Discussing the play with John the Baptist |
The Prologue: Baleus Prolocutor
So, the opening and closing speeches are to be spoken by Bale or someone as him. (We decided to ignore this in the recording, so that there was at least one female part in the production. It also meant we could use the same actor to read stage directions without them being confused as another character.) They are outside the text, the author directly addressing his audience, or perhaps more appropriately, his flock. Making this Tudor text clear was a challenge and one which, in the short time span available, I don't know has succeeded. But you may judge for yourself. Hopefully anyone thinking of reading the play can use the recording to help guide them into the text.
Act Seven: John the Baptist
We spent a little longer recording the completed scene seven. The play is a running argument, starting with Adam and ending with John, encountering various Biblical figures along the way. All argue with God to forgive mankind, and only with John does God relent - though, of course, he has already relented, having already sent Jesus into the world.
Cecil Qadir as John the Baptist |
Again, as we rehearsed this scene we had a long discussion about clarity. The final recording is clearer than the opening and closing speeches, as it is a dialogue. If you read the precis first, I suspect what is being said is clear. However, out of context, without reading the above, I suspect most people will struggle.
This isn't, I hope, just because of our performances. I suspect that the text, its very denseness, will always make this play a difficult proposition. It is, oddly, harder to follow than an earlier play - it is caught between the more rigid rhyming verse of the medieval street theatre and the later public theatre voice. That doesn't make the play uninteresting, just difficult, and I hope listening will reward your effort.
The Epilogue: Baleus Prolocutor
I find, listening back, that the closing speech is much clearer - but that could just be me. It's possibly tempered by the fact that I've gone through the play before listening to it and am more attuned - which would also be the case for the audience. It's a reminder of the message of the play and the importance of the Protestant interpretation of Christianity.
The light of our faith makes this thing evident,
And not the practice of other experiment.
The other being the Catholic interpretation. This is a polemical work, designed to reference the Catholic drama of the middle ages but retooled for Protestant ears. This kind of religious propaganda is short lived, lasting from the reformation to the reign of Elizabeth, with both sides of the divide flinging drama of this sort at each other. It was divisive, dangerous and could not last. Perhaps the reason why these plays have fallen out of favour is this lack of context. The play doesn't need to involve inner conflict, because the conflict was off stage, the danger is in the existence of the play, not necessarily in the dramaturgy. The challenge for a modern producer is to find a way of making these stakes evident.
No comments:
Post a Comment