Friday, July 15, 2005

A Reduced Shakespeare Experience

When done well, nothing approaches the intimacy of the connection between an audience and the actors of a live theatrical performance. Whether the intimacy is achieved through the execution of a well drafted script or the careful placement of quick ad libs that connect directly with the audience, such a event can be enjoyable to anyone regardless their role in the production or their seat in the house.

I have not often attended live theatrical performances in my life. Whenever I have it has been out of obligation - I know someone involved in the production - or at the invitation of someone else - most often I am the guest of someone who knows someone involved in the production. I suppose that on a local, community level this process of sociometric promotion is not all that rare. It might not be all that rare even for larger scale, major market theatrical productions. It seems to me that whenever I have attended a larger scale production, I had gratis seats that were provide through a friend of a friend who knew someone in the production.

My point is that at the most basic level the promotion of art depends on interpersonal connections.

I think that art in any form is important. It connects people to one another through their souls.

I am thrilled that at least two of my three children (Amanda and Sarah) appreciate the performing arts. That is not to say that my son, Rob is artistically challenged or unappreciative of theatre. It is just that his tastes differ slightly from his siblings.

There is an old joke about saving bacteria because it is the only culture that most people have. That may be true but I also think that at times artists and patrons of the arts tend to snub the popular culture without fully appreciating the historical context and relevance. What is 'popular' today may be 'classic' tomorrow. Stranger things happen: Ozzie Osborne is 'mainstream' enough to get a Presidential 'shout out' and Cadillac uses Led Zeppelin's "Rock'n'Roll" to pitch their luxury cars. I rue the day that Brittney's Spears' 'Hit me Baby One More Time' is considered a 'classic' but I am pretty sure that the work of many of the mainstream performers will outlast their careers.

My daughter Amanda has participated in the Summer of Fine Arts (SFA) program in the local community and, as I probably mentioned in an earlier blog served as stage manager for the recent production of Kiss Me Kate. She made several friends in the course of her experiences this summer, many of them aspiring actors and actresses but moreover she was exposed to people that appreciate the performing arts.

Sarah, my other daughter seems to be focused on almost anything artistic. Whether out of her own essence of through the influence of her sister's involvement with theater stage craft, she has also grown this summer.

Last night was a rare opportunity for them to bring Dad into their present sphere of artistic influence - they talked me into chauffeuring them to see the Reduced Shakespeare Company's production of The Complete Works of William Shakespeare (Abridged) at the Melbourne Civic Theatre in West Melbourne, FL. It should come as no surprise that many of the friends that Amanda made in the course of her SFA experience were in attendance. One of the actors, Mark Labelle had appeared in the SFA production of Kiss Me Kate.

Jimmy Klein and Anthony Mowad complete the trio that performed the light-hearted examination of 'Willie', the man, the myth, the legend.

‘Fun’ is probably an overused adjective in approaching the overall worth of an experience but in this case it is particularly apt. I feel that I learned at least as much about Shakespeare from watching last night’s performance as I did from all the English courses that I endured both in high school and college - and had a much more pleasant frame of mind afterwards. It has it all, from Romeo and Juliet to McBeth – done in an authentic Scottish accent. The performers even prove that they know Hamlet forward and backwards – and proceed to perform their greatly condensed version at a record pace and, of course, in reverse with a caveat regarding Satanic references about Frank Sinatra being God.

True to the claims in the title, the complete works of man from Stratford on Avon are presented in a greatly abbreviated, way. There is a script. It was written by Jess Borgeson, Adam Long, Daniel Singer and J. M. Winfield. Yet the presentation not only lends toward the inclusion of ad lib but even seems to be an extended, fly-by-the-seat-of-the-pants performance. An effective performance does not allow the script to be so evident that the audience is constantly reminded that it is there.

Some of the presented facts that I had forgotten from my study of Shakespeare are that the master playwright wrote 37 plays, 16 of them comedies - the play asserts that the plots were so similar that they could be condensed and presented as one play. He also wrote 154 sonnets that the performers present as condensed onto one side of a 3" X 5" index card.

The performance was nothing like the stiff, mechanical, antiquated, boring, culturally required presentations of Shakespearean plays. I am relatively certain that if 'Willie' was alive today and understood some of the references to modern times, he would be amused. To a strict, stiff, purist I suppose the production might offend or even seem heretical in the overall worship of the 'one man who single-handedly put English on the map of legitimate languages' as one of my English literature professors once asserted - a belief I am sure Geoffrey Chaucer might dispute.

I heartily recommend seeing the production before it leaves town. Performances continue from Thursday through Sunday until July 24th at the Melbourne Civic Theatre, 3030 New Haven Avenue (corner of US 192 and Wickham), West Melbourne, FL. Call in advance to reserve seating as the venue is small.

E

Monday, July 11, 2005

If it made any sense...

I was watching the morning news a week or so ago. I usually check the news before I get up. Maybe it is just habit or perhaps it is because if the news is too bad I might consider it safer to pull the covers up over my head and just sleep in for the day. Sometimes there is a news story that riles me to the point that I awaken fully and cannot get back to sleep. There was such a report regarding the kidnapping of Dylan and Shasta Groene.

The suspect in the case, Joseph Duncan, a convicted sex offender had been arrested for yet another sex offense against another minor. A judge named Schroeder had set bail at $1500 and upon his posting the bail, the authorities let Mr. Duncan out of jail.

Well, after hearing that both eyes were open and I was awake, watching and listening. Apparently Duncan was not only free to roam the country but also there was no one keeping tabs on him at all. He was free to do most anything that he wanted even possibly kill people, allegedly kidnap two kids, and very likely kill one of the two while having sexually molesting them both.

When Duncan was finally arrested, it was a retaurant waitress that had identified the little girl as Shasta. If she had not Duncan might still be on the loose.

You might well ask where the justice was in this case. The courts and law enforcement had their priorities and perhaps Judge Schroeder had guidelines that he had to work within in setting bail. It just seemed to me that something was very wrong with our legal system.

With my ire raised, the very next story put an exclamation point on everything that had disturbed me. There was a report about how Martha Stewart had been busted for violating the conditions of her parole. Apparently Martha had walked her mother out to her car! Imagine that.

Ah, but Martha is not allowed to leave her house. She wears a wrist bracelet that alerts the authorities as to her whereabouts at all times. Authorities have spared no effort at keeping track of such an imminent threat to our society as Martha Stewart!

Well now, anyone that knows me will wonder why I am suddenly defending Martha Stewart. There is a bit of history between us back from when I lived in Connecticut and worked for a home improvement retailer. I only met her once and was not impressed. She came into my store and I treated her just as I would any other customer. She had to wait for me to finish cutting a key for an elderly gentleman. I didn't know who she was, and frankly even if I had known it would not have mattered. I treated her like any other customer. Apparently that offended her as she was in ‘a rush’. I couldn't understand why she was being snotty and sarcastic with me but in retail you tend to see a broad spectrum of human behavior.

One of the cashiers asked me if I knew who Martha was. When I said that I had not, she and most everyone else within earshot laughed.

Now Martha is being treated differently but in a way that I doubt she desires.

I guess what bothers me is not that Martha's treatment or punishment was excessive for her crime. She did something wrong and she lied about it. The government tends to hate that. That is why she served time and she is presently on probation. I have no real issue at all with the government punishing Martha for lying to them.

What I don't understand is the inconsistency in applying laws in the administration of justice. Justice not only serves to protect the rights of the individual but also the rights of everyone else in society. At least that was my understanding of the Constitution the last time I read it seemed to indicate that the government was created to serve both the individual and the society in as fair a manner as possible. That is why the statue of Justice is holding scales.

How does it make any sense to set a known sex offender free on bail and not even bother to keep any tabs on him whatsoever while the probation officer that is monitoring Martha probably knows her whereabouts every hour of the day, even when she goes potty.

I don’t think it is too much to ask that the actions of our courts be consistent. In fact it should be a requirement. At the moment the judgments of the courts seem to be consistent only with the individual decisions of judges who are not seeking the balance between the rights of the one and the rights of the many.

E