Who would
have thought how sexy knowledge can be …
I planned to continue my investigation of the terms I had used describing my reading by writing about the "text vortex", but there will be a lengthy digression because I got this email from Claudia regarding my last blog. It triggered a conversation that led to a common journey right into the heart of the matter ...
Dear Barbara,
I read your blog, and, in my opinion, the first paragraphs are the best you have ever written!!! They sum up precisely and transparently what you mean by READING.
And the last part about the difference between film and theatre (acting) was absolutely brilliant as well!
Not just that you really hit the point, but I had two important insights about myself concerning the following subjects:
My life’s topic
is knowledge. Did I tell you how our Latin teacher in my first year in upper
school told us about Paris’ judgement? The teacher’s words: “Paris had to
choose the most beautiful of three goddesses. Hera promised him <I forgot
what it was>, Athene promised him wisdom, and Aphrodite the most beautiful
woman in the world. Who do you think Paris – as would all men have - had chosen?”
And I – naïve as I was – was totally convinced that he had chosen Athene. And I
was completely flabbergasted when I learned that he had chosen Aphrodite! To
this day I appreciate knowledge more than beauty, it is still the most
important thing for me. And that is the reason why I am so interested in
history. Natural science not so much, though.
You actually
explained to me why there is this difference between theatre and film – THANK
YOU! And that was the reason why I was so impressed with Cyrano. James McAvoy
didn’t play, he simply was.
Hi Claudia,
This was the most
important feedback I got in my live! This time I really toiled to get it right.
Your reaction showed me that it was worth it. Finally understanding something
myself doesn’t necessarily mean that it makes
sense to anybody else.
I must say I am really
proud of that bit about theatre and the fourth wall. I was fascinated with the
problem for a long time, but now I finally got the time and inner space to
solve it. What I find interesting is that we appear to mean the same thing but
express it differently, or contrarily. I already got this impression when I
explained about Ralph Fiennes in “Antony and Cleopatra” and you understood
exactly the opposite of what I meant. With Cyrano I was so especially pleased
because I could observe precisely how James McAvoy “played” the character – in
this case even how pleased he was with his playing. What I find fascinating
about (me and) theatre is exactly this “contradiction”: that an actor convinces
me ONLY when I see that he is playing. If I don’t, I get bored, whereas with a
film it is often sufficient that an actor convinces me that he IS this person that
he is playing. The disagreement we appear to have here proves that there is
still a contradiction I am not able to resolve properly.
Which brings me to the
third issue. Yes – you told me about Paris and Aphrodite! Basically, I have
always felt the same, but my life’s topic obviously is not knowledge but
understanding. They are closely linked topics, of course, because knowledge
based on facts is the basis of understanding – permanently neglected by me because
finding the relevant information can be really hard work. On the other hand,
already as an adolescent I was only marginally concerned about my lack of femininity
but totally pissed off about my bad school – where everything was more
important than learning something - because I already knew that all I wanted
was to understand, and that, without knowledge, I never would. (I know that
I should have acted upon it and should at least have tried to get into a better
school, but “pissed off” was something I was not supposed to be …)
I think we described
ourselves accurately as “historian” versus “philosopher” – and often complement
each other.
(As I tend to think of
philosophers as borderline insane myself 😉, I am permanently in doubt if I am just doing something sensible or totally
idiotic when I am trying to get to the bottom of things. But I also observed
that (creative) madness is something vitally important to me. That’s why I am
so good with the children – because you get loads, and I am GENUINELY
interested. The difficult and “grown-up” bit is to separate the random bullshit
from the bits that make surprising new sense.)
By the way - with the increasing corona madness, I am less and less able to believe that we actually WERE in London - right between (hurricane) Sabine and corona - and saw "Uncle Vanya"! (I recently came on that page by accident where they sell ticketsk, and saw that they were actually playing (23rd, 24th, and 25th of April!). It really was an accident - I would never have thought that any theatres might be open. And I must I was pleased for them - though I'd probably draw the line at going to the theatre right now ... 😕 And it makes me wonder for how long I will be banned from the West End??? 😢😢😢 Nobody knows ...
Good Morning Barbara,
I am pleased of having
given you this gift! I would never have believed that it took so much time and
work, it appears so clear, simple, and obvious – which is meant as a
compliment!
About the second part: It
is strange that we always repeat the same misunderstanding. I think we are
actually talking about something different. I am fascinated with an actor when
I don’t get the feeling that he is playing. This is easier in a film than in
the theatre – for whatever reason, probably because there is a medium in-between
and therefore it is more like people’s (or my own?) dreams.
(There is a really interesting new thought I’d like to dwell upon but
cannot right now …)
This is how I came to
love Sam(uel West): At the beginning of Richard II, during the trial
scene, I thought that he (Sam) removed a speck from his trousers because he was
bored – having seen the beginning of the play a dozen times and more. Then I
realized that it was Richard who
was getting bored, and I was lost to Sam forever. I DIDN’T see him
playing. And I was disappointed with Damian Lewis in the theatre because I could
see during the curtain calls (from my seat in the second row) how relieved he
was that the show went so well, and that he was so completely different from
the character he had been playing. I had realized before that he was playing,
but this moment was an added disappointment.
(I wouldn’t have minded if I had liked the playing, but I find it
fascinating when actors cannot – or would not – immediately separate from the
character they were playing. My most moving and weird experience of the kind
was when Lucian Msamati, who played Iago, obviously felt that IAGO needed to be
forgiven after the show, and hugged Hugh Quarshie, who played Othello and who
obviously didn’t appreciate this.)
I really DON’T want to
see it when they are playing. I really hated the beginning
of “Uncle Vanya”, when I saw Richard getting
into the role. Toby Jones, on the other hand, came onto the stage and WAS Uncle
Vanya.
(Ah – that’s where the penny dropped! After all, we had obviously SEEN the
same thing – Richard Armitage NOT YET playing – but Claudia called it (merely)
PLAYING, whereas I called it NOT PLAYING. So we actually use this term
contradictorily. I might have understood this sooner if I had really paid
attention!)
(As to the reason why this might have gone so wrong: Claudia remarked, looking over my translation of our email conversation, that to begin a play with a monologue that is directed not at the audience but at another actor who is not really paying attention must be really, really difficult to play. I felt the same, painfully missing the "chemistry" between Astrov and Nana. And then forgot about it because what I loved more than anything about this production - and have probably never seen quite like this - were these moments of chemistry happening on the stage. And so many actors being so inctredibly good at creating them TOGETHER. I even think that this is the secret of playing Chekhov which they really discovered in this production. (As this ist the kind of thing, I figure, that has always to be discovered anew during rehearsals.) For me it didn't turn out as the Toby Jones and Richard Armitage show it was "labelled" but as this live demonstration of humanity that is so special in Chekhov because he doesn't make his characters heroes nor exposes them to "our" condescension. Like real people, they are all very weak and very tough in their own way, and very "breakable" ... It worked so well on me, I think, because I got deep into Chekhov before I saw it, and kind of "hunted" for this. But it really HAPPENED only when I saw it on the stage. They got it EXACTLY right. Thank you, Claudia, for making me remember! 😍 And it made me aware of what a crucial part this is of "just playing" a character versus "being" this character because these relationships with other people, activated during rehearsals, might be the "natural" way of getting there.)
Weird, is it not, that we
saw Uncle Vanya after all?! But there must be some goddess of the theatre who watches
over us (I googled: there actually are two: Malpomene and Thalia – tragedy resp.
comedy). And they actually had performances in April? Are they insane? Okay, with
a Prime Minister like that … For once I am glad not to be English.
(Sadly, the occasions for this are multiplying … Doesn’t mean, though, that
I am any happier to be German!)
Greetings from the
historian to the philosopher – here we are agreed: it is a great constellation.
You get me thinking with your conclusions, and I deliver facts that help you to
put them into perspective. By the way - the muse for both philosophers and
scientists is Kalliope. Hereby, I officially appoint her our patron goddess!
Dear Claudia,
Oh yes! Let’s regroup
under the banner of Kalliope! It is fun. I will think further about the nagging
problem, though not today …
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen