ulkis ([info]ulkis) wrote in [info]melancholydanes,
@ 2008-04-29 00:12:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current music:"The Promised End"

Slings and Arrows and Actors
If I don't write this meta down, it'll keep rolling around in my brain, so here goes:

I came to "Slings and Arrows" as a theater lover, but not as a huge Shakespeare enthusiast. Not that I didn't like Shakespeare, only that I hadn't read many of his plays, and I was eager to learn more through the show. I just hoped that it wouldn't go over my head, or that it wouldn't dismiss me as someone whose first theater love wasn't Shakespeare.



Season 1:

The most obvious example of this is Jack. Jack is the pretty boy actor who everyone expects nothing of, and lives down to their expectations at first. But as soon as Jack gets over his nervousness and intimidation, he soon gets the hang of it.

Claire is also in Jack's situation. Expect she can't act, doesn't care to find out about more about the play and doesn't seem to have what it takes even if she was interested putting forth a real effort. She seems to realize this towards the end of the season, when we see her crying watching Kate on stage, but who knows? Maybe her ankle just really hurts. *g*

Season 2:

Henry Breedlove in introduced as THE actor to go to if you want someone to play Macbeth, but we soon find out he's kind of an ass. That, however doesn't change the fact that he's talented, even if he has turned into a lazy, boring hack. (This reflects Ellen back in season 1 - Claire complains that Ellen is always harping about something, but Kate points out that Ellen is right about her position on stage. Being a diva doesn't mean you don't have a talent to go with that ego.)

Then there's Jeremy, a very nice guy. Not an untalented actor. It would be nice to see Henry tossed out on his butt and see Jerry triumph and have Henry come crawling back. But unfortunately, Henry is still better, and he knows it and Henry knows it and Geoffrey knows it, which is how you know Geoffrey really loves the play, because he asks Henry to come back. One of Geoffrey's finest moments, I think. but I digress.

Season 3:

Here we have Charles, who Geoffrey thinks is so fantastic that he's willing to risk everything, all so that Charles can play Lear. It's understandable, but Charles is a horrific, mean, bully. The cast pretty much hates him but none of them say he's not right for Lear. Sophie, Ellen, and Barbara and the rest of the cast are great actors, but to Charles, they're not as good as he is. Like Geoffrey says, they don't have the experience Charles has with the play. He needs to let them catch up with him.

Then we have Megan and Ellen, who are in musicals and sci-fi shows respectively.* Like Jack, they are a bit looked down upon for their acting backgrounds, but Barbara acquits herself nicely in the end, even if she did piss Geoffrey off and had some unusual readings of the text. (But, as [info]calikali points out here, the show privileges Shakespeare above everything else. Not that that's to be unexpected on a show about a Shakespearean festival, but who knows if Barbara's show isn't awesome? I like how the show says any actor can play Shakespeare whatever their experience, but there's a sense sometimes that the actors can be in the festival despite being in sci-fi or action movies or musicals*, instead of just coming equal, if different, spheres of acting.)

Then there's Megan. Is she untalented? We don't see her acting much, as we only really see Paul, Sophie and Richard comment on her, and they're not unbiased. East Hastings is a ridiculous play, but that doesn't mean the actors in it are ridiculous as well. Also, the other question that doesn't really get answered is, "can a talented actor be stupid?" I tend to think no, but I think I'm a bit biased. :) I really don't think, however, that you can do Shakespeare without knowing what the hell you're talking about.

So in conclusion, I like the way that Slings and Arrows says that the most important qualification for playing Shakespeare is the acting, whatever the actor's temperament or experience.

So, I hope whoever made it through this enjoyed it, and questions and comments are always welcome.

*I mean come on, who doesn't think Mamma Mia is a great work of art?! No? Maybe? :) Also, true confession: I would absolutely buy the soundtrack to East Hastings.




(Post a new comment)


[info]wiliqueen
2008-04-29 03:31 pm UTC (link)
As an actor who's done a whacking great pile of Shakespeare, and who is also an unashamedly enthusiastic fan of both SF and musicals (and specifically of the acting work many, many people do therein), I have to admit I had some issues with season 3. I really had to remind myself that they were taking it to the level of farce for a reason, and that they had done the exact same thing with everything else about how New Burbage operates and it wasn't necessarily a blanket statement about either type of work.

It's notable to realize that, as ridiculous as they made both genres look, there actually is a case to be made for their being presented as fulfilling (or at least potentially fulfiling) for the actor.

Megan's experience is the clearest example -- even though she's technically a member of the party-animal group that seduces Richard to his ruin, her priorities aren't with that. She hangs out with them because that's the world she's worked all these years to be a part of, and the way these people behave comes along with it, but she prioritizes the work every bit as idealistically as any of the Young Company snobs who waste their energy mocking her. She's living for the truth in the work she's doing, and there's no mistaking the message that East Hastings succeeds for that reason. (This is probably where it's wise to disclose that I was a dancer first, which biases me a little more in favor of that view, but I do think it's there in the show.)

Barbara is a more problematic example. We don't really know if she's happy with the work on her SF series or just happy (or feigning happiness) Being A Star. Then there's Ellen's SF adventure, which is, to nobody's surprise, her personal hell. But as ridiculously as it's presented, there's a kernel in there of a notion that it doesn't have to be. Well, maybe for Ellen it does, because she's the last person on the planet I would expect to do the self-motivated homework necessary to work effectively in the rehearsal-less environment typical of series television (especially Canadian genre television)! But as painful and ridiculous as the scene is, it's not the fault of the text she's performing. It should actually be a helluva stirring speech in a highly dramatic moment, one that may very well follow on the deaths of characters the show's fans care passionately about. You can't tell because (a) Ellen is unable to connect to it without the directorial handholding she's just not going to get in that environment, and (b) it's being overwhelmed by the tech. And (b)? Is the exact same problem we saw with Lear and the storm machine. It's the fault of execution, not of the material.

I'm...not sure I'm going anywhere in particular with this, actually. I'm definitely with you on the "any actor can do Shakespeare" message, and would expand it into a concept that doing Shakespeare unlocks things you can take to other work (probably clearest with Jack). Your post just sparked all thes e other side thoughts. :-)

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]ulkis
2008-04-29 03:50 pm UTC (link)
Your post just sparked all thes e other side thoughts. :-)

I'm just glad someone got through it. :)

I agree with you about Megan. I always felt that Paul and Sophie treated her unfairly, although obviously Sophie's jealousy played a big part. In fact now that I think about it, you can compare a little bit the way Charles treats Sophie to the way Sophie treats Charles.

Barbara is a more problematic example. We don't really know if she's happy with the work on her SF series or just happy (or feigning happiness) Being A Star.

Barbara, I think, is unhappy she's not a bigger star. I get the impression she was probably happy with the show at first, and then it probably got worse and she got typecast and she's stuck in the middle ground where she's got money and fame, but not enough to make up for the crappy series and parts she gets now. (I was never sure whether she was just doing Lear in between seasons or she was off the show completely.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]wiliqueen
2008-04-29 05:55 pm UTC (link)
In fact now that I think about it, you can compare a little bit the way Charles treats Sophie to the way Sophie treats [Megan].

Ooooh! Excellent point, and it makes a LOT of sense. I need to rewatch season 3 now. I've actually only seen it once.

(I was never sure whether she was just doing Lear in between seasons or she was off the show completely.)

My impression was that it was during hiatus. Of course, that came from Barbara giving off this sense of "Oh, it's fun to come back for a little visit and do you all a favor before I go back to my REAL career." At least to my perception. And given that Barbara gave off an awful lot of things that didn't necessarily align perfectly with reality...well, yeah. :-)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]ulkis
2008-04-29 06:03 pm UTC (link)
Ooooh! Excellent point, and it makes a LOT of sense. I need to rewatch season 3 now. I've actually only seen it once.

Be careful - this is how I ended up writing this whole thing - thought I'd watch one episode and ended up watching all of the first and third seasons. :)

My impression was that it was during hiatus.

Yeah, that's a good point. I think at times Barbara may have wanted Ellen to get into TV because she was in a "misery loves company" mode. Not that I think that was her whole motivation re: Ellen, but definitely a part of it.

And given that Barbara gave off an awful lot of things that didn't necessarily align perfectly with reality...well, yeah. :-)

I actually can see why Barbara acted why she did - we know that Charles has cancer, but all she sees is some mean guy who keeps throwing around nasty jokes and ruining the entire production for everyone else. But that's what I love about the show - no one is ever 100 percent in the wrong.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]wiliqueen
2008-04-29 06:47 pm UTC (link)
thought I'd watch one episode and ended up watching all of the first and third seasons. :)

Oh, I know I'm not capable of not devouring it whole! I actually want to watch all three again, but I'll concentrate on third for the purposes of what we're talking about here.

I think at times Barbara may have wanted Ellen to get into TV because she was in a "misery loves company" mode. Not that I think that was her whole motivation re: Ellen, but definitely a part of it.

Yeah. I'm fond of saying nobody ever does anything for just one reason. (Anyone who's seen much of my meta in any fandom is probably sick of it by now!) And I think maybe she starts out really not recognizing that she is miserable. There probably is some element of "She's my friend, and she deserves to be a star and make piles of cash and not have hyperventilating nightmares about back taxes."

But if she's given it even the tiniest sliver of practical thought, she can't possibly actually believe Ellen is equipped to function effectively in TV. Every time it comes up, I'm sitting there thinking "Y HALO THAR Joan Bennett on Dark Shadows!" It's such a recipe for disaster from the get-go. So there has to be some element of

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

erm...didn't mean to click Post yet...
[info]wiliqueen
2008-04-29 06:53 pm UTC (link)
wanting Ellen to be as miserable as she is -- or even wanting to have someone she can look at and say "At least I'm not that miserable," because the medium is such an infinitely worse fit for Ellen's personality and work habits -- simply because Barbara is not a stupid person.

And because she's not stupid, she's capable of some pretty darn impressive self-delusion. Not even so much her attitude about Charles -- nobody but Geoffrey knows about Charles, and the clusterf$*& of everyone coming to their own conclusions about what's wrong with him is a direct consequence of that. Barbara's no more culpable in that than anyone else (even if she didn't have to take quite such glee in seeing him knocked down a peg).

I was thinking more of her whole air of "I've got it all, and I want to share it with my good good friends from New Burbage!", and what a house of cards it really is. I start out being annoyed by her, and end up just pitying her tremendously, because she can't see how she let herself get trapped into the whole "my life and the work I'm doing are complete crap, but I can't let anyone know" rut by her own attitude.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]mannoftalent
2008-04-29 07:04 pm UTC (link)
I'll throw my two cents about East Hastings into the mix. The irony is that there is probably a good musical there. The problem is that it's been so buried under Darren Nichols over-the-top direction that an earnest song comes off as seeming silly.

Also, I am more and more convinced that Darren Nichols is a stand-by for Des MacAnuff.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]wiliqueen
2008-04-29 07:17 pm UTC (link)
*nodnodnodnodnod* Which is pretty much the same thing going on with Ellen's ill-fated TV adventure.

Except that Megan, in her naïvete, manages to shine through the clutter in a way that is out of Ellen's reach.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]mannoftalent
2008-04-29 07:36 pm UTC (link)
One could also argue that Megan's training and approach to acting is indicative of conservatory training which puts the emphasis on voice, dance, etc. over liberal arts education.

It's not a method of training that I think is ideal, but a lot of excellent musical theatre and TV actors have come out of these programs.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]wiliqueen
2008-04-29 07:44 pm UTC (link)
True. It's also interesting that a lot of people seem to come away with same message Sophie did, that Smitten Boy (blanking on his name) gets over being interested in Megan because he figures out that she's not intelligent enough.

And, um, no. Their conversation demonstrates that she doesn't have the same education, period. And that she'll probably never have the same level of interest in the things that drive him. But that does run both ways, and I was sad to see him lose hold of being the only one of the YC group who recognized that.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]ulkis
2008-04-29 07:55 pm UTC (link)
that Smitten Boy (blanking on his name) gets over being interested in Megan because he figures out that she's not intelligent enough

Paul, who I only really noticed because Sophie noticed him.

I never got that impression - after all, he really becomes enamoured only when he sees Sophie playing Cordelia in the production. Sophie had better avoid taking him to any plays, musicals, or concerts, because he's likely to fall for the next girl who gives a good performance. (I don't hate Paul. He just seems a tad fickle. *g*)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]wiliqueen
2008-04-29 07:57 pm UTC (link)
Too, too true. Which makes him all too close to home for many theatre people! The only thing more common would be continually falling for his own onstage paramours...

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]ulkis
2008-04-29 07:51 pm UTC (link)
The problem is that it's been so buried under Darren Nichols over-the-top direction that an earnest song comes off as seeming silly.

That's true. Oh Darren!

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]mmebahorel
2008-04-30 12:47 am UTC (link)
I admit, I did wonder if Don Shipley fell off a stage :) But seriously, based on a friend who has worked under Des, Darren is far more interesting. Des managed to make Dracula boring; Darren would have come up with the cracktasticness that was the staging for Lestat instead, just to talk vampire musicals for a second. (I've only seen two of Des' productions - Dracula and Jersey Boys - and neither has anything in common with Darren's sensibilities.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]mannoftalent
2008-04-30 01:02 am UTC (link)
I had enormous respect for MacAnuff's work on Tommy. I later saw Dracula (Stephen Henderson is a former professor of mine) and kept thinking- "Why do they have poor Tom Hewitt Stuck in a fly harness all the time.

That felt very Darren.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]mmebahorel
2008-04-30 02:12 am UTC (link)
I knew the stunt double (Tom Hewitt was not in a fly harness most of the time - he didn't do any of the weird climbing) and Quincey Morris.

I just think Darren would have given me something more interesting than Melissa Errico's (admittedly very nice) boobies. Kelli O'Hara looked so relieved when I mentioned to her I was looking forward to A Light in the Piazza. But the direction was different rubbish than Darren rubbish, at least from what Bart was telling me. Not that Hampton had put together much of a book on this one, since the blame must be shared around, but Des was trying to be so serious with it, while I picture Darren, being given this book and music, would have been over the top. The only good directorial choice was having Dracula bite Jonathan; even the flying was a dull choice for Dracula. And he was so serious, so earnest in the dullness. He was trying for a very literal interpretation of the novel, which is where the whole piece failed (and because it eviscerated the boys - since when is Arthur's key quality that he is boring?). It was so very literal in following the steps of the plot that it lacked the momentum necessary in a visual medium. And that is McAnuff's fault. There didn't seem to be any overarching theory behind it, just a block on character development.

Jersey Boys is really fab work, though - character, trajectory, use of space, and I don't think its cohesion could have come from Darren. But that's probably because we've never really seen Darren alone do anything good, since R&J we never really saw the results of his eventual change of heart and East Hastings had Richard and the creator pushing at him to get their way. (also perhaps because I don't see Darren using the Ed Sullivan footage - the pop art on the screens, absolutely, but the Ed Sullivan footage would be too naturalistic to combine with that particular artistic vision. Darren's such a one-trick pony for each show and can't admit that it's possible to use multiple ideas to effect.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]amilyn
2008-04-30 01:08 am UTC (link)
Actually, I think that Darren was written by someone who's been spying on my school's crazy theatre lady...

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]c_canadensis
2008-05-03 07:02 pm UTC (link)
I kept thinking of that comparison when reading the press coverage of the recent events at Stratford, but I don't know any of the people, so I thought it might be half in my imagination. It's a little worrying (for the future of the festival) that people who know more about this world seem to agree!

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Hello DrJohn Hello
(Anonymous)
2008-05-13 06:58 pm UTC (link)
Hello my friends :)
;)

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…