I
agree with Albee on some points, but I disagree with his main contention that
the writing itself is far superior to the production. He is right in saying
that plays are literature; however, they are literature with an intention of
being performed. That is after all the main distinguishing factor between a
play and novel in my opinion: one writes a novel so it will be read, one writes
a play so it will be read and performed on stage.
The
qualitative differences between reading a play and seeing a production do not,
in my opinion, lend themselves to any hierarchal distinctions that subordinate
the performance to the reading. Each experience has its own unique perspective,
and different elements come into play in each perspective. For example, when
reading a play, if the playwright allows room for interpretation in how the set
is arranged or how specifically the characters act, then the reader will bring
his or her own prejudices into that reading and shape the story through them. Also, when I read a play,
the perspective I watch the events transpire from is one in which I am on the
stage in the middle of the events as an invisible 3rd person
onlooker.
When
watching a play however, I am fixed in the perspective of an audience member.
Watching the play requires less work on my part in creating the scenery and
actions in my head, and it also does away with the invisible 3rd person
perspective with which I instinctively read plays. In some plays, the audience
is integrated into the actions of the performance, and this element is absent
when reading a play.
In
conclusion, it is apparent that reading and seeing plays are two different
experiences, but although one may have a personal preference for one over the
other, I do not think it is fair to say that one medium is objectively
superior. Rather, each lends itself to a unique experience, incorporating
different elements and perspectives from which one can draw different meanings
and interpretations.
No comments:
Post a Comment