Entry tags:
(no subject)
Since I have absolutely nothing better to do these days than trawl the internet and post links, today, you get an interview with Eddie Redmayne by Black Book Magazine. HEARTS. I love Eddie, I think he's a monstrously talented actor who is going to go so, so far. You can read my review at Theatre Geekery on Red for the full extent of my fangirling on that matter, but suffice to say he and everyone else blew me away.
So a couple of entries ago I posted an essay by Adam Rapp talking about the life that a work has after it leaves the author's hands. Today, a piece of the interview has me wondering: whose interpretation of a character is more valid?
Understand: this is a person who is never on stage, never spoken about between Rothko (Alfred Molina) and Ken. The matter is never brought up, and if it is, I think it is only indirectly -- I think Rothko might jeer Ken and taunt him about playing with his friends or something, but it's not a discussion. So I can see (and I know that there are several people out there going) where someone would say: does it really fucking matter?
The answer is yes, it does really fucking matter. Even though you may not think twice about it, sexual orientation is a huge part of a character, especially when we're talking about a time period like the 1950's, when Red takes place. Even if it is never the focal point of a single conversation that the character has, it's still going to inform everything else they do as an integrated part of their character. This is an argument I've had many times and I'm sorry for being so blunt about it, but yes, if you want a fully formed character who comes across as a person and not just a meat puppet on stage, it does matter.
Now that I've gotten that soapbox out of my system for the minute, my real question is this: is the playwright's interpretation of the character more valid than the actor's? Why or why not?
I don't think that it necessarily is, in this case, since it's not a large part of the dramatic action of the play. But it interests me and as a dramaturg it's something I'd like to talk to both of them about, but while I'm dreaming I also want a pony and to live in a treehouse on a desert island.
(For the record, I thought that Ken was talking to his sister on the phone -- the only other person of any significance mentioned in regards to him. The language doesn't necessarily indicate a romantic relationship, from what I remember, and it seemed reasonable enough to me at the time.)
So a couple of entries ago I posted an essay by Adam Rapp talking about the life that a work has after it leaves the author's hands. Today, a piece of the interview has me wondering: whose interpretation of a character is more valid?
<There’s a scene where Ken is talking to someone on the phone, trying to decide whether to show Rothko his own paintings. Who was he talking to?
That’s a very good question. I think it’s his girlfriend, and John Logan (the writer) thinks it’s his boyfriend. It remains a bone of contention between the two of us.
Understand: this is a person who is never on stage, never spoken about between Rothko (Alfred Molina) and Ken. The matter is never brought up, and if it is, I think it is only indirectly -- I think Rothko might jeer Ken and taunt him about playing with his friends or something, but it's not a discussion. So I can see (and I know that there are several people out there going) where someone would say: does it really fucking matter?
The answer is yes, it does really fucking matter. Even though you may not think twice about it, sexual orientation is a huge part of a character, especially when we're talking about a time period like the 1950's, when Red takes place. Even if it is never the focal point of a single conversation that the character has, it's still going to inform everything else they do as an integrated part of their character. This is an argument I've had many times and I'm sorry for being so blunt about it, but yes, if you want a fully formed character who comes across as a person and not just a meat puppet on stage, it does matter.
Now that I've gotten that soapbox out of my system for the minute, my real question is this: is the playwright's interpretation of the character more valid than the actor's? Why or why not?
I don't think that it necessarily is, in this case, since it's not a large part of the dramatic action of the play. But it interests me and as a dramaturg it's something I'd like to talk to both of them about, but while I'm dreaming I also want a pony and to live in a treehouse on a desert island.
(For the record, I thought that Ken was talking to his sister on the phone -- the only other person of any significance mentioned in regards to him. The language doesn't necessarily indicate a romantic relationship, from what I remember, and it seemed reasonable enough to me at the time.)