First, I need to admit that I didn't read all of the above exchange...although it certainly looked impassioned! I'm on deadline with my column so gotta keep this short...

I'd just like to add, back the poster's original question, that for a Shakespeare audition (any audition really) you should do your best to know the TYPE of Shakespeare play the company is producing. In other words, if you go in with with perfect diction and text work and the director is setting the play in, well, a real world example here, the WILD WEST--it's not necessarily going to go so great for you. Yes, the director should ask you to do it again with an adjustment, but it may be hard for you to make such a switch on the spot and you won't have time to readjust your erect and graceful and standard american dialected Viola into a texas cowpoke. Some companies play fast and loose with the text, others honor it to the point of obsessiveness. For an audition its very helpful to know what kind of production you're up for!

And, I'd like to add, to anyone auditioning for a Shakespeare in the US, please PLEASE please please DON'T do a British accent!!!!! (please?)

One must be very cautious with Jackie's advice. Where theaters set their Shakespeare plays are often just that -- a setting -- and nothing more. Standard American will most often be the desired dialect in the majority of American Shakespeare productions no matter where the setting might be.

For example, we set our Winter's Tale in Romanov Russia. While it featured Russian music and Russian dancing, no one was required to have a Russian-American dialect (except one small bit with Autolycus).

We're setting our Othello in 1880's Cyprus -- a colonial outpost. Once again, the setting is irrelevant to the dialect. Standard American is required.

So, why do so many theaters set their Shakespeare plays in exotic locations and have so little regard for genuine dialects? It's simple -- because Shakespeare did the same thing. Shakespeare had very limited geographical knowledge. Shakespeare set his Winter's Tale, for example, in Sicilia and Bohemia. He put a sea between them. A simple look at a map tells you how far off he was.

Actors in Shakespeare's day did not wear fancy costumes -- they wore whatever costumes that had been donated or handed down to them, and they were functional. They helped the audience understand status and relationships and nothing more. Shakespeare's audience wouldn't have recognized a Bohemian if they saw one. So the Bohemians in his play were likely dressed like English country folk -- sheep herders -- which was all the information the audience needed to understand who they were.

No one in Shakespeare's day would've known what a Bohemian sounded like, either.

Shakespeare didn't care about geographical details, dialects, or even time itself. Most productions treat the material the same way.

Shakespeare productions that do outrageous things with the setting and dialects -- like setting a play in the Wild West with genuine dialects -- are in the EXTREME minority.

I just want to add that most plays weren't very specific at all about costumes, settings, etc in that time period.

Ok carry on. :-)

quote:

Originally posted by Prospective:
I just want to add that most plays weren't very specific at all about costumes, settings, etc in that time period.

Ok carry on. :-)

I must learn to be as concise as you. That's all I was trying to say, really.

The costumes of Shakespeare's time were functional in establishing status and relationships and nothing more. Today, particularly in British Shakespeare theater, dialects serve a similar function.

There are exceptions, of course. Even in American productions, characters like Sir Hugh Evans or Fluellen will have Welsh dialects no matter the setting because they are specifically written that way. Dr. Caius is another example -- his dialect will almost always be French, unless someone is doing something very unorthodox.

awww Jim! How fun to run across a post of yours. (It's your dear Phoebe, from As You Like It, but the way.)

If I can weigh in, I gotta side with Jim on the techincality of the text vs. emotional consciousness discussion.

I am great example of the modern actress who thought she could go in and rock some Shakespeare cuz she could rock some contemporary theater. I was totally wrong. I'm still too green to even put into words what exactly I did wrong and what I am now changing in my approach to Shakespeare. But simply put, it follows Jim's emphasis on text.

And by the way, Jim's amazing. Intimidating, but amazing!

Hello, I'm not sure why one has to take sides. I think the most sophisticated response is to see the truth in all of the "sides."

I don't think it's helpful to read this discussion, if it's read VERY carefully, as there being two sides. I almost agree with everything he wrote, as I stated clearly.

- Jason