12/12/05: Tiny Ninja Theatre Presents Hamlet: more considered response
My son and I drove four hours (from Asheville to Durham, NC) to see this show, which ran less than one hour. We agreed that it was easily worth the trip. I was much, much more impressed than I thought I would be. I knew it would be a “different” take, but I was expecting a pure sendup, not a serious telling of the story, and--while my whole aim was to see “alternative Shakespeare” which this show definitely qualifies as--I was a little apprehensive that it would be basically a one-joke event (reviews to the contrary notwithstanding). Or that it would be a greatly entertaining parody (like "The Complete Works") but of little value beyond that. What saves it from being just a gimmick is the fact that Dov performs in such a way that you can tell he loves the language and loves the story.
Dov told me in a post-show interview that he likes doing Shakespeare because the stories are so great; he just wants to tell the story and help people hear the familiar words in a fresh way. An oddly conventional idea behind a truly weird and hilarious concept--but I believe him because it really works that way. I also like the fact that he said he doesn’t really want to manipulate the audience into preconceived reactions (that comment may be a little disingenuous but basically honest, I think).
Watching the show, I realized that he was fulfilling a fantasy that I’ve had but barely admitted to myself: the desire to do the whole of Hamlet by myself, for myself, not as a way to show off but just because it would be such fun! I guess that’s a common fantasy...
Again: I’m really struck by the fact that he doesn’t appear to be mocking conventional Shakespeare in what he’s doing; he’s just doing something different. Talking to him, I tried to see if he--like me, at times--had an axe to grind, or was at least very frustrated by most Shakespearean productions. While he seemed to agree that much of Anglo-American Shakespeare is pretty boring (a subject that we didn’t go into), he just sees his primary job as telling these great stories in the best way he knows.
There’s a level on which I’m a little disappointed by his conventional intent, because I tell myself I’m looking for “dangerous” Shakespeare, “volatile” Shakespeare (if such a thing exists). And I wonder if “telling a story” is the most important or most useful thing to be doing with performance. There are so many stories. But Shakespeare is stories, and they are great ones--our myths, as the critics have it. The world’s myths, now. So what’s wrong with telling them? It’s finding a way to tell them simply that’s important, so that the story is the thing, not the director’s or the actors’ techniques or concepts. And, in spite of his crazy premise, that’s just what Dov does.
Dov told me in a post-show interview that he likes doing Shakespeare because the stories are so great; he just wants to tell the story and help people hear the familiar words in a fresh way. An oddly conventional idea behind a truly weird and hilarious concept--but I believe him because it really works that way. I also like the fact that he said he doesn’t really want to manipulate the audience into preconceived reactions (that comment may be a little disingenuous but basically honest, I think).
Watching the show, I realized that he was fulfilling a fantasy that I’ve had but barely admitted to myself: the desire to do the whole of Hamlet by myself, for myself, not as a way to show off but just because it would be such fun! I guess that’s a common fantasy...
Again: I’m really struck by the fact that he doesn’t appear to be mocking conventional Shakespeare in what he’s doing; he’s just doing something different. Talking to him, I tried to see if he--like me, at times--had an axe to grind, or was at least very frustrated by most Shakespearean productions. While he seemed to agree that much of Anglo-American Shakespeare is pretty boring (a subject that we didn’t go into), he just sees his primary job as telling these great stories in the best way he knows.
There’s a level on which I’m a little disappointed by his conventional intent, because I tell myself I’m looking for “dangerous” Shakespeare, “volatile” Shakespeare (if such a thing exists). And I wonder if “telling a story” is the most important or most useful thing to be doing with performance. There are so many stories. But Shakespeare is stories, and they are great ones--our myths, as the critics have it. The world’s myths, now. So what’s wrong with telling them? It’s finding a way to tell them simply that’s important, so that the story is the thing, not the director’s or the actors’ techniques or concepts. And, in spite of his crazy premise, that’s just what Dov does.
posted by Graham at 6:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home