(no subject)

[bardic_lady]

For sweet charity's sake, for the love of all that is or e'er was, WHY is't that modern directors cannot allow the truth and beauty that lies in Shakespeare to live, unblemish'd by preconceived notions of what the work "ought" to be? WHY must we twist Shakespeare to suit our purposes? Rather we should bend ourselves to fit his aims, or not speak his words again. 'Twere better that his art fall into deathly obscurity, than it be tortured by the mad minds of modernists. The very life of Shakespeare lies solely in the text, set on the air new-spoken by performers, butcher the words and thou hast sucked the breathing air from these, the most lovely of all scripts.

I do protest, most vehemently, this vainglorious carnage. 'Tis butchery, treason, blasphemy, rape, murder most foul.

Comments

[lornelover.livejournal.com]

Easy, kiddo. You're not working on Richard, so don't kill yourself over it. And always remember: it's all about the SUBtext. Mmmm... subtext... And I have faith that Anne will do a good job.

And, failing all that, Primal Scream and Ben & Jerry. Have fun!

Re:

[dramaturgca.livejournal.com]

a) I am working on Richard, I'm the lighting designer.
b) There IS NO SUBTEXT IN SHAKESPEARE!!!

[dancingdrew.livejournal.com]

I don't get it. You had to have known they were adapting Richard before you signed up to work on it. So why did you do it if you feel this strongly about it? My advice is to back out of the project now. I know you too well to think that this won't affect your work or your working relationships with the production crew.

Re:

[dramaturgca.livejournal.com]

Actually, I didn't know. I'm calm now.