I ran in to an old friend last night at the Great River Shakespeare Festival. She was there for the free concert on the lawn and had already seen both shows. We chatted briefly about her thoughts on the shows (this is someone I once acted with in a summer theatre production, and who's theatre "claim to fame" is that she once acted on stage with Harrison Ford [in college]). Mostly she seemed to enjoy the shows, but one comment struck me. Regarding Twelfth Night, she said, "Of course, they played it for laughs."
She did go on to say that while Winonans are always quick to give a standing ovation to nearly everything, she admitted that she was first on her feet at the end, "so of course I must have liked it" she said.
But her comment about playing for laughs has stuck with me.
I hate playing for laughs. But I think there is a fine line between playing for laughs, and playing the comedy which you expect will get a laugh. When I tell me high schoolers to do something a specific way because it will get a laugh, is that playing for laughs? Or is that playing the comic moment, which is intended to get a laugh?
One of the things that I really like about the GRSF production of Twelfth Night is that it is funny. I've never seen a production of the show before that I enjoyed, and in large part because no other production that I've seen (maye three) has made me laugh. I'd always wondered why it was considered a comedy when it's always seemed so dry, and even nasty (consider what is done to Malvolio). The current GRSF production, to me, is funny, and I've finally enjoyed the show (and with the ability to watch it multiple times, as I have, I've gotten more from it).
And so I wonder ... is playing for laughs, in a comedy, wrong?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I always thought that was the definition of a comedy. What else would you play it for? Or does she playing lines for laughs and ruining the flow of the play? I thought the performance was great, and quite subtle.
By the way, saw a review of the SIgnature. I'll have to check that out.
I was thinking that she might have meant that there was some "mugging" going on. I do think that Sir Toby and Andrew came perilously close to mugging a few times when I saw it. But i also think it's a fine line between what hey were directed to do and going over the top.
I am reminded, K, of when we saw Pinter's THE HOTHOUSE in the Cities.One of the things I remember of that production is that the lead actor, during the infamous "Pinter pauses" would make a slow turn to look out at the audience, which always drew a laugh. That, to me, was playing for a laugh, and ruined the flow and intensity of the production. It could be argued, I suppose, that Pinter writes comedies and certainly writes pauses (what an odd comment!) and why not get a laugh during the pauses?
I would agree, though, that the GRSF production moved well and accomplished its goal, which is to tell the playwright's story.
Post a Comment