Construction/Deconstruction

[Glen Nichols]

On Wed, 14 Feb 1996, Richard Hurst wrote:
 
> Regarding Richard Sutherland's post concerning Macbeth ... >
> The director, however, had agreed, as part
> of the contract with the Theatre, that she would come in under two hours!
> The rationale at that point was time. Prior to that, a
> "serviceability" was the excuse ... the kids wouldn't sit still for longer
> than two hours (which was really not the case at all)
 
 
Your discussion of the reasons for the cutting etc., especially since you
were actively involved in the process, is valuable and interesting. I was
glad to see you qualified the validity of some of the reasons for the
shortening.  The factors of union costs and other practical considerations
make lots of sense; these are the REAL elements of mounting a show.  so
are the considerations of the audience expectations and "stamina";
however, it does make me sad to see that there are still directors out
there who think that young people are not able to be interested enough in
something "hard" like Shakespeare, so they feel they have to cut it down
to size to meet their own low view of their audience's abilities.  I think
your comment "(which wasn't really the case at all)"  very poignantly
shows that when the show is well done, the young people are not so "low"
after all.
 
Since you were involved in the cutting and from your message it was clear
some debate took place about what to cut and what not to cut.  After the
the time consideration was in place, what factors were used to determine
what went and what didn't?  The practicalities are one thing, but the
other areas (call them aesthetic for lack of better term on the fly) must
come into play.  I'd to hear more about your process.
 
Sincerely
Glen