREG
Are you OK?
(No response.)
Jordan?

JORDAN
Hm?

GREG
I said are you OK?

JORDAN
Me?

GREG
Yeah.

JORDAN
I’m fine.

GREG
What was that all about?

JORDAN
What was what all about?

GREG
The screaming and everything.

JORDAN
What?

GREG
You were screaming and yelling, I was asking you why.

JORDAN
I was just talking to the Nelsons.

GREG
Before that.

JORDAN
I wasn’t screaming before that.

JIM
You were.

GWEN
Come on, Jim, just stay out of it.

JIM
Well she was.

JORDAN
Excuse me?

JIM
You were screaming. Two minutes ago. What, have you got the memory of a goldfish?

JORDAN
You want to come over here and say that to my face?

JIM
I’ll stay right here and say it to your face.

GREG
Can we turn on some music or something?

JORDAN
Ever since you asked me to Homecoming our sophomore year in high school and I said no because I knew D. J. Phillips was going to ask me instead. Ever since then.

JIM
Are you kidding? I asked you to be nice. I didn’t think anyone else would.

JORDAN
Head cheerleader, you didn’t think I could get a date?

JIM
You had the soul of an attorney.

GREG
Do we have to have this argument again?

JORDAN
What does that mean? What does that even mean, “the soul of an attorney”?

JIM
Never mind, it’s over your head, like so very many things.

JORDAN
It doesn’t make sense. You don’t make sense.

GWEN
She has a point, Jim.

JIM
What?

GWEN
I’m just saying, it wasn’t one of your best.

JIM
Terrific. Just terrific. Well, I know when I’m not wanted. Excuse me, I’m going for a walk.

GWEN
Oh come on, Jim, don’t be such a drama queen.

JIM
A drama queen? I, a drama queen?

JORDAN
Always projecting all of your own insecurities and insufficiencies on everyone else!

JIM
I am not a drama queen.

JORDAN
I mean, really, Gwen always sees the worst in people? Ha!

GWEN
Sorry, I’m sorry I said that, I’m just saying, I think you’re overreacting.

JORDAN
Take a look in the mirror!

JIM
(to JORDAN)
Hush for one moment, I’ll deal with you later!
(to GWEN)
Overreacting? I’m being bombarded on all sides, and going for a walk is an overreaction!?!

GWEN
I said I was sorry.

JIM
My own wife!

GREG
Let’s play pinochle.

JORDAN
You promised me you’d leave her!

JIM
(back at JORDAN)
For the last time, I never promised, I just said I would!

JORDAN
You promised me! You said, “I promise you, Jordan!”

JIM
What did you expect me to say? You think I was in love with you? Lust, darling. Pure, animal lust, nothing more.

JORDAN
You said you loved me for my mind.

JIM
If instead of “mind” I’d said “body,” that wouldn’t have been a joke.

JORDAN
You said you’d divorce Gwen and marry me!

JIM
I lied.

GREG
Are you feeling uncomfortable, Gwen?

GWEN
A little. You?

GREG
Yep.

JORDAN
You promised!

JIM
Shut up!

JORDAN
You did! You did!

JIM
Don’t make me call the landlord!

(Stunned silence. It lasts a long time. Really. A seriously, seriously long time.)

JORDAN
You wouldn’t.

JIM
I would.

(More silence.)

JORDAN
I don’t believe you.

JIM
You wanna try me?

GWEN
Jim.

GREG
Don’t do anything you’ll regret.

JIM
(calling)
SATAAAAAN!

(It’s too late. The deed is done. They all sit in anxious anticipation. Then, SATAN appears, in his PJs, yawning and scratching himself.)

SATAN
Yeah, what do you want?

JIM
She’s being mean to me.

JORDAN
He started it.

GWEN
(trying to explain)
It’s just these walls are so thin…

JIM
They were both gaining up on me, there was nothing I could do.

JORDAN
He said I had the soul of an attorney.

JIM
She does.

JORDAN
Do not.

JIM
Do too!

JORDAN
Do not!

(Pause.)

JIM
(quietly)
Do too.

(Pause.)

SATAN
OK, what do you want me to do about it?

JIM
I don’t know, fix it.

JORDAN
Make him apologize.

JIM
Me apologize?

JORDAN
He said he was divorcing his wife for me.

JIM
I never said that.

JORDAN
He did.

SATAN
Did you?

JIM
I don’t know, maybe I did.

SATAN
Well, kids. I don’t know what you want me to do. You got me out of bed. I was just watching a game and you got me out of bed and I don’t know what you want me to do. So I hope you’re happy.

GREG
Sorry…

SATAN
Not your fault, Greg.

JORDAN
Sorry…

SATAN
Jim?
(JIM doesn’t respond.)
Jim, are you going to say you’re sorry, or do you have to sit in the corner with a bag on your head?

JIM
She was the one yelling.

SATAN
Jim, I said, are you going to say you’re sorry...

GWEN
Just tell the woman you’re sorry, Jim.

JIM
Why? It’s not my fault she takes everything personally.

SATAN
Come on, Jim.
(Silence. JIM sits, arms folded, and shakes his head.)
Jim.
(He shakes his head more violently.)
One… Two…
(A tense silence.)
Two and a half… Two and three quarters… Two and seven eighths… This is the last one, Jim—

JIM
All right, I’m sorry!

(A relieved silence.)

SATAN
Good. You did the right thing, Jim. Now I want you all to go around in a circle and say one thing you appreciate about everyone else, and I’m going back upstairs. And if I find out they scored while I was gone, I’ll murder you.

GWEN
Good night, Satan.

GREG
‘Night, Satan.

SATAN
G’night, guys.

(SATAN exits.)

JIM
Sorry, everyone.

ALL
(in unison, as if chanting)
It’s all right, Jim.

JIM
I probably deserve to sit in a corner with a bag on my head.

GWEN
(robotically)
It’s OK. We love you.

GREG
(the same)
Don’t be so hard on yourself.

JIM
No, I really mean it.

JORDAN
(also zombie-like)
You are forgiven.

(Silence. They go back to dinner and dishwashing.)

GWEN
So are you going to feed the dog?

JORDAN
Oh no.

GREG
What is it?

JORDAN
Oh no oh no oh no.

JIM
(to GWEN)
Do you hear that?

GREG
What’s wrong?

JORDAN
OH NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO-OOOOOOO-OOOOOO!!!

(JORDAN screams this last “No” for as long and as loud as the actress can until she runs out of breath, and once she’s done the lights go out.

The End.)

A Poe movie

A former seminary teacher of mine recently asked me to help him out with a project for his Master's degree in education--he was putting together a 9th grade unit on Edgar Allan Poe short stories, and wanted to introduce it with a movie with an eerie vibe and an emphasis on different kinds of phobias. Here's the result. (The music is the best I could find at the time on Creative Commons--one of the few things that didn't sound like a 13 year old sitting in his parent's basement and looping stuff on a synthesizer for eight minutes. I would've preferred some dissonant classical something or other, but we can't have everything.)

Proust Questionnaire

What do you regard as the lowest depth of misery?
Loneliness. Mine or that of someone I love dearly and want more than anything to help but can't really do much.
Where would you like to live?
Some non-existent otherworld made up of New York City, Seattle, Provo, UT, and all the beautiful places in the world and all the places I've never been but would like to see, with my family and friends and those I love nearby.
What is your idea of earthly happiness?
Proust's answer will suffice for me: "To live in contact with those I love, with the beauties of nature, with a quantity of books and music, and to have, within easy distance, a French theater." I'd add to that: lots of time to write and watch and make movies.
To what faults do you feel most indulgent?
Sloth.
Who are your favorite heroes of fiction?
Damiel from Wings of Desire; George Bailey.
Who are your favorite characters in history?
Jesus Christ; all poets and visionaries.
Who are your favorite heroines in real life?
Again I'll go with Proust: "A woman of genius leading an ordinary life."
Who are your favorite heroines of fiction?
Anyone who might be played by Katharine Hepburn.
Your favorite painter?
Marc Chagall
Your favorite musician?
Van Morrison
The quality you most admire in a man?
Intelligence, compassion
The quality you most admire in a woman?
The same
Your favorite virtue?
Thirst for truth and beauty
Your favorite occupation?
Being a jack of all trades and master of none; but more than anything writing, acting, and teaching, and the greatest of these is writing.
Who would you have liked to be?
A genius.

"'Translated' Shakespeare" from The Bard Blog

I think this is an interesting issue with Shakespeare study and performance, and I really enjoyed the article as well as all the comments (and I enjoyed commenting myself).

“Translated” Shakespeare
from The Bard Blog

Over the last several years editions of Shakespeare’s plays such No Fear Shakespeare have become increasingly popular among everyone under the sun who picks up Shakespeare to read. People love the simplicity of being able to read a “translated” Shakespeare play. These have been created to combat Bardophobia. But are these convenient little volumes the solution to heal the masses of their inability to understand Shakespeare?

It seems like a little bit of a double-edged sword to me.

Translations into a different language always lose something, you can never say exactly what is meant in another language. One problem with “translating” Shakespeare’s text is that it isn’t another language, it’s still English! Any time you substitute words for other words the meaning is not going to be the same. Yes, the English isn’t modern and can be hard to understand but the language didn’t evolve to give a modern substitute for everything. When you change the words, the meaning is changed. Each word has a distinct meaning, sounds, feeling. Accept no substitutes.

Now I’m not saying that there is no merit in these books. I am saying that the translation is not a substitute for reading the play. The modern English is there as tool, not a crutch. When one ignore’s Shakespeare’s text in favor of the modern you aren’t reading Shakespeare. Often Shakespeare’s words have a double meaning. That doesn’t happen when the words are changed. Sometimes footnotes in other editions are more useful in this respect. In other places, the translation may not be the most accurate words to use in place of the text.

Again, the modern is to be used as a tool to help you understand what is being said when it is tough. In that respect these books can be a GREAT help. Some passages in Shakespeare just are too weird to comprehend right away and looking it up in one of these is a wonderful and painless way to get an “Aha! So THAT’S what that means” moment.

No Fear Shakespeare doesn’t solve the problem of getting people to understand Shakespeare and overcome a fear of it. If used alone it is only a cover for the effects, not the problem.

If you like these versions, great! If you teach using these books, awesome! There is nothing wrong with using them. But whatever you do don’t fall into the trap of taking the “easier path” of looking at only the modern text. Shakespeare’s text isn’t simple without some experience first, but if you take the time it is a much more rewarding experience. Try to read the play in its original form as much as possible and glance over to the translation when you need it. In general when you want a short passage in modern English, spend a little time and try to do it yourself. Look up some words, spend some time with it. When you put Shakespeare in your own words you will understand it better, you’ll connect to it more easily, you’ll enjoy it more. When you need a quick answer use the translation, but don’t cheat yourself. It’s a puzzle – and always more rewarding when you piece it together yourself.
Posted on February 24, 2008



11 comments

1.
Ian Thal Feb 24

The fact is that most modern editions, are “translated” anyway with modern spellings that often change the meter and the pronunciation from the texts as they were published in the early 17th century. I blogged about the experience of rehearsing directly from the First Folio and what that revealed about the poetry of the play.

Instead of treating Shakespeare as archaic English that needs translation, why don’t we treat it as being written in dialect? We don’t publish “translations” of novels and poetry that are written in dialect: Would anyone consider a No Fear Huckleberry Finn or No Fear Collected Poems of Langston Hughes?
2.
Gedaly Feb 24

Great points Ian! I smile in your general direction. The benefits of studying and rehearsing from the First Folio are numerous. I plan to make a full post about it sometime soon. In the post I mentioned looking to No Fear for help when needed. I would even go so far as to recommend to those with more experience to use the First Folio as a primary text and go to an edition with modern spellings for help when the words themselves are difficult to decipher.

I love your comparison to Huck Finn and treating it as a dialect piece, because it is! It’s early modern English. Elaborate poetry sometimes, yeah. But still a dialect understood in that time.
As I mentioned before, the No Fear series has its merits but I agree with you 100%.
3.
Jen Feb 26

As I’ve been developing my school’s script for “Shrew,” I have referred back to the First Folio to double check punctuation and a variety of other mechanical bits and pieces. In addition, I use the Arden series now for my working copies of his plays because of the extensive notes and glosses – so much wonderful information to help bring these great words “off the page and onto the stage!” :)
4.
john Mar 10

what does this mean.. hippolyta, i wooed thee with my sword and won thy love doing thee injuries, but i will wed thee in another key, with pomp..
5.
Gedaly Mar 10

John, I replied by email. I hope you get it, you might get 2. I was having problems with mail as I was responding….
6.
Jonah Aug 12

I see your point about not wanting to cloud the original wording and meaning of the ancient works, but I disagree.

Word meanings, in addition to many words themselves have changed a great deal since the time these volumes were written. This fact alone means that the meaning is already being obscured by our own knowledge of modern english; we are not the intended audience of these plays. 500 years have passed and with them, nuances of meaning, double meanings, and words themselves have fallen out of use or changed, and this is not the fault of the modern reader. As the language has changed, so have the meanings of the works written with archaic linguistics. Shakespeare was a brilliant writer, and we shouldn’t lose sight of that, but his work is no longer digestible by the modern masses, leaving us with the choice to either abandon them (not likely), translate them, or spend copius amounts of time learning the language before reading them.
7.
Gedaly Aug 12

How then do you explain the thousands of theatres worldwide still using Shakespeare’s text and the millions of audience members viewing them? While it’s true that no average audience member will understand everything, if the play is well done, they will understand no less than the basic plot.

The language has changed but not so much that it is entirely unintelligible. The stories, the words, and writing style are dramatically potent that I think that we are not limited to the choice of translating or abandoning the texts.
8.
Willshill Nov 12

Jonah wrote:”…but his work is no longer digestible by the modern masses, leaving us with the choice to either abandon them (not likely), translate them, or spend copius amounts of time learning the language before reading them.”
_____________________________________________________________________
By “translate” I believe you meant, into modern English. Why? The “translating” is already done–all that it takes is a glance across or down the page while reading any annotated edition; readily available to the masses.

Sure it takes a little longer to read Shakespeare–but “…copious amounts of time” ?

Spending copious amounts of time comes later–when you realize how much the little extra effort you spent, darting your eyes to find out what the hell ‘quietus’ means, has opened up an entire world of wit, philosophy, psychology, and insight into human nature quite like no other.

The Language and the way HE used it was The Way he created that World.
He IS the language and the Language Is HIM. Pull at the patchwork, the quilt unravels.
Any other type of ‘translating’ takes the tool of genius out of his hands and renders impotent the beauty and majesty of His Way of Communicating. It is his exact observance and his uncanny ability to record it that led him to the heights of his interpretive, dramatic, and Communication skills, enabling him to tell the story His Way. He needs no one to ‘explain’ him in Their Way.

Remove the language and you’ve buffed the facets off the diamond. Understanding His Wit with the language is necessary in order to really “get it’. We must go to the mountain. But the climb will be worth it. It’s the climb that transforms–the conversation (Communication) is much more interesting–and knowing– when we descend.

“Words, words, words.” They take a little Work, work, work.
9.
Willshill Nov 13

Ian Thal wrote:”…the experience of rehearsing directly from the First Folio and what that revealed about the poetry of the play.”
____________________________________________________________

I find it both interesting and refreshing that a Poet is less interested in the rules of Poesy,the ostensible justification for ‘emending’(a less offensive cryptic-ism for ‘correcting’)Shakespeare for hundreds of years, than in how Shakespeare brilliantly hammered against the bulwark of acceptability.

For me, there is no replacement for the Folio when it comes to interpreting and ‘translating’ his work, either in the literary or dramatic realm. Understanding Shakespeare as the gifted Musician he most certainly was can happen only when his ‘phrasing’ is accepted at face value in what we have as the closest approximations to the original ‘voicings’. It’s only then that it truly opens itself to interpretation, much the same as when Mahler, for instance, ‘interpreted’ Beethoven when conducting Ludwig’s symphonies. Color, imagery, phrasing, tempo, rhythm, mood, tone–all there to be discovered–and chosen, interpretively, and then appropriately measured and shaded by the ‘Player’. HERE is where the translating begins–and belongs.
10.
Davey Morrison Jul 8

I think to totally dismiss either approach is lamentable. The fact is, we don’t live in Elizabethan England, and what the audiences then got in an evening of theater requires today constant referrals to footnotes, which interrupts the dramatic flow, intellectualizes bits of humor that should make us laugh instead of merely acknowledging how they might be funny–not to mention, when you go to see a play, you don’t get footnotes (maybe a note from the director or dramaturg at best).

True, one can study the individual plays, reading them, re-reading them, reading the notes, learning about Shakespeare’s culture and his theater, and then attend an actual performance. But that’s not the way the plays were meant to be experienced. They were written to be experienced in live performance. Though some of us do, we can’t all devote this much time to Shakespeare studies–there are other things to learn about and experience in the world of the arts, and in the world of everything else.

On the other hand, as you say, the language is Shakespeare’s tool. Without the words, we’d have nothing, and much is lost–or, at least, altered–in translation.

But just as there are great writers, there are great translators. To say that one should never read or perform Shakespeare in translation is just the same as suggesting one should never see a movie with subtitles (ironically, both looked on as culturally “elite” activities). If one doesn’t read French, should one just ignore Edmond Rostand’s “Cyrano de Bergerac”–or be required to learn French in order to enjoy it? What about Anthony Burgess’ excellent translation? A translation is a different work of art than the original, but it can still succeed in capturing much of the spirit, wit, characters, ideas, and emotions of the original, without needing an extra volume in order to understand it–in this way, a translation of a Shakespeare play is far truer to the immediacy of Shakespeare, which was as much a part of his work as the language.

That said, there is also very much a place for the study and performance of the texts as we find them in the Folio(s). The non-scholars among us still follow the story of a good performance and pick up on a good deal of the humor, drama, and intricacies of character that Shakespeare gives us. A good actor aided by a good director can make the language much more accessible and understandable, even if most of us are apt to lose a lot (unlike reading Shakespeare, performance is instantaneous and fleeting–there’s no time to go back and re-read a line for comprehension). The “music” of the language–and it is very poetic and very musical–remains entirely intact, and so does the meaning, to the extent that it is not lost on those watching and listening; after all, you just couldn’t ever, ever in a million years improve on some of Shakespeare’s perfect phrasing–Benedick’s “There’s a double meaning in that” or Hamlet’s “Methinks it is like a weasel” wouldn’t be half so funny or so brilliant if you changed any one of those words in any way imaginable, as vaguely archaic as the grammar or choice of words may be.

So let’s keep up the First Folio study and performances, and let’s lose this elitist attitude that only the folios will suffice and get some genuinely brilliant Shakespeare translators out there–we deserve some modern Shakespeare translations the equivalent of Burgess’ “Cyrano,” Pevear and Volokhonsky’s translations of Dostoevsky, or Gregory Rabassa’s Garcia Marquez. Only when we have all these different ways of accessing and understanding Shakespeare’s genius will we approach truly “original practices.”
11.
Davey Morrison Jul 8

Also check out http://www.globalclashes.com/2009/05/finding-shakespeare-in-translation.html