[In the fall of 1988, I audited a course in New York University’s Department of Performance Studies, Writing about Performance, taught by Marcia B. Siegel. Marcia’s an accomplished dance critic and I’ve mentioned her before on Rick On Theater (see “The Art of Writing Reviews by Kirk Woodward, Part 2,” 8 November 2009, and the introduction to “Joan Acocella: Critic, Historian, Or Critic-Historian. An Interview, 28 November 1988,” 31 May 2019). The goal of the course was to examine and practice different kinds of writing about performance, which readers of ROT will know is a major concern of mine.
[The
class’s main, weekly assignment was to maintain a journal, made up of at least one
two-page entry a week, and Marcia gave us a choice of two general topics. I selected “any aspect of current
performance.” (The other option was
“commentary on one type of performance as it is being covered in the current
press,” and I did a little of that occasionally as well.) Here’s my proposal to Marcia for my journal
subject, submitted at the start of the term:
I will
study the treatment of Shakespeare, concentrating primarily on stage
performances, though I won't ignore appropriate film and television productions
when they are available. Focusing on the
directorial or production concept, I will describe the performances principally
in terms of their visual design (i.e., set, costumes, and lighting) and acting
style.
[I strayed some from
this proposal, as I wrote about acting, programs, and casting as well as
directorial and design concepts. ROTters may have noticed that I’ve repurposed
many of my journal entries as blog posts before, (That Joan Acocella interview I referenced
above is an example, as is “Calvino Is To The Mind What Exercise Is To The Body
(Part 2),” 17 March 2016, which was the second major assignment for the course). I’m about to do it again.
[It’s probably
unsurprising that in a four-month-long survey of Shakespearean performances in
New York City and beyond, some plays will turn up in several productions between
September and December. Romeo and Juliet and A Midsummer Night’s Dream are among the Bard’s most popular plays,
and they get presented around the country dozens, probably hundreds of times a
season. I covered two productions of
each of these plays in my Shakespeare performance journal back in 1988; they
were the sources of a half dozen or more entries, focusing on different aspects
of the presentations. I’ve pulled
together the several short pieces and reassembled them into four reports, each
covering one production of the plays. My
idea is to see how the same script can render very different stage
interpretations (not always for the best).]
ROMEO AND JULIET
RAPP Theater Company
Theatre at St. Clement’s
21 September 1988
In “Reworking
the Classics: Homage or Ego Trip?” a New York Times essay (republished
on ROT on 10 March 2011 and discussed
in “Similes, Metaphors—And The Stage,” 18 September 2009), Robert Brustein
takes on the issue of “the reinterpretation . . . of celebrated classical
plays.” He divides this “deconstruction”
into two categories: “the prosaic simile and the poetic metaphor.” A simile production, he asserts, simply
shifts the time or location to an analogous one nearer our own, while a
metaphorical one examines the play from the inside, “generating provocative
theatrical images . . . that are suggestive of the play rather than specific,
reverberant rather than concrete.”
Brustein
cites world-famous examples of both types, like Orson Welles’s totalitarian Julius
Caesar (1937-38), a simile,
and Peter Brook’s circus-oriented Midsummer Night’s Dream (1971), a metaphor. Do the more modest and lesser known efforts of
Off-Broadway and Off-Off-Broadway avail themselves of these tactics, and are
the results similar? I think so, and
recent productions indicate that I may be right.
In two of
the recent similes I’ve seen, the Pointed Stick Theatre’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream and the Independent Theatre Company’s Romeo and Juliet (both covered below), there
were no profound reinterpretations.
The second R&J,
however, did assert a new interpretation, but it was given only lip-service. At the RAPP Theater Company’s Romeo and
Juliet at the Theatre at St. Clement’s (423 W. 46th Street), R. Jeffrey Cohen’s “Notes From The
Director” explained that he saw Friar Laurence (Raphael Nash) as the witting
catalyst of the tragedy, and ascribed to him an un-Christian reliance in the
occult. The note provided some evidence
from the text for this notion, and it might well have worked at least
theatrically, not to say intellectually, if the director had followed through
with it in his production.
Alas, Cohen went no
further than giving the Friar the prologue and the epilogue, having him do two
parlor magic tricks and using a violet light when the Nurse (Maxine Prescott) describes
the natural phenomena on the night Juliet (Carrie Owerko) was weaned. Beyond the program note, the production,
decked out as middle-class suburbia, showed me nothing new about this
play.
With the Capulet
party a backyard barbecue and the Tybalt-Mercutio (Jarred Hammond and Darian
Sartain) duel fought with aluminum bats on a baseball diamond, this kind of
directing, as Brustein notes, is “at best a platform for ideas, at worst an
occasion for pranks.” (The lighting for
this R&J was designed by Pat
Dignan, the set is by Alexis S. Cohen, and the fights were choreographed by
Hammond—who also did the costumes—Tom Harford, and Sartain.)
In addition,
in the director’s program note, Cohen explains, “moral corruption masquerading
as religious zeal is explored . . . tragically in Romeo and Juliet.” He believes that it “is a substantially
different play thematically than traditional stagings and scholarship have
rendered.” Invoking unspecified “dark
forces,” Cohen sees Friar Laurence not as a “bumbling fool,” but “a dominant
motivating force in the tragedy,” convinced that any sacrifice—even the lives
of the two teenagers—is justified in order to heal the feud between the
Capulets and Montagues.
Cohen bases
this interpretation on several “facts,” only one of which focuses specifically
on Friar Laurence. The director points
out that the priest’s opening speech makes no mention of God and refers to “a
sophisticated moral view that is far more based in natural or pagan
philosophies than in Christian teachings” such as that all things are equally
good and bad and “that death is an essential component of the cycle of
life.”
His “other
evidence” is that the lovers are called “star-crossed”—an astrological
reference opposed to “the Christian concepts of . . . free will”; Juliet is
13—a magical number—and was weaned on the day of a great earthquake; Juliet
describes the devil in 13 different ways when she learns Romeo (Harford)) has
slain Tybalt. Except for the remarks
regarding his first speech, the rest of this actually has nothing to do with
the Friar.
To support his
interpretation, Cohen has adjusted the script.
Principally, he’s given the Prologues and the Prince’s (Labrini
Stathopolus) epilogue to the Friar, thus lending him an air of prescience that
isn’t born out in the text.
Additionally, in consonance with the company’s advertising that there
would be “magic” in the production, the Friar performs two brief tricks.
Before the
first Prologue, with several pantomimed street fights behind him, the Friar,
sitting at the front center of the playing area flanked by a hooded bride on
one side and groom on the other, cuts out two paper dolls—one male and one
female. As he rises to utter the first
Prologue, the two dolls, cut from flash paper, burst into flame in his hands.
In the
second magic trick, at the end of the marriage scene, Friar Laurence makes a
paper bouquet appear in his hands.
Neither trick elicits any reaction from the company. Nor, for that matter, do any characters react
to the Friar’s putative machinations. In
fact, other than these changes, the play proceeds fairly traditionally for the
most part.
None of this
seems to raise the possibility of Friar Laurence’s control above that of an
intellectual curiosity. The Friar’s part
itself is simply too small, and while he may not be a “bumbling fool,” other,
non-Machiavellian interpretations, such as a sincerely involved friend, have
been played successfully. To create the
impression that Friar Laurence is a controlling force in this tragedy, the
director needs to put him on stage more and make his presence more
substantially felt.
(In an
excellent production of Macbeth by
the New Rude Mechanicals that I saw this fall, director John Pynchon Holms said
something interesting by increasing the witches’ presence—undisguised and
unabashed, but unrecognized as witches by the other characters. He used them as the messengers, servants, and
extras and put them “invisibly” on stage in portentous scenes. This implied that an external force had taken
control of Macbeth’s life without making any substantive changes to the text
but adding an intriguing dimension to the production that remained largely subliminal. Oh, and by the way, Holms didn’t put a note
in the program to explain this. It was just
there—for us to discover and interpret.)
There
are a great many supernatural references in all of Shakespeare; that there are
several in Romeo and Juliet doesn’t mean that the Friar’s the source. So why compose such an elaborate program note?
Usually in
this country, when program notes are published, they’re generally statements of
what the director or playwright, or both, were trying to accomplish. RAPP’s Cohen was attempting a
reinterpretation of Romeo and Juliet and felt it necessary to justify
and explain his interpretation.
My reaction is
dichotomous, however. If the director’s ideas
are well thought-out and the work is clear, the notes become superfluous. I don’t need to be told what I can plainly
see. If the ideas are muddled and
unfulfilled on stage, the note serves only to illuminate what might have
happened, but didn’t. In the first
instance, there is an implicit insult to the audience: we need help to see
what’s right before our eyes. In the
second, it suggests the company doesn’t have to worry about its ideas: if they
can’t get them on stage, they can write them in the program. This seems to have been what occurred in Cohen’s
R&J.
Further, the
RAPP company wanted so much to make Romeo and Juliet American that rock
music plays throughout, the Capulet party is a backyard barbecue, and Benvolio (John
Harmon) and Mercutio play baseball. With
such a strong American environment established, references to Verona and Mantua
become disconcerting. So does the
presence of a Prince, since American cities don’t have princes. You have to suspend a lot of disbelief!
Moreover, I
couldn’t believe that a modern, middle-class, American girl like Owerko’s
Juliet could ever fear ghosts to the extent that her Act IV soliloquy
requires. I also wondered why Friar
Laurence didn’t just pick up a telephone and call Romeo instead of trusting his
explanation of Juliet’s “death” to a hand-delivered letter. The technical director of my MFA program used
to call production ideas like this “Hamlet on roller skates.” Brustein would call them “an occasion for
pranks.”
It’s also a
manifestation of another implicit insult to the audience. The director seems to believe that modern
American playgoers can’t understand productions remote from us in time or place
and that the common, human problems classic plays treat can’t be communicated
unless they’re portrayed by people just like us. (Curiously, the RAPP’s change of venue for Romeo and Juliet doesn’t bear on the new
interpretation Cohen wants to convey. In
fact, it seems to get in the way.) As
we’ll see, director Cohen and the RAPP Theater aren’t alone in this misapprehension.
* *
* *
ROMEO AND JULIET
Independent Theatre Company
House of Candles
24 September 1988
The
Independent Theatre Company at the
House of Candles (99 Stanton Street), like the RAPP Theater Company,
attempts to transpose Romeo and Juliet to American milieus. Neither company seems to have relocated the
story in order to say something unconventional about or through the play.
I’ve already
invoked Robert Brustein’s essay on “Reworking the Classics,” and the second R&J I saw follows a similar path. The Independent Theatre Americanized its
production by making the characters Italian-American in the Mafia vein. This inspired particularly those playing the
lower-class characters to affect Hollywood gangster accents. Somehow, “What light t’rough yonda winda
breaks? It is de east, and Juliet is de
sun!” just doesn’t ring right. I kept
flashing on the hoods in Kiss Me Kate singing “Brush Up Your
Shakespeare.”
There was also a good deal of knife fighting, a suitable substitute for sword play, certainly—it worked in West Side Story—except that the general impression of mobsters is that they tend to duel with guns, not knives. If you’re gonna go with clichés, then stay in your lane!
There was also a good deal of knife fighting, a suitable substitute for sword play, certainly—it worked in West Side Story—except that the general impression of mobsters is that they tend to duel with guns, not knives. If you’re gonna go with clichés, then stay in your lane!
Not only is director
Barbara Schofield’s reasoning patently mistaken—the play is a classic precisely
because it transcends its time and place to communicate to all cultures—but
such transpositions, unless they are very carefully thought through and
combined with changes in the text, usually cause incongruities in the language
and actions of the plays. Insignificant
by themselves, together they can jolt the spectator out of the world of the
play often enough to destroy the essential connection between the audience and
the play. A few cases in point:
Often such
transportations of Shakespeare to another time or place can be illuminating as
well as theatrically innovative. Half
measures such as those in this Romeo and
Juliet, however, don’t usually accomplish much. When Orson Welles staged his striking fascist
Julius Caesar, he was making a comment on the times in which he and his
audience were living—the rise of right-wing totalitarian governments in Europe:
Italy, Spain, Portugal, Germany. The
same director’s production of Macbeth set in a Haitian voodoo world was
a carefully worked-out adjustment to make the play accessible not to black
audiences but to black actors.
Arthur
Laurent’s transposition of Romeo and Juliet to a ‘50s urban jungle for West
Side Story was, of course, a complete adaptation of both language and
story. None of these simply recostumed
the characters and plunked them down in an alien world. And none was conceived because the producers
felt that American audiences could not enter Shakespeare’s world without their
help. We should resent the implication
that we do.
Except for the
ridiculous accents used in this Italo-American version of Romeo and Juliet,
the most damaging acting decision made by Schofield was to treat Shakespeare’s
characters as if they were ordinary, modern folks, say out of an afternoon soap
opera. Ordinary folks don’t talk poetry,
but, possibly more importantly, they seldom get as passionate as Shakespeare’s
characters do.
Kirt Allen
Markle, for example, was actually quite a good Romeo in all technical respects:
handling the language, moving well, behaving convincingly, projecting vocally
without shouting. He even appeared to
understand the words he was saying. What
seemed to be missing was the ability to come to grips with the poetry on any
level other than ordinary speech. It
drained the character of his passion.
Can you
imagine a Romeo without a consuming ardor for Juliet (Nina Minton)?
A Tybalt (Robert
Kane) whose hatred for Romeo is all macho posturing?
That’s what
the Independent Theatre has given us—and we’ll see that it has company.
*
* * *
A MIDSUMMER NIGHT’S DREAM
Stratford on Hudson
Nat Horne Theatre
22 September 1988
Like other
recent Shakespearean productions, Stratford on Hudson’s Midsummer Night’s
Dream at the Nat Horne Theatre (440
W. 42nd Street) attempted to make the play both contemporary and
American with costume and style. Though
references to Demetrius’ designer shorts as “Athenian garb” were transitorily
silly (I suppose modern Athenians can wear designer shorts), the problem with
this production was not the look or even the directorial interpretation.
Acting style
is hard to describe. Specific moments
don’t always occur upon which you can hang a telling illustration. This was particularly so with A Midsummer
Night’s Dream. (I’ve already broached this problem with respect to
the Independent Theatre’s Romeo and
Juliet.)
Imagine a Lysander
(Robert Bender) who feels nothing more than puppy-love for Hermia (Dina
Hampton).
A Helena (Dawn
Isaac) with a teenage crush on her Demetrius (Neal Mayer).
Shakespeare’s
characters are rarely cool or dispassionate.
Portraying such loves and hates requires much more than volume and
poses. There must be a belief that
convinces us that the lovers literally cannot live without one another; that
the enemies would go to any lengths to defeat each other. Is it possible that dressing the actors up as
modern Americans (no credit is listed for the costumes) leads them into the
tones and rhythms of modern Americans?
Perhaps, but
more likely there’s something missing in the training and experience of these
young performers. You see, none was an obviously
bad actor, but flattening out the poetic rhythms, as these actors did, inevitably
flattens the poetic content, too. If an
actor is insufficiently trained or experienced to handle heightened language—and,
by the way, modern dramatists like Tennessee Williams and August Wilson write
in this vein, too—he’ll likely be equally unable to raise the stakes for his
character above the quotidian concerns of everyday people. It was this lack of high-stakes acting that
stripped the characters of their grand passions and ultimately rendered them
unbelievable and unsatisfying.
Shakespeare
did not write soap operas.
In Stratford
on Hudson’s yuppie A Midsummer Night’s Dream, the cast was racially mixed,
about evenly split between black and white.
Although Hippolyta, the Amazonian princess about to marry Theseus, Duke
of Athens (Mark Fortgang), was African-American, so were several
Athenians. The fairy kingdom was also
mixed, as were the Rude Mechanicals.
There wasn’t a pattern in the casting, like the Antony and Cleopatra I saw at Washington, D.C.’s Shakespeare
Theatre at the Folger during the fall in which Cleopatra (Franchelle Stewart
Dorn) and the Egyptian court were African-American and Mark Antony (Kenneth
Haigh) and the Romans were Caucasian.
“Non-traditional
casting” is the Actors’ Equity name for its policy of encouraging producers and
directors to consider women, minorities, and the handicapped for roles that do
not specifically require them, but also do not specifically exclude them. Equity contends, for instance, that all
doctors are not white males. Surely, no
one can argue with this practice.
The idea is
to give underrepresented actors chances they might not otherwise get, but difficulties can come from
misunderstanding or misapplying the principle and care must be taken. In other words, if casting an African-American
man as a lawyer only says, “Here’s a lawyer, who also happens to be black,” that’s
great. On the other hand, if the
character is defending the KKK, such casting might add an unintended
dimension. (Samuel Beckett rejected the
idea of casting a woman as either Estragon
or Vladimir in Waiting for Godot
because such a pairing would imply things about the relationship between the
two characters that aren’t part of the play.)
Now, most of
director Alfred Hyslop’s color-blind casting in Stratford on Hudson’s Midsummer was fine, and several of the
actors made striking visual impacts, such as the black actress (Pamela Jean
Shaddock) playing Puck in a leather skirt and sequined blouse. One case of casting, however, appeared
incongruous because it didn’t line up with Shakespeare’s words.
In his
magic-induced passion, Demetrius says to Helena, “That pure congealed white,
high Taurus’ snow. / Fann’d with the eastern wind, turns to a crow / When thou
hold’st up thy hand: O, let me kiss / This princess of pure white, this seal of
bliss!” Dawn Isaac, who plays Helena, is
African-American. Demetrius’ lines don’t make sense while he’s
kissing a bronze-colored arm. How can he
mean them? How can the actor
believe them?
Compounding
the incongruity, a few lines later, Lysander calls Hermia, Helena’s (white)
rival and friend, an “Ethiope” and, later, a “tawny Tartar.” The intended comparison is clearly “beautiful”
white skin over “unattractive” dark skin.
The racism of this attitude—pervasive in the Renaissance—by today’s standards
makes it valid to change the text to accommodate the mixed cast. Unless the lines are changed, this is an
example of misapplied “non-traditional casting,” and I don’t understand why
Hyslop didn’t just make the rewrite. If
you are loathe to tinker with Shakespeare’s lines, then you must also cast
accordingly. You can’t have it both
ways.
* *
* *
A MIDSUMMER NIGHT’S DREAM
Pointed Stick Theatre
29th Street Repertory Theater
23 October 1988
The
“Director’s Note” in the Pointed Stick Theatre’s program for A Midsummer Night’s Dream (at
the 29th Street Repertory Theater, 527 W. 29th Street) states that John
McDanal is “treating the ‘Dream’ as a new play.” After 400 years, that may be a little
presumptuous, but the production does contain several ideas that are, to say
the least, curious.
McDanal promises
to explore the violence and animalism in us all. Attired in tights and tee-shirts or leotards
overlain with identifying character accessories—red shorts, a studded wristband—the
mortals enter in pairs with karate shouts and strike combat poses. During their opening lines, Duke Theseus (McDanal)
and Queen Hippolyta (Avis-Marie Barnes) roll on the ground in rough sex.
“Tough guy”
Demetrius (David Bloom), who, like Lysander (Michael H. Higgins), wears leather
costume pieces over his tights, later rapes Helena (Hazel Robinson) to punish
her for following him into the forest and dissuade her from interfering
further. In the face of this, however,
the acting is flat and unengaged. It’s another
instance of the director using a program note to stand in for missing stage
work.
The animal
imagery is invoked by the fairy characters, all but one of whom has costume
additions of pelts and skins and, for the men, go bare-chested. Except for one fairy, however, none exhibits
any animal behavior.
Now bestial humans
and animal spirits could go together nicely, and using a fantasy-comedy to
explore our brutishness might make a strong dramatic point. It could certainly be a stunning theatrical
premise. The cast, though, doesn’t
follow through with the visual images created in their costumes and
blocking. Having devised this
interpretation, the director couldn’t or wouldn’t commit to it as a real
production concept.
McDanal, for
example, gives Puck (Pierre Shrady) and Peaseblossom/Egeus (Mikal Reich) each a
set of drums upstage which they play at selected moments and provides Bottom (John
Haran) with an immense, green phallus along with his donkey’s head, but these
things don’t seem to add anything to “the grand humor of Shakespeare.” One might have, had the director and cast
followed through on it. Unhappily, they
seem to have relegated it to little more than a design element.
The costumes
in this Midsummer are essentially non-representational—mostly tights and
leotards or other tops. Color and the
style of the top, along with certain accouterments such as a bright, red
miniskirt or a studded belt or wristlet, indicate character, but there’s no
attempt to create a specific period or culture.
The fairies, however, are given definite animal elements for their
costumes.
Oberon (Ken
Kodish) has a pelt strapped to his left thigh and a piece of leopard-skin cloth
over his right shoulder; Titania (Mary Louise Dobrian) wears a lizard-skin body
stocking; Puck wears leopard-skin tights, and Cobweb (Sharon Caplan) has a
small lizard appliqued on the back of her leotard. In some cases, animal images are continued in
make-up, such as the spiderweb on Titania’s left foot and the “warts” on
Cobweb’s face. The male fairies—Oberon,
Puck, and Peaseblossom—are bare-chested, an added suggestion of their feral
nature.
Of these
characters, only Caplan’s Cobweb behaves in any way like an animal. She walks about in a crouch, her arms
dangling in front of her and her tongue flicking in and out. She usually enters with Peaseblossom, whose
character I was unable to determine, her left arm curled around his right leg
as if she were a lizard clinging to a tree branch. Except for a stomping dance twice performed
by Oberon and Titania, none of the fairies’ other behavior is in any clear way
animalistic. Director McDanal seems to
have left it to the costumier, uncredited in the program (as are all of the
designers for this production), to fulfill the “sometimes bestial” part of his
concept.
Now, unlike
making drummers out of Puck and Peaseblossom/Egeus—the same actor plays both
characters, and he drums in both guises—the view of the forest folk as animal-like,
even “bestial,” could be useful to the production, particularly if the idea
were carried over to the lovers as they go deeper and deeper into the woods—and
fall deeper and deeper under its fairy spell.
Passion—love,
fear, jealousy, hatred—has an animal aspect: in the grip of passion, people can
behave more like beasts than thinking humans.
But for the play to make this point, the production must commit to the
idea and go with it. Animal images can
be a wonderful, useful, and liberating technique for an actor, but a few
costume trappings don’t accomplish anything.
An actor must develop the image and communicate it in behavior—speech
and gesture—to the audience, otherwise it adds little to the production.
It’s too
bad. Among the confusion of incongruous
images in this production, here’s a good idea that went astray.
I wrote earlier
about playing Shakespeare as if it had the passion content of a present-day
soap opera, in which the actors treat the poetic language and the poetic
substance as if they were daily speech and common concerns. It seems that this failing recurs in many
Off-Off-Broadway productions of Shakespeare.
As I hinted earlier, Pointed Stick’s Midsummer is, sadly, no
exception.
Director McDanal
is of the opinion that “The ‘Dream’ . . . is damn near actor-proof.” Obviously it isn’t; it isn’t director-proof,
either. It may be “open to almost every
conceivable interpretation,” including his, but no play is safe from actors or
directors who don’t heed their author’s most basic acting lesson: “suit the
action to the word, the word to the action.”
Actors can’t do this if what they say is belied by what they do,
including line delivery.
Here’s what
I mean: Demetrius, who is hopelessly in
love with Hermia (Sarah Joy Bloom), has followed her and her lover Lysander into
the woods. Helena, who desperately loves
Demetrius but whom he loathes, has, in turn, followed him.
Now, here’s
a circumstance fraught with strong emotion.
Yet when Demetrius says to Helena, whom he can’t get rid of, “I do not
nor I cannot love you,” Bloom says it so flatly, so matter-of-factly, I almost
missed it entirely. Can you imagine
chasing your one-and-only love who has run off to elope with your rival, and
having a kid you can’t stand clinging to your shirttails? Would you dismiss her with a cool “I don’t
love you, now beat it”? I don’t know
about you, but I’d get pretty frustrated, angry, and out of control.
Helena, in
her turn, responds, “Use me but as your spaniel, spurn me, strike me. / Neglect
me, lose me . . . .” That sure
sounds like pleading to me, and pretty self-abasing at that. Robinson’s Helena, however, delivers the
lines passively, with minimal physicalization of her feelings.
At the
scene’s end, when McDanal has Demetrius rape Helena, Robinson merely shouts to
suggest passion; whether it’s fury or eroticism I’m not sure. “Fie, Demetrius!” she utters, with no
emotional content whatsoever. In a show
larded with gratuitous displays of violence and brutality, none of it shows up
where it’s needed.
This kind of
empty acting exists all through the production.
Toward the end, after the four lovers are awakened by Theseus and Egeus,
after the fairies have wreaked their chaos and put the four through what has to
be the strangest experience of their collective lives, Demetrius says, “These
things seem small and undistinguishable, / Like far-off mountains turned into
clouds.” Hermia adds, “Methinks I see
these things with parted eye, / When everything seems double.” The wonderment expressed in these lines is
entirely belied by the actors’ behavior; they dismiss it with the sort of
verbal shrug New Yorkers might use when they see one of our ubiquitous street
crazies.
Shakespeare
also said, “Be not too tame neither.”
No comments:
Post a Comment