Friday, August 12, 2005
Primo with Anthony Sher
I'd love to know when did the one-person monologue gain the prominence and prevalence that it carries today. It used to be that a well-known (and well-aged) actor would bring out some specially devised scene (I'm thinking of Sioban McKenna in her staged Molly Bloom soliloguy from Joyce's Ulysses). Today it seems that all sorts of actors go up on the stage to do the one-person show. To be sure, some of these are still an outgrowth of stand-up comedy (Mario Cantone, Whoopi Goldberg) while others aspire to the serious (Billy Crystal, whom I did not see). But the dramatic solo seems to have it roots in a more Shakesperian background, that is, within classical drama.
More and more, many of these solo dramas are not written by playrights, but by those who have recorded words and spliced them together to make a script. So even the words are not original - what is original is their new juxtopositions and the creation of new contexts. It's a cinematic way of creating a text (think montage) or even based on creative tape splicing (think of John Cage's "mix" pieces from the 1950s).
So I suppose one should be thankful when an actor desires to "dramatize" a portion of a book to an audience. The actor's task is large: They must be onstage for what is usually 90 minutes, and rely on their voice to bring more meaning to the audience, since it must compensate for the lack of interaction with other characters. In older monodramas (again La voix humane), the solo performer would act. Even in last year's I am My Own Wife, the actor had a lot of props with which to interact. But for the most part, in today's monologues, there are few if any props. This forces the actor to bring forth chracterization even more acutely using their voice.
But it seems as if, aside from classical and Shakespearian actors, no one understands the ability of using the voice. In today's world, "naturalness" (what one would normally encounter in placid conversation) and understatement are the guiding principals of vocal intonation. They are important for movies and television, which potentially amplifies any vocal inflection. But it seems to be a lost art among the vast majority of actors, especially Americans. (This is not restricted to the theatre genre; it is also true in the classical vocal and operatic world, where a lack of the ability to understand and perform colorings and shadings has resulted in a monochrome of sound quality.)
Either one is up to the task by virtue of one's talents, or not. I found Anthony Sher not quite up to the task and after about 30 minutes, I found myself getting very impatient with his monochromatic delivery. Perhaps that's my stereotyped perception of British emotional reactions: that is usually understated, because an outpouring of pure irrational emotion is somehow considered to be in poor taste or manners. So Sher's delivery had all the surprise of someone entering a new department store and being amused and fascinated with each new room of merchandise. Perhaps that was intentional, so as to create a continuous mood of irony with the implicit but rarely described horrors of Auschwitz. Still, it seemed too long for me, too much of the same thing. Really it was a recitation from the book, and occasionally the actor sat down, went in a corner where the lighting highlighted an action, movement, or dramatic pause. But much was left to the audience to summon their own notion of the horrors of Auschwitz and to map it on the actor and his production.
Perhaps I'm immune to this sort of thing, since I've been aware of concentration camps since a very young age. Somehow it seemed very cliched, something not new at all but a repeat of previous efforts. Perhaps if his voice could have done more, it would have been a relief to travel with the actor. As it was, it just felt liked being talked to for 80 minutes.
More and more, many of these solo dramas are not written by playrights, but by those who have recorded words and spliced them together to make a script. So even the words are not original - what is original is their new juxtopositions and the creation of new contexts. It's a cinematic way of creating a text (think montage) or even based on creative tape splicing (think of John Cage's "mix" pieces from the 1950s).
So I suppose one should be thankful when an actor desires to "dramatize" a portion of a book to an audience. The actor's task is large: They must be onstage for what is usually 90 minutes, and rely on their voice to bring more meaning to the audience, since it must compensate for the lack of interaction with other characters. In older monodramas (again La voix humane), the solo performer would act. Even in last year's I am My Own Wife, the actor had a lot of props with which to interact. But for the most part, in today's monologues, there are few if any props. This forces the actor to bring forth chracterization even more acutely using their voice.
But it seems as if, aside from classical and Shakespearian actors, no one understands the ability of using the voice. In today's world, "naturalness" (what one would normally encounter in placid conversation) and understatement are the guiding principals of vocal intonation. They are important for movies and television, which potentially amplifies any vocal inflection. But it seems to be a lost art among the vast majority of actors, especially Americans. (This is not restricted to the theatre genre; it is also true in the classical vocal and operatic world, where a lack of the ability to understand and perform colorings and shadings has resulted in a monochrome of sound quality.)
Either one is up to the task by virtue of one's talents, or not. I found Anthony Sher not quite up to the task and after about 30 minutes, I found myself getting very impatient with his monochromatic delivery. Perhaps that's my stereotyped perception of British emotional reactions: that is usually understated, because an outpouring of pure irrational emotion is somehow considered to be in poor taste or manners. So Sher's delivery had all the surprise of someone entering a new department store and being amused and fascinated with each new room of merchandise. Perhaps that was intentional, so as to create a continuous mood of irony with the implicit but rarely described horrors of Auschwitz. Still, it seemed too long for me, too much of the same thing. Really it was a recitation from the book, and occasionally the actor sat down, went in a corner where the lighting highlighted an action, movement, or dramatic pause. But much was left to the audience to summon their own notion of the horrors of Auschwitz and to map it on the actor and his production.
Perhaps I'm immune to this sort of thing, since I've been aware of concentration camps since a very young age. Somehow it seemed very cliched, something not new at all but a repeat of previous efforts. Perhaps if his voice could have done more, it would have been a relief to travel with the actor. As it was, it just felt liked being talked to for 80 minutes.
Sunday, August 07, 2005
A new start
I tried to start a blog on cultural stuff about a year ago, and succeeded in only making a single post. My problem is that I get stuck up on language. Lately, after reading an increasing number of awkward sentences in the New York Times, I figure I can do better than some of them.
This time, I'm determined to not let myself be intimidated by the potential angst and work that it takes to maintain a blog. Sure, I see lots of blogs that are collages of words and images. It's cute and artistic, and generally doesn't convey all that much. Now that my dissertation is 5 years in the past, I feel my writing abilities going on the wane, and beyond e-mail, I want a venue that will enable me to keep my verbal skills in shape. Ergo: blog.
When I began my blog on LiveJournal, I figured I'd post reviews of the various shows, concerts and movies that I saw. This time, I think I should expand the scope to larger cultural issues that I find of interest.
So that's my basic aim and goal. If I succeed in posting a body of writing, in six months or so I'll take a look and see if the goal needs revision.
This time, I'm determined to not let myself be intimidated by the potential angst and work that it takes to maintain a blog. Sure, I see lots of blogs that are collages of words and images. It's cute and artistic, and generally doesn't convey all that much. Now that my dissertation is 5 years in the past, I feel my writing abilities going on the wane, and beyond e-mail, I want a venue that will enable me to keep my verbal skills in shape. Ergo: blog.
When I began my blog on LiveJournal, I figured I'd post reviews of the various shows, concerts and movies that I saw. This time, I think I should expand the scope to larger cultural issues that I find of interest.
So that's my basic aim and goal. If I succeed in posting a body of writing, in six months or so I'll take a look and see if the goal needs revision.
