To begin
with, there will be just one thing about the old BBC production. I remember
that, seeing it for the first time, I wasn’t able to process so much text, though
I had read it before, probably because I had already begun to THINK about it
and thinking got in the way. Watching it for the second time, when I had seen
the other productions, I noticed that, having started on consciously making
“equations”, I could never make up my mind on a crucial point of the equation
until I heard the COMPLETE text again, in the “complete cycle”. (As this is the
great thing about it – apart from seeing favourite actors when they were quite
young: There are not just all the plays – quite a few of which nobody has ever
recorded on DVD – but there is, basically, the complete text!) It is about my
favourite scene, the one where the terms of the bond are negotiated between
Shylock and Antonio, which is so complex and full of ambiguities that I like it
just because of that. And where a lot of questions are raised which will have
to be answered by and by if we want to come to a “verdict”. (I came to a
verdict, by the way, about Shylock, which is “guilty”, though I never really
liked it and tried everything to reverse it, and couldn’t, in the end. But
maybe the point of making equations was even more to establish all those little
“guilty” verdicts on the way there … As in real life, everybody is guilty of
SOMETHING.) The crucial point on which I couldn’t make up my mind was: “WHY does
Shylock make this proposal (which nowadays wouldn’t have any legal status
anyway, being regarded as immoral)? Does he make it with a clear intent of
revenging himself on Antonio with something that doesn’t make sense in the
first place??? Or does the bond develop from the way the conversation is going,
actually like some kind of tasteless joke? I very much favoured the last option
which makes the scene so much more intriguing, opening up more options which
will make it ever more impossible to “close” the equation … Regrettably, there
is one sentence IN THIS SCENE where Shylock clearly states his intent to
revenge himself on Antonio – and which I would be very tempted to drop if I was
a director. As, obviously, directors generally are. (The “complete cycle” suffered
from a lack of directing, I believe, but not from leaving out relevant text!) I
still don’t think that it is wrong to do this, by the way, but there is no
doubt here as to what SHAKESPEARE intended to say – though he kind of
contradicts it by the ambiguity of the scene and, later, by the effort he takes
to explain and “justify” Shylocks inhuman proceedings.
Maybe it
was because of these contradictions that looking at the complete text convinced
me even more of how serious Shakespeare was about making his argument on
JUSTICE. As if he did the same thing that I did, trying to make equations, and,
maybe, all things considered, was reluctant to
decide. Which is the same “we” usually feel about actual court cases – if we
can be bothered to consider all the fine points, not just want someone to be
guilty. We DON’T FEEL GOOD about giving a verdict.
As usual
I was impressed with the complexity of the analysis. How thorough and
comprehensive Shakespeare was about the status justice – and, not to forget:
money! – has in people’s dealings and
relationships - not least the relationship they have with themselves! Not to
consider all these other issues – as love, friendship, and humanity – which come
into the equation, and which “we” would like to be so much more important … The
“real life” assessment of a complex interpersonal situation like this would
always lead to this kind of equation, and here I liked, more than ever perhaps,
how Shakespeare doesn’t ALLOW us to regress into a child’s universe of good
versus bad. Which is what I was always trying to do when I tired of the equation!
And this is already, I think, the greatest and most special feature of
“Shakespeare”. That we aren’t allowed to fall back onto the talk show and
twitter level of discussion that surrounds us. And the way “Shakespeare” is
helping us climb to this level of complexity by means of structure and beauty
of language. We have to “exercise” to rise to it, but “we” are doing it because
we are seduced and rewarded by beauty, feeling that complexity, as such, must
be a beautiful thing. Which, I think, it is.
(And
this is why I am so infinitely grateful for INTELLIGENT – and beautiful! - series
like “House of Cards”, or “Doctor Who”, and so on because they show me, in the
first place, that I am not alone. Let’s face it: Who is reading Shakespeare in
the twenty-first century? We cannot count on him and great writers from the
past anymore to rescue our brains from the muck of German TV, but series like
this are watched by millions all over the world and are therefore responsible
for raising the level of sophistication of entire “audiences”. There was a time
I didn’t even KNOW that I was wrong to assume, looking at German television,
that most people actually ARE that stupid. Now I find that nobody I KNOW
actually watches the (thrice-)daily soaps and three crime stories a day, only
the news and the football. The rest who must be doing it I don’t pity, they may
rot in hell … O, that’s the first time, I think, that I wrote something I shouldn’t
have put on facebook! Now I see what’s the problem with it: The people charged
with picking the slander might not have a sense of humour?! Well, nobody will
find it HERE, though I should put a smiley face, just in case …)
Now, the
Globe’s version of the play is perfect “Shakespeare” in the sense I have just
stated. Before I’ll come to this I’ll make a note of something about the
character of Shylock which I found intriguing but cannot explain in any way so
far. So I’ll just put it here to have it on record. It struck me that, whereas
I have seen three completely different Antonios, Shylock in all four
productions basically is the same person. Even the accent is the same (- though
in the case of Makram J. Khoury of the RSC, who gives the most uninspired
Shylock I will probably ever see, it is less convincing.) There is no other character
in Shakespeare so far about whom I have observed this, and I think there has to
be some kind of reason for it.
I still
liked Al Pacino’s Shylock with his appealing mixture of childlike innocence and
cunning and remembered why. The most important thing about Shylock is to make
him appear like a HUMAN BEING that doesn’t DESERVE not to be treated like one.
Having got this, I preferred Jonathan Pryce of the Globe Theatre BECAUSE his
Shylock didn’t strike me as special in any way. He basically appears like a
contemporary businessman whom we might see in the street and never think
about as being “good or bad” in the first place, merely, maybe, what he might
be doing in the city, or in the pub where we are just having a beer with a friend.
And the same applies to Dominic Mafham who played Antonio ENTIRELY as a
contemporary character, transcending completely the historical setting of the
play. So much so that it should have felt odd, but it didn’t, and this was the
first thing I especially liked about the Globe’s production. Though there were
beautiful period costumes and, basically, a “conservative” application of the
historical setting the theatre provides, the CONTENT struck me as NO LESS
CONTEMPORARY than when I saw the RSC’s production where the costumes and set
WERE contemporary, (though, I must admit, only AFTER I had seen it.)
This contemporary
spirit of the Globe’s recent productions I noticed also in “Titus Andronicus”
whereas older productions I have on DVD, like “Romeo and Juliet”, or “Twelfth
Night” where all the female characters are actually played by men, appear more
old-fashioned. I like it not least as proof of how flexible and sufficient this
historical theatre actually is, even, in certain respects, superior to a
contemporary stage.
But
“Titus Andronicus” is a very different play, a very different material to play
with. Another important discovery, which will become even more relevant
“reading” the RSC’s production, was that “The Merchant of Venice” was a
contemporary story AT THE TIME. It is an entirely different matter if the
events took place in ancient Rome, or if there is this kind of “timeless”
tragedy, where there might be greater freedom how to deal with it. Without
being able to explain why, just because of what happened when I saw the
different versions, the contemporary approach struck me as the only thing that
would work for this play. I remembered “Richard III” with Ralph Fiennes where
the cohabitation of smartphones and swords didn’t appear the least bit odd but
struck me just as the thing to do – and which can be done ONLY on the stage! Nonetheless,
I could image to see a historical version of “Richard III” that works, whereas
for “The Merchant of Venice” I can’t. I think it actually depends on this kind
of contemporary story or material – which, for us, shouldn’t be “contemporary”
though! – and that this is the reason why the old-fashioned BBC production,
which, as I already wrote, isn’t “bad” or boring - yielded no interesting
discoveries.
(I
forgot to mention that, though I was disappointed with Gemma Jones, I
discovered John Rhys-Davies, playing Salerio, as a brilliant Shakespeare actor
in the making. Somebody to whom “Shakespeare” does seem to come as naturally as
breathing. Another footnote on the subject of “Shakespeare actors” in the
Tolkien films which couldn’t be suppressed, see my last post …)
Apart
from the contemporary approach I like the Globe’s way of “just playing”
Shakespeare without “making statements” in the first place but rather to follow
exactly what Shakespeare has written. Statements can be good, though, to better
understand the play, and I’d say that the Globe’s and the RSC’s version
completed and illuminated each other. The best thing about the Globe’s
production I only noticed after having seen the RSC’s where I realized how
complex the equation actually is: It is that they really TRIED to answer my
question about Shylock’s intent. Not by making a statement but by Jonathan
Pryce playing Shylock in a subdued but clever and sensitive manner, clever and
sensitive enough to “reach” the fine points of the equation, though I wouldn’t
be able to say what his solution was. But the important thing, I think, is to
jump-start the equation in this scene and keep it going, for which I was
particularly grateful. (And, as usual, very pleased to be able to say that it
was an actor who DID IT.) To be continued …
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen