remysun2000@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> The film surprised me by showing a solemnly respectful interpretation
> of Japanese culture on the part of Gilbert and Sullivan. I had always
> assumed it to be more cariacturististic. Is this something we've done
> to G&S in general or should I change my worldview?
From a 2006 Guardian article by Mike Leigh:
http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1938719,00.html
If these shows have fallen into disrepute over the years, it is because
directors have failed to understand their raw edge. This results in
boring, bland, sentimental, self-conscious, often gratuitously camp
productions, which entirely miss the point.
What, then, is "Gilbertian"? The word has been in the English language
for over a century, and to understand it we need to analyse the
stylistic alchemy of Gilbert's art as a dramatist. His genius is to fuse
opposites with an imperceptible sleight of hand, to blend the surreal
with the real, and the caricature with the natural. In other words, to
tell a perfectly outrageous story in a completely deadpan way...
But he was also a master of theatrical naturalism...
Gilbert belonged to a small group of dramatists who reacted against the
undisciplined melodramatic mess of the earlier Victorian theatre... One
of these was Tom Robertson, who was a major influence on Gilbert in two
ways. As a dramatist, his so-called "cup-and-saucer" plays such as Ours
(1866) and Caste (1867) depicted the world in a new, fresh, realistic
way; and as a director (or stage-manager, as they called it in those
days), he introduced Gilbert both to the revolutionary notion of
disciplined rehearsals and to mise-en-scène or unity of style in the
whole presentation - direction, design, music, acting.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Lawver lawvd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Without danger, Mr. Bardolph, there is no theatre." -Peter Shaffer
|
