Is I.2 meant to be boring?
Mar. 18th, 2009 02:59 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alexxkayWhen I was first studying theater in high school, one important lesson I learned was not to look bored. Even if you are playing a background character who isn't specifically involved in the foreground action, stay focused on that action. If you don't, and let your attention wander, the audience will take a cue from you, and also not pay as much attention to the main action as they should.
Currently, during the 'Salic Law' speech, we background folks are being directed to act bored. This worries me, as it clearly goes against my early training. It's traditional to play this scene for laughs, but I am dubious about this. Canterbury actually has a well-reasoned and developed argument (if allowed to get his whole speech out without cuts). Henry is (at least on the surface level) explicitly very interested in the matter. Are the rest of us really meant to be bored with it?
On the other hand, I'm not sure that this direction is wrong, either. Look at The Tempest; I.2 in both plays is actually pretty similar -- a big chunk of background exposition. In Tempest, the on-stage listening character is explicitly bored, to the point of falling asleep. What is Shakespeare doing in these scenes?
Each of these scenes establishes the moral justification for all the actions that will follow. But does most of the audience *need* moral justifications? Prospero's tricks, and Harry's war, are inherently entertaining stagecraft, even if the audience doesn't have full understanding of their context.
I'm interested in hearing other people's opinions on this matter.
Currently, during the 'Salic Law' speech, we background folks are being directed to act bored. This worries me, as it clearly goes against my early training. It's traditional to play this scene for laughs, but I am dubious about this. Canterbury actually has a well-reasoned and developed argument (if allowed to get his whole speech out without cuts). Henry is (at least on the surface level) explicitly very interested in the matter. Are the rest of us really meant to be bored with it?
On the other hand, I'm not sure that this direction is wrong, either. Look at The Tempest; I.2 in both plays is actually pretty similar -- a big chunk of background exposition. In Tempest, the on-stage listening character is explicitly bored, to the point of falling asleep. What is Shakespeare doing in these scenes?
Each of these scenes establishes the moral justification for all the actions that will follow. But does most of the audience *need* moral justifications? Prospero's tricks, and Harry's war, are inherently entertaining stagecraft, even if the audience doesn't have full understanding of their context.
I'm interested in hearing other people's opinions on this matter.