Is honouring the text such a bad thing?
Not being able to sleep, I’ve just listened to a fascinating interview with the young British cellist Sheku Kanneh-Mason. During it, he was asked about who his influences were. He immediately spoke of another British cellist, the late Jacqueline du Pré. He then made a comment which resonated: “She made a commitment to every note.”
That struck me as quite profound.
That struck me as quite profound.
She made a commitment to every note.
For me, that says a lot about her respect (and his) for the score and by virtue, the composer and their work. She attended to the detail of their detail. She respected the work. I guess as a professional, she wanted to do it justice. And it reminded me of an adage, the origins of which are now lost to me: when you honour the writer, you honour yourself.
When it comes to writing, I have no delusions. I’m a very small fish in a huge sea. But I am always very particular about what I write. My process isn’t quick. I can spend what feels like an eternity on a play. Working and reworking it and the eventual product. It’s no exaggeration that I do consider every single word. A few words together can create a unique and special moment in the life of a character and their journey. For a member of an audience, that moment can catch their breath and can remain with them for long after. And if you get the alchemy of word-smithing right, a moment can last a lifetime.
I have often said that I don’t write plays. I write life. And life isn’t easy. Because of that, neither is my writing. Knowing that, I make no apologies for it. You will like it or you won’t. You will perform it or you won’t. That’s life, I guess. I can’t write to please everyone so I write to please me.
I have always felt that, when you commit to performing something, be that as a musician or actor, you are committing to perform the piece and all the moments it contains. Not your version of it (unless that's the intention). Yes, there is (must be) nuance in performance and the personalisation of delivery is what makes that performance have spontaneity, energy; makes it exciting and “in the moment.” That is the actor's art and what they bring to the table, what they do with the words I've provided. And the vast majority do just that. And I am always humbled that they choose to take up my challenge.
I am precious about what I write. But I am passionate that it is respected. I guess that I have a naïve belief that performers will feel the same, appreciate the moments those words create. Yet, the number of times over the years where actors have put me on notice that they don’t. “You know me, I always change things.” This was usually accompanied by a laugh to which I was supposed to join in. And I always did. It was just easier. But inside, it never was.
I vividly remember being told by an actor - in front of the cast during a rehearsal - that they couldn’t learn something so would “give me their version of it.” We all laughed. Again.
Inaccuracy in delivering a text does not invalidate it or the performance, but when it happens, something is lost; it is done at the expense of 'a moment.'
And then setting out not to deliver those words, those moments because you can’t, or won’t or just don’t. That’s not the nuance of performance. It’s not just inappropriate. It's unfair. The older I’ve become, it’s no longer acceptable. It's pretty insulting. At the age I am now, I’m beginning to call it out. Spoiler alert: I’m really not laughing inside any more.
I’ve written on this subject before, but from the perspective of producing companies/directors and their penchant for taking a pencil to a text.
This is about the personal face of it. The performer and their performance. Going back to my adage, "when you honour the text you honour the writer." Then surely, you might easily replace that word with "dishonour."
An actor doing what they like with the text brings to mind several things.
One of them isn’t a desire in me to laugh.
I don’t expect any actor to make a commitment to every word.
But at least having an aspiration to, isn’t a bad thing, is it?
I have always felt that, when you commit to performing something, be that as a musician or actor, you are committing to perform the piece and all the moments it contains. Not your version of it (unless that's the intention). Yes, there is (must be) nuance in performance and the personalisation of delivery is what makes that performance have spontaneity, energy; makes it exciting and “in the moment.” That is the actor's art and what they bring to the table, what they do with the words I've provided. And the vast majority do just that. And I am always humbled that they choose to take up my challenge.
I vividly remember being told by an actor - in front of the cast during a rehearsal - that they couldn’t learn something so would “give me their version of it.” We all laughed. Again.
Inaccuracy in delivering a text does not invalidate it or the performance, but when it happens, something is lost; it is done at the expense of 'a moment.'
And then setting out not to deliver those words, those moments because you can’t, or won’t or just don’t. That’s not the nuance of performance. It’s not just inappropriate. It's unfair. The older I’ve become, it’s no longer acceptable. It's pretty insulting. At the age I am now, I’m beginning to call it out. Spoiler alert: I’m really not laughing inside any more.
This is about the personal face of it. The performer and their performance. Going back to my adage, "when you honour the text you honour the writer." Then surely, you might easily replace that word with "dishonour."
An actor doing what they like with the text brings to mind several things.
One of them isn’t a desire in me to laugh.
I don’t expect any actor to make a commitment to every word.
But at least having an aspiration to, isn’t a bad thing, is it?
Comments
Post a Comment