Richard III in theatre / institutional resistance

"johngarrick8" posted the following: "What would be the reasons for the pro-Richard plays not being produced very often? The quality perhaps? Scholarly Tudor indoctrination over the years?..."

I can't answer for other plays, but I can speak to mine. First, form your own judgement as to the quality of the language of "Dark Sovereign" basing your opinion on the excerpts and reviews which you will find on my web site. If your opinion is favourable, consider this: In my experience, trying to interest people in "Dark Sovereign" is to encounter an incredible load of institutional resistance. Nearly four centuries worth. "Richard III" is consistently among the top 5 of Shakespeare's performed plays, and programs are put together year after year by artistic directors who are comforted by the idea that at least one of their offerings is predictable.

Next, large sectors of the Establishment have earned senior appointments in theatre and English faculties by writing theses about Shakespeare's plays, or by founding a career (viz. Olivier) playing the hunchback. Shakespeare, the message reads, is untouchable, and therefore untouched. "Richard III" and the Shakespearean oeuvre as it stands constitute a vast vested interest. (The same conventional wisdom permeates all manner of scientific research, by the way. It's tough to get grant money for research that contradicts an established paradigm.) In fact, many of Shakespeare's plays are no better than the best output among his contemporary peers, of whom there were many. Nor is the Bard responsible for all of the wonderful language for which he is given credit: "lend me your ears" is cited in the big Oxford dictionary with a first use around 1385 (or thereabouts. I forget the precise year and don't have the big Oxford in this office). It was first used by the Dean of St. Andrews in Fife.

There is just too large an institutional vested interest in promoting extant Shakespeare as "Shakespeare Inc.", a vast industry that invites nothing and nobody to rock its boat. A director can bowdlerize the texts -- per the Wars of the Roses effort some years ago -- but never challenge the status duo ante.

I have had a senior academic at the U. of Toronto hand back the text of "Dark Sovereign" in a state of apoplexy, and the comment, "This can't be a play in Renaissance English. The stage directions are written in modern English." So they are. They're not voiced on stage! For example, I call for a hologram of the character Spirit in the last act. I take the attitude that nothing on earth should limit inventiveness -- in my case, provided only that the spoken text meets the standard I set for it: namely, that every word and phrase in my text had to have been used in the English language in a congruent sense prior to the years 1626

Cheers,

Robert Fripp

--
Robert Fripp <r_fripp@...>
Marketing communications for business, I.T., Life Sciences, Healthcare
Download Good Writing Gets Read for expert writing tips (print & web)
Find it on 'Menu' at http://RobertFripp.ca/ || http://writers.ca
Tel: 416.481.7070 x 29, The Impact Group, Toronto

I'm not sure what academia has to say about it, but the theater world in my circle has no problem with a historical Richard: my play was produced with no argument, and no one made a negative comment about crossing Shakespeare; similarly, my other Richard III play, which was reat at the AGM in Worcester, had a Shakespeare scholar playing the role of Shakespeare himself (and Shakespeare isn't at his best in my play...). No complaints about blasphemy on any level, and she made a wonderful Shakespeare, too. Several of the other actors were her students, and they all had, I think, a good time, and also didn't object to a non-Shakespearian take on Richard. So I think it's hard to categorize these things.

Maria
elena@...

-----Original Message-----
>From: Robert Fripp <r_fripp@...>
>Sent: Jan 8, 2008 3:23 PM
>To:
>Subject: Richard III in theatre / institutional resistance
>
>"johngarrick8" posted the following: "What would be the reasons for the pro-Richard plays not being produced very often? The quality perhaps? Scholarly Tudor indoctrination over the years?..."
>
>I can't answer for other plays, but I can speak to mine. First, form your own judgement as to the quality of the language of "Dark Sovereign" basing your opinion on the excerpts and reviews which you will find on my web site. If your opinion is favourable, consider this: In my experience, trying to interest people in "Dark Sovereign" is to encounter an incredible load of institutional resistance. Nearly four centuries worth. "Richard III" is consistently among the top 5 of Shakespeare's performed plays, and programs are put together year after year by artistic directors who are comforted by the idea that at least one of their offerings is predictable.
>
>Next, large sectors of the Establishment have earned senior appointments in theatre and English faculties by writing theses about Shakespeare's plays, or by founding a career (viz. Olivier) playing the hunchback. Shakespeare, the message reads, is untouchable, and therefore untouched. "Richard III" and the Shakespearean oeuvre as it stands constitute a vast vested interest. (The same conventional wisdom permeates all manner of scientific research, by the way. It's tough to get grant money for research that contradicts an established paradigm.) In fact, many of Shakespeare's plays are no better than the best output among his contemporary peers, of whom there were many. Nor is the Bard responsible for all of the wonderful language for which he is given credit: "lend me your ears" is cited in the big Oxford dictionary with a first use around 1385 (or thereabouts. I forget the precise year and don't have the big Oxford in this office). It was first used by the Dean of St. Andrews in Fife.
>
>There is just too large an institutional vested interest in promoting extant Shakespeare as "Shakespeare Inc.", a vast industry that invites nothing and nobody to rock its boat. A director can bowdlerize the texts -- per the Wars of the Roses effort some years ago -- but never challenge the status duo ante.
>
>I have had a senior academic at the U. of Toronto hand back the text of "Dark Sovereign" in a state of apoplexy, and the comment, "This can't be a play in Renaissance English. The stage directions are written in modern English." So they are. They're not voiced on stage! For example, I call for a hologram of the character Spirit in the last act. I take the attitude that nothing on earth should limit inventiveness -- in my case, provided only that the spoken text meets the standard I set for it: namely, that every word and phrase in my text had to have been used in the English language in a congruent sense prior to the years 1626
>
>Cheers,
>
>Robert Fripp
>
>--
>Robert Fripp <r_fripp@...>
>Marketing communications for business, I.T., Life Sciences, Healthcare
>Download Good Writing Gets Read for expert writing tips (print & web)
>Find it on 'Menu' at http://RobertFripp.ca/ || http://writers.ca
>Tel: 416.481.7070 x 29, The Impact Group, Toronto
>