Actors made him brilliant?

[Helga]

I was reading about the new book by Frank Kermode, The New Age of Shakespeare, in it he says that good actors made his best and most dramatic caracters.

The actors created a new way of acting with more of a humane sight on things and people.

I haven't got my hands around the book jet but I was wondering what you all think of the issue?

.................................................. ......................................

[simon]

Well I haven't heard that idea specifically, but it is surmised that for Shakespeare to have made up so many new words his writitngs couldn't have been the product of merely one person, rather based on many peoples contributions. But as for the characters development I am sure that all actors add contributions, and addlibbing. I think that the written product of the plays is based on the writers efforts and then the actors interpretations, so it is a mix.

[Ace42]

Most of the words "created" by Shakespeare are hyphenated. IE he crams two existing words together with a hyphen. This is not particularly difficult, and as a stylistic device, quite characteristic, so I'd not say it would mean it is the product of more than one writer.

[seeker]

he says that good actors made his best and most dramatic caracters

I am sure he would pick the best actors of the time to be his lead characters, but but I dont think they made him more famous than a good actor today makes M. Night Shaymyalan a good director.

There are always good actors around, but the director is the one who writes the story and tells them how they should make the audience feel.

[bjortan]

When I read Shakespeare, one thing that strikes me - compared to reading modern(er) plays - is that Shakespeare almost NEVER gives any sort of indication to the actor or director of how a scene should be played. Is this character 15 or 30 years old? Is that line supposed to be angry, sarcastic or tender? Are the actors shouting, whispering or just conversing? Shakespeare doesn't say - he just gives the words, which of course (especially given the 400 years since they were written) can usually be taken more than one way.

I guess in that sense, directing/acting a Shakespeare play means you have a lot of freedom to adapt and interpret. Shakespeare gives the bare bones - the rest is up to the persons enacting the play. (Which, of course, explains how Baz Luhrmann could put "Romeo & Juliet" in an MTV-style 1990s without changing a single line of dialogue.)

So like Seeker says, it's true that every writer and every director needs good actors. But in the case of Shakespeare (and possibly other older playwrights - I'm not that well read there) the director and actors have a lot more freedom and responsibility than with, say, Brecht.

[Ace42]

When I read Shakespeare, one thing that strikes me - compared to reading modern(er) plays - is that Shakespeare almost NEVER gives any sort of indication to the actor or director of how a scene should be played.

That is because the plays were not written intact. To reduce the chances of plagarism, the parts would be written for the actors independantly, so they would see their pieces only. That way, you'd need all of the directions to crib the whole play. Infact, some of the material from the "bad folio" is thought to be cribbed from an actor's (faulty) memory, due to it being particularly divergent from the later and more sophisticated versions.

Why the stage directions seem to be predominantly missing could be thus attributed to a number of reasons: 1. As Shakespeare was a playwrite in residence, and to save on scribing copies of manuals, he kept the stage directions to himself. 2. The "master" scripts were kept by him or directorial trustees, and thus when the materials were collated for the folios, they were omitted. 3. They were so familiar with contemporary staging practices that writing them down was superflous. 4. The stage direction manuscripts were lost or misplaced, or considered an unnecessary waste of paper (it being expensive back then) when a book form of the plays need not be enacted, and thus need not have stage directions.



Is this character 15 or 30 years old? Is that line supposed to be angry, sarcastic or tender? Are the actors shouting, whispering or just conversing? Shakespeare doesn't say - he just gives the words, which of course (especially given the 400 years since they were written) can usually be taken more than one way.

The age, etc is unimportant. As there was limited makeup, etc at the time (limited budget) and a limited troop of actors available, the primary way for the actors to establish an age is from the dialogue. It is certainly true that modern readers / actors / directors have a harder time making inferences from the text than his contemporaries would've, but if you are very familiar with the work of Shakespeare and his contemporaries, it becomes easier and easier to pick through and see where he is going with it, etc.


But in the case of Shakespeare (and possibly other older playwrights - I'm not that well read there) the director and actors have a lot more freedom and responsibility than with, say, Brecht.

In my experience, directors of Shakespeare like to take a lot more freedom with the texts than the texts often allow.

[Helga]

The book says that actors changed Shakespeares original idea on caracters to make them more powerfull and more "human". I don't know if that is right or not but I don't like that idea. There are many thoughts on Shakespeares works and about the help he had. Maybe Marlow helped him in caracter development, some people think that, I don't know, but I do appreciate other opinions and your take on this...

[Ace42]

At the time, the schooling system of rhetoric was very very rigid. ALl their time would've been dedicated to learning the same books in the same way, often from the same places. I'd be highly skeptical of any similiaries which could be otherwise put down to "fashion" etc.

[Luckdragon]

When I read Shakespeare, one thing that strikes me - compared to reading modern(er) plays - is that Shakespeare almost NEVER gives any sort of indication to the actor or director of how a scene should be played.

Ah, that is true, but in Hamlet, when the Mousetrap play is about to be staged, Hamlet lectures the actors on the appositeness of fine play acting, which I think was a very clever way of Shakespeare getting across just what he wanted his actors to do.