The TEXT is the thing ...

Describing my “readings” of the RSC’s “Macbeth” – and the National Theatre’s production in comparison – made me aware even more than usual of what my focus is and how this influences what I value and like. That it has always been on reading as a TEXT PRODUCTION process. And there are two major premises that emerged clearer as I was writing about this. First, that THERE IS NO TEXT before somebody begins to read it and, second, that it is MY OWN TEXT I am reading.

The first premise is closely related to the concept of UPDATING which I have exploited and will go on exploiting, I suppose, in my following posts. And, as I discovered just now, it is the reason why I value the RSC’s productions so much, even in comparison with such totally enjoyable productions as the Globe’s, and sometimes even if they are not good, like “The Merchant of Venice”. I would even concede that I understand it if people feel that the RSC’s “Macbeth” wasn’t good, as there was so much I didn’t like myself, but I was taken with the text production process. In each of their productions I have seen so far there was this consciousness not just of being allowed to do something DIFFERENT with the text, but of seeing it as their duty, or even reason to exist. Of course I am being naïve, and all cultural enterprises end up producing independent content that seems to become more important, like box office, merchandise (I have now a “Macbeth” plastic bottle of sparkling water with “The earth has bubbles as the water has …” on it!!! Among other things …), and all kinds of categories for people to be (or feel) important. All this might be seen as the “end-product” of making theatre, and, if I was closer or had unlimited funds at my disposal, I would be there all the time, sit in the Café overlooking the Avon drinking “Macbeth” sparkling water and eating their great vegan soup and tasty cake … and, of course, see all their productions in their beautiful theatre. But even though this would be lovely, and I might see more great actors in the “Dirty Duck”, it is not my objective. As it is, I am very happy with their DVDs. And I uphold that it isn’t “their” objective either – to exploit “Shakespeare” to get money and careers out of it, but that all this EXISTS because there is a genuine demand for “Shakespeare” being updated.

What I found so interesting comparing Rory Kinnear’s and Christopher Eccleston’s “Macbeth” was the relationship both actors had with their text. Of course, Rory Kinnear “had” the text, he knew every tiny little word of it and had everything exactly right, as far as I can tell. In this case, knowing the text myself, I can vouch for it. And Michael Billington from the “Guardian” was certainly right to call him a “great Shakespearean” because he has played a lot of Shakespeare, and he obviously loves it and knows it intimately. But what “came out” when he played it was JUST THE TEXT. Some time into the production I began to anticipate what would come next – and I was always right. I remember that I observed something similar on behalf of Kenneth Branagh’s Iago (in the film with Lawrence Fishburne) – who certainly is a “great Shakespearean” as well (and probably a better actor than Rory Kinnear, as I saw at least SOME enjoyable acting by him, for example in “Harry Potter”). I was moved because he was so conscious of the text being beautiful – as I was myself. But then NOTHING HAPPENED, no Iago materialized out of the text, whereas Lucian Msamati’s Iago in the RSC’s production was breathtaking. There was something happening with him - or to him - almost every second.

Christopher Eccleston definitely struggled with his text. In principle, there is no excuse for this because, if it is so obvious, it breaks the concentration of the audience and damages the production. Of course he might have had a bad day, as everybody is allowed to have occasionally. (I’ll probably make up my mind about this when I have the DVD …?) But I consciously looked away from it because, as I have already written, I loved the relationship he had with the text. I am sure Shakespeare loved his text because it is beautiful, as did Rory Kinnear … and Kenneth Branagh, and I, and lots and lots of people (including Christopher Eccleston!). But he didn’t WRITE it to be worshipped. This misconception occurs because “we” have “canonized” the text – see it as something absolute that must not be tampered with. (I already referred to what, in my opinion, cannot be sacrificed. Cutting ruthlessly into verses and –as they did abundantly in the National Theatre’s production! – actually rectifying sentences to fit contemporary grammar! Guys …???!!! There are obvious aesthetical reasons for not doing this, but the main thing is that it STOPS THE TEXT WORKING.)

When the actor has too much respect for the text, nothing will happen. They have to DARE and make it THEIR OWN. If Rory Kinnear’s relationship with the text was reverent, Christopher Eccleston’s was libidinous – and, from what I have already written on the subject of text relationships, it is obvious why I totally enjoyed this. It is a very enjoyable and intimate part of text production, and it made me even more aware of HOW LITTLE of the text IS ALREADY THERE before it is played. It doesn’t MEAN anything yet. It is the actor who gives meaning to the text by “synchronizing” it with his thoughts and emotions and “aesthetical parts”. And if there is this DIFFERENT PERSON “with them” on the stage FROM THE START it becomes a great deal more complex …

Here is the place for me to apologize big time because – to my infinite regret! – I will write something about METHOD ACTING. Of course I CAN’T write anything about method acting as I have no clue what it is. And - more apologies! - I didn’t even look it up in order not to get more confused. It IS totally confusing because, though there appear to be ONLY method actors nowadays, everything they would ever say about it is either a joke or some kind of apology. And the term as such is confusing because method acting seems to imply that there is NO METHOD – or at least no definite technique for doing it. Which shows, of course, how naïve I am because there are certainly lots and lots of techniques and things you CAN learn which method actors use as well. As most people, I was in awe of actors who can cry “just like that” – until I observed, pretty recently!, that they are all doing it in the same way, with unmoved faces and ONE tear coming out of one eye … NOBODY would ever cry like that! And since I noticed this I have more respect for actors who won’t cry. But there are certainly lots and lots of these techniques which I can’t see, and even on behalf of my favourite method actors I tend to notice things like this because I see them so often. I remember how I always thought, watching Richard Armitage: “No, don’t do the blinking again!” (Now he doesn’t do it anymore, but, like the crying, it is quite efficient to show confusion or doubt, and, I guess, people usually don’t notice that it is “put on”.)

Nonetheless, there certainly IS a difference - or “line” - which we can see and evaluate, and a reason why method acting turned into an “evolutionary benefit”. Being (mostly) a method actor might be a bit like being a goalkeeper at football. When I was still watching the football I was fascinated by goalkeepers because - unlike with other footballers - I couldn’t see how they were doing it. I suppose the secret lies in the preparation. You just enter the playground being 120 percent prepared – EVERY TIME! So, when I see Christopher Eccleston enter the stage AS Macbeth, it is not when HIS work begins. To watch him at – to be gracious? – 80 percent already WAS special, but when I remember Richard Armitage at 130 percent in “The Crucible” I still think that it was a good thing that it was only in the cinema … (This was certainly my top “method” experience, and most of what I have learned about method acting was from what he IMPLIED in his interviews on “The Crucible” and his great commentaries on “Hannibal”.)

On the other hand, having watched all these great DVDs by the RSC and the Globe theatre, I have gathered a lot of experience with reading “Shakespeare acting” and must concede that (pure) method acting might not be the “method” of choice. The difference is most obvious when I compare this production with the Globe’s where there (mostly) is NO METHOD ACTING, just kind of “running with the text”, and a lot of actual playing. I always like the way EVERYTHING is played – as a great method of text production! - and the productions are running so smoothly, and are still so relevant as to what the play is about. Comparing this kind of acting with what Christopher Eccleston did with Macbeth made it very obvious to me that method acting makes “Shakespeare acting” a lot harder - maybe even unnecessarily? - and, when it is so “ubiquitous”, might interfere with basic techniques (like knowing really difficult text …). And it can stand in the way of the “volatility” of time and change demanded in “Shakespeare”. It also makes it A LOT MORE COMPLEX, and the “end product”, as in this case, might turn out SIGNIFICANTLY different.

There was one thing that stuck, though, when I watched “Playing Shakespeare” (on DVD). It was how actors discover how much the text itself gives them clues and “helps” them play it. It brought me to the conclusion that Shakespeare himself might have provided a “method” FOR METHOD ACTING. Not that there could have been any method acting in the sense we have it now (– even if this had theoretically been possible, there was NO TIME for it!) So, being the genius that he was, he wrote the text “in order” to induce the best and “truest” acting possible. To him it wouldn’t have occurred that you could use the text for anything else! It works, to this day, and Richard Armitage certainly isn’t the only actor who used Shakespeare for “building” great “method” characters outside “Shakespeare” (like Thorin Oakenshield in “The Hobbit”).  Following the text step by step, creating the character as they go, in the way I saw Ralph Fiennes or Lucian Msamati do it, certainly IS the method of choice – but there was, of course, a lot of contemporary method acting ON TOP OF IT.

Christopher Eccleston being “at odds” with his text – having this very intimate relationship with it at the same time – was revealing. He definitely is NOT a “great Shakespearean” – in the sense that he has learned what he does from “Shakespeare”, and his relationship with it is not “first-hand”. So, depending on what we expect, we might not feel his Macbeth to have turned out that good. But, currently being the greatest method actor I know – just because of the amount of fundamentally different characters I have seen him play; and for ordinary people (who are not actors) there is no way to see how he does it! – I knew something special would come out of this encounter. I knew he just COULD’T DO what other actors might be able to do: PLAY THE TEXT AS IF IT WAS ALREADY THERE. And I was right.

(To be continued …)