Journal 22: Interaction
From what I have learned of traditional Shakespearean theatre, I can't imagine The Comedy of Errors as anything but presentational. I picture in my mind the standing crowds of peasants watching the show catching the winks and asides from the actors. To really make sense of the play, the characters must be well defined as well, not by name alone, but by appearance. This is difficult to do unless using bright contrasting colors and different voices. Does that make sense? I guess I just can't picture the scenes with the sarcastic servants as becoming "life like." Events like these don't happen in real life. That alone separates it from reality, making it a play. Not to mention the sheer amount of comedy that Shakespeare packs into this. I just think everyone would have more fun when the audience is involved and spoken to. There could be parts, like the first scene or the scenes with just Adriana and Luciana, that were presentational. Some of the sections don't have a lot of asides and would work better when looked at as set apart. But overall, I would direct it as mostly presentational and just have fun with it. It is a comedy, after all.
Rockin' response
I completely agree.
I feel that with a play such as Comedy of Errors, it is going to have both theater styles incorporated into the performance, but overall be presentational. I see comedy as almost strictly presentational. Why are people performing in a humorous manner? Usually to get reactions from others. Especially with a play. The lack of order and reason in this play is what makes it humorous, and involving the audience in that will make it more enjoyable. After all, entertainment can essentially be considered as an escape from reality. The separation from reality, like you said, is what makes it. Anyways--I'm just being lame and repeating myself and everything you just said. So to save you from losing seconds of your life you won't get back, I'll just say your response rocked.
Jennie
I disagree, and think that
I disagree, and think that the play should be representational. Maybe it's just my personality, but acting is supposed to be becoming the character; a villian wouldn't invite hisses and boos, a villian would be evil! The audience should observe, not interact with the actors.
Although Shakespeare's time was much more dramatic than ours, so perhaps that's how he wrote it and my modern philosophy is contrasting that.
-Hilary
Melodramatic
In melodramas, the point is that each character is exaggerated. The villain is still evil, but he knows he's evil and he knows the audience knows that. So he does invite the hissing and the booing. I've been the lights director for a local annual melodrama production and the auidience really gets into it. Sometimes even having someone come sit on their lap. So this play, in my mind, is like Shakespeare's version of a melodrama but with less evil, just lots of humor.
Renee Ward
playing it straight
I think what Hillary advocates is playing it straight, not milking the audience. Rather than one being right or wrong, it's more a matter of what does a producer/director of the play want to provide the audience, what sort of experience should the theater be? By going representational, a much different experience is provider for the audience as opposed to what they would experience with a presentation production. Bradley
Bradley
I Disagree With Your Disagreement
I understand that you think all plays should be representational, but I think that's not always a good thing. Plays are a form of entertainment. Having even the comedies be performed like it's suppossed to be representational would take away from it. Comedies should have as much interaction with the audience as possible. It just makes the experience more enjoyable to feel like you are part of their performance.
*Tina
I sorta disagree/agree with both of you...
I think that this play could be either. It could still retain it's comical elements without having to interact with the audience. I can also see how interacting with the audience could bring a new element to the performance. From my understanding of these two styles, I think that you could do most plays as either. It just depends on what the people performing this want it to be.
Shakespeare's style
I completely agree with your point that Shakespeare probably directed this in a heavily presentational style. I think presentational acting is a lot of fun, and it involves the audience more. when that rapport between audience and hero is established, the audience roots for them more enthusiastically. I think of melodramas when I think of presentational acting. A villain walks on stage and waves his hand for the crowd to Boo and Hiss at him. A heroine looks to the audience as she pleads for help. This kind of audience/actor relation is fun, and I think Shakespeare would have utilized that.
Erin Kay Schulz