by John Heywood (c1497-1578)
Written around 1525, surviving in a single manuscript.
Cast of Three:
JOHN
JAMES
JEROME
Perfect for student or fringe production, running at approximately 45 minutes without a break.
Our Production: Full cast audio adaptation - with Rob Myson as John, Heydn McCabe as James, and Robert Crighton as Jerome. The announcer is Simon Nader.
If you'd like to read the text of the play the original text (handwritten) can be viewed here or there's a modern spelling edition of the play here. NB: there are a few errors and oddities in this edition, but it's close enough for mustard.
 |
| Can you spot the difference? |
The cast is all male, but there is no particular reason why the genders should not be changed for modern productions - their names are never mentioned in the text, and even pronouns are used fairly sparsely. (Sir twice, he a few times - though usually to describe a hypothetical generic 'he' rather than the other speakers - it's very changeable.)
Setting: some event at the court of Henry VIII or one associated with it. The only two explicit indicators in the text to the world around are references to the king's fool, Will Summer, and to the kind of tat you might buy from Walsingham Abbey - a pseudo relic, a Walsingham ring, being the sort of thing sold to the credulous. The play doesn't really have a specific setting outside of that original performance context - it is a play about two people having an argument in a room populated with other people (an audience) from which a third person appears (from the audience most probably) to join the debate. That makes the play sound dry, but it has some interesting dynamics. For our studio recording we set the play in a pub, a definite setting rather than a performative one, where an argument can be both private and overheard; where you can argue with someone, but play the argument out to the rest of the room, or in our case, to the barman.
Plot and Character: The play is a debate, or perhaps more a battle of wills - or wits even. We're not going to go into detail about how the debate is structured - we're more interested in the way it flows between the characters - much of the thrust of the play is in the personalities at work. James, who argues that it is better to be witless than witty, constantly battles away at the less skillful arguer of John, who consistently concedes his own position. In brief - James believes that the witless, those who are less intelligent or educated, are happier than people who are witty, those who are more intellectual. John disagrees and the two argue it out. John's method of argument is mostly responsive, when he does make a point he repeats it in lists of examples, and then, conceding his opponents position, tries to change the terms of reference. Yes, you're right about X, but the important issue is really Y. He doesn't land a blow on James but dances around to another position.
 |
| Our working script also features some crossing out... |
We decided that James was the more skilled debater, and that he may have chosen to debate with John because he knows he can beat him - despite winning the argument, you don't get the impression that James is really a brilliant debater, merely a dilettante who chooses his battles well. Of course, this is merely our own interpretation.
James speaks almost without the use of a full stop. The original text isn't punctuated, but however you work it, it's a text of never ending thoughts, one flowing into another. Again, the question is, is this because James is so clever he can link together thought after thought, or is it an attempt by James to appear cleverer by bamboozling his opponent with never ending words? We went for the latter, though in live performance there's play between them both.
When John speaks at length it is to make a list - and again there is a lot of play with how 'boring' these lists should be. The actor can play with the pauses between lines, tempting James to try and interrupt, before saying another example. It's a fun game, and one of the hallmarks of Heywood's work is the playfulness of his texts. They are supremely theatrical, (difficult for us doing audio!) and allow the actor lots of room to play with timing and pace, which keeps what could be a very dry play from being too serious.
John eventually gives in to James, but then Jerome appears (probably from the audience) to argue John's point for him - that the witty, the intelligent, are happier. James almost immediately leaves - perhaps sensing that he cannot beat this opponent, and Jerome has to argue John back to his original point. John is something of a tennis ball between two people who are much better at arguing than he.
Modern Staging Suggestions: It's a difficult play to get across outside of the original context - just putting it on a modern stage might be a bit dry, though we're willing to be convinced otherwise. We believe this would make a great site specific show, performed either as part of some kind of reenactment event, or in modern dress, following our audio staging, in an actual pub or bar. With a cast of only three and no actual props required, it is perfect for fringe theatre or student productions, perhaps in a double bill with one of Heywood's other plays.
Comparison with other Heywood Plays: This was the first play we started working on with our core company for the Heywood plays, and it was the hardest to wrangle with. It was noticeably easier to rehearse both The Pardoner and the Friar and Gentleness and Nobility. Pardoner isn't perhaps a fair comparison, as it isn't a play that demonstrates much in the way of argument, or at least not one the audience has to follow in detail. Gentleness and Nobility is quite similar in that the play is a debate, except that there are three speakers arguing in the same space for much of the play, rather than two sets of two. The argument for Gentleness is easier to follow - the cast almost audibly sighed with relief at the end of part one when they realised that they didn't need a chart to follow the twists and turns of the debate, that there were shorter, self contained sentences and fewer never ending hanging clauses.
Issues: Presenting a debate is easier on stage than on audio. We put our hands up and say we've probably failed to present the argument in a way that the audience will automatically follow in as clear a way as with a visual element. A stage production can give visual clues as to the debate in play, creating visual reference points to key in what is being said.
Our cast pointed out that, in comparison with other Heywood plays, they didn't really know who John, James and Jerome were - they were just people having a debate. We made decisions about them, but there really aren't many sign posts in the text to guide the actor, and our choices can easily be ignored by future producers.
History: We don't know if anyone has staged Witty and Witless before. The script survived in manuscript, publication came much later and we haven't come across any modern productions - but knowing how patchy people can be documenting productions, we assume it's been done somewhere, just no one shouted about it. If you know of any performances, past/present/future, do let us know. And if you're thinking of having a go at the play - please get in touch. We'd love to know about your take, and to help archive it if we can. We don't want to see just one production of any play, we want multiple takes out there.
His Next Play: John John by John Heywood - where this young playwright adapts a French farce.
No comments:
Post a Comment