What's That Sound?: The Difference of Actors

Continuing along with this theme of SOUND FOCUSING TEXT, I would like to delve into something that really interests me. The difference of actors. The way that each individual interprets texts adds so much (or, in some cases, takes away) from just the words. I would like to show you a few interesting clips that I've found that compare over 10 different versions of the SAME SCENE in Hamlet, and each one is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT! Isn't that amazing?! Last time, we looked at how the setting of the scene can impact the sound, and therefore, the focus of the text. This time we're focusing on just the actors' interpretations themselves.

This is part 1 of 4 of a series that takes Act 1, Scene 2 from Hamlet and gives it to us again and again and again, from different film productions. We'll be focusing on Laurence Olivier, Mel Gibson, Ethan Hawke, and David Tennant. Let's look at some key aspects of the Hamlets in these productions:

How do performance aspects influence how the sounds focus the text?

Continuing in my vein of SOUND FOCUSING TEXT, I will be spending some time with looking at how different performance aspects influence how sound really channels the text. I talked about this topic previously in my post on The Winter's Tale, with how setting influenced the actual meaning of the words being spoken.

Let's take a look at three different performances of Hamlet Act 1, Scene 2, each one with a different take on setting. It's interesting the way that the background details can change the very nuance of the sounds.

Continued Original Pronunciation- Why Does it Matter?

So why does it matter so much that ORIGINAL PRONUNCIATION (OP) is different than RECEIVED PRONUNCIATION (RP)?

In my previous post on SOUND, I discussed that there were these two different styles. Here is Kevin Bacon with another sample of OP, this time from King Henry V. He gives an explanation of what makes the OP so basically different than the RP.

I will summarize some of his key points:

• RP is very airy, with a higher pitch in voice, and a properly regal pose.
• OP is very earthy, with lower voice register and a more crouched position.
• RP is given in a majestic way.
• OP is very much more down to the basics, one man talking to another.
• OP is much quick paced than RP, with liaisons (links between the words to create fluidity).
• OP involves movement and life.

I think it matters how different the two are because the very way in which he acts is changed by the way he speaks. The very intensity, the pull into the drama is heightened when he gets down and dirty with the text. This shows me that Shakespeare was meant to be experienced, that Shakespeare was meant to be understood from the point of view of the common man. This is for everyone, not just those of elevated rank and station. In his book The Sound of Shakespeare, Wes Folkerth states that "Hearing is represented in early British culture as an opening up of the self, as a kind of surrender or submission, an openness" (68). This language, these plays were made to be heard and seen, and in response to being an object for interaction, a script became an experience for those who would open up and listen. There is a universal beauty in Shakespeare that can be found for all people. (For an example of this, Germans loved Shakespeare so much that they took and adopted him as part of their culture. See David's blog for more information.) Shakespeare for the people, in a language for them to connect with. That's why it matters so much to me.

Wouldn't it be fascinating to watch something like when Katharina and Petruchio meet in that scene from The Taming of the Shrew? The quick nature of the OP would build the tempo which is so necessary for the language of that scene to work. I know that since there are a few production companies that do performances in this style, I will look for a scene or two to use in my upcoming branch of research involving different productions of the same play. That will give me some more interesting fodder for thought. I hope you enjoyed it!

Original Pronunciation vs. Received Pronunciation of Shakespeare

Want to hear some Shakespeare in his own accent?!

This is Ben Crystal, an actor and researcher of Shakespeare, performing Sonnet 116 "Let me not to the marriage of true minds" first in modern accent, called RECEIVED PRONUNCIATION, and then in Elizabethan, or ORIGINAL PRONUNCIATION.

I am searching for the difference of SOUND between Elizabethan English and modern English, and the effects it has on the text, its understandings, and its performances.

In searching more into my theme of SOUND IN SHAKESPEARE, I went to the beloved class text of The Necessary Shakespeare. The General Introduction happens to be amazing, for anyone that didn't know it already. On page LXXXIV there is a section completely on "Shakespeare's English: Pronunciation." It references the fact that there was the GREAT VOWEL SHIFT that occurred between then and now. That's why many of the words in a "rhyming" poem don't actually rhyme when we read them aloud today. 

A list of some words that have changed include: folk (sound the L), wide  (said woide), knife (sound the k, i said as in wide), house (said hoos), dissention (in four syllables, without the SH sound), creeping (said craypin), and many more. There is an extended list under the section in the book.

Another important issue is that not only have pronunciations changed, but also "the differences in Shakespeare's English and ours in the accentuation of syllables" (LXXXV). Sometimes Shakespeare took certain liberties in changes the accented syllables in his words. Many of the words were just bizarrely accented compare to ours. 

• -TION and -SION were regularly said with two syllables. Some accents were slurred together with a nasal or a liquid. (See dissention in list of words above.)
• This caused other words to be broken. OCE-AN, MARRI-AGE, etc. 
• Nasals and liquids are used as if an "extra vowel were introduced between them and a preceding letter" (LXXXV). Ex: wrest(e)ler, Eng(e)land, ent(e)rance, de-ar, mo-re, etc.

Compared to RECEIVED PRONUNCIATION (RP), the ORIGINAL PRONUNCIATION (OP), can have: 1. an extra syllable, 2. one fewer syllable, 3. two adjoining syllables in adjoining words that elide. The spelling doesn't always give that hint away to the modern reader. (From LXXXV.)

That was some of my research for today. It will be more developed Monday as I have more time to round out these ideas and find some more examples in the text. Thanks and have a great day!

A More Organized Self with Re-Direction in Focus of Sound and Text

So in deciding that my theme was how SOUND FOCUSES TEXT, I just jumped right in and started doing applications and analyses instead of doing research. Silly me. So I've decided to take a step back and finish what  I started the RIGHT way. Here is a list of where I am going.


1. How does the pronunciation of a word change meanings?
I will be looking into the front of our class text The Necessary Shakespeare, which has a fascinating section on just this. I will also be looking a little bit into the Great Vowel Shift, which my classmate David pointed out to me in his comment on a previous post.


2. How do performance aspects influence how the sounds focus the text?
I want to look at different productions, and see if plays versus movies make a large difference in the sound. What about a live outdoor performance? What about a lavish silver screen production? 


3. How do individual performances bring out different aspects of the text and/or define characters?
This is one that I'm really interested in. I have a book, Author's Pen and Actor's Voice: Playing and Writing in Shakespeare's Theater, Robert Weimann, (I mentioned it in that same post that David commented on) that has to do with this very aspect. It's also what I looked at when I was comparing and contrasting performances, as in my post on A Winter's Tale, and my post on The Taming of the Shrew and Much Ado About Nothing.


These are what I am going to be focusing on, breaking them down into weeks and days. I'm making a schedule of when I'm posting/focusing on each topic, but I know that my next post will be on the first item. I noticed while making my sources page that I need to actually get sources that apply to my topic! So here I go, off into the world to get cracking on the research part of this research blog!

Finding a Point to the Madness AND a Taste of My Creativity

I've been studying SOUND, and so far, it's been a variety of different topics within the text. Although I'm extremely interested in the songs, and will not likely give that up altogether, I am leaning towards SOUND FOCUSING THE TEXT, and how that changes the meaning and understanding of Shakespeare's plays. I really enjoyed doing my last post about this topic, especially focusing on the comparison of different renditions of the same play. I am going to be editing/expanding that idea as per the suggestions of others, and some further ideas that have come to me through my studying. (Tonight shall not be the night since I'm having SEVERE technical difficulties-good grief.)

As I have been looking at The Tempest for inspiration on sound, I decided that's going to be my creative juice. I do baking. So I am making a CAKE that depicts the play. It's quite the adventure so far, since I went to the store, and it didn't have ANYTHING that I needed, so I made some interesting substitutions. And I'm excited about it. I'm debating with myself about whether to bring the big thing into class or not. Either way, my next post will include pictures and details of my cake/Shakespeare extravaganza. There are follow up elements to the cake as well, that show the connections between the elements of the cake and the elements of the play. Just know that my cake is delectably delicious. Thanks for being alive. Hopefully I continue to be so as well.

The Taming of the Shrew: A Text/Film Comparison of What Makes the Shrew Shrewish

This post applies my topic of SOUND in Shakespeare to an old idea. It's actually a bit of a follow up/comment on a previous post of mine when I read The Taming of the Shrew. I also read Joanna's blog post that wrote about the same time as mine. I watched the Elizabeth Taylor/Richard Burton version of this play, and am doing a comparison to the text, and how I think it all played together.

Firstly, I would like to focus on how the sounded lines changed the understanding of the text. When Katharine and Petruchio are having their battle of tongue and wit, the text allows for a very quick repartee between the two. I felt the need for snappish returns, which would in turn fuel the next response, culminating in a fantastic sparring of the sexes. I felt that, although Kate's lines were still witty, Taylor's sometimes drawn out delivery slowed down the pacing and changed the feeling of the exchange. Between the slowed delivery and the blocking, the scene became more focused on the physical exchange of who is mastering who with clever skillz and moves. I don't think that this is a necessarily bad choice, but I do feel that it takes the focus away from Kate's being a Shrew because of her tongue.

What makes her a SHREW?

Katharina of The Taming of the Shrew VS. Beatrice of Much Ado About Nothing

  If Kate is a Shrew because of her words, then who else is a Shrew? I am thinking of Beatrice from Much Ado About Nothing, and I don't believe that she is called a shrew. Is then the definition of the Shrew included in the delivery of the words? Kate has an exceptionally sharp tongue, and she's got the mind to fuel that dagger of hers. If her words were said is a lighter, almost more playful manner, would she be considered a shrew still? Is she a shrew because she shrieks her lines, and throws chairs and tables about? Beatrice is also very clever, and can dish out to anyone. She is in a constant rivalry of words with Benedick, and blasts words out nearly incessantly. However, they way that she speaks is completely opposite from Katharina. She is not physical, and has a less shrill tone to her voice. The sound comes across as much more pleasant. Consider the difference between how we are introduced to Kate and Beatrice in their openings. Here is Kate when we first meet her in the production that I just watched again.

Here is Beatrice in the opening of the excellent Kenneth Branaugh adaptation of the film version of the play Much Ado About Nothing.

The Shrew Katharina is very violent and tears your ears with her lines. Beatrice, though exceptionally sassy, is not called a shrew. Is this because she is bright and playful?

I'm going to be following this post with another one similar to this focusing on an analysis of language itself as a theme using these same two plays.

Sounds and Silence

This is a production of The Winter's Tale from 1981. Since my personal focus is on sound, and how it focuses the text, I am interested in different castings and productions. Firstly, may I say that after being used to having music in the background of almost every movie that we watch, it is strange listening for sound in a musicless production? Sometimes you don't realize what you're used to until it's suddenly not there.

I would refer you to Hermione's monologue that starts at 6:00. I listened to this seeing how sound could develop this emotional section. I found the inflections, tones, and pauses, that this actress applied very effective. Music is an arrangement of tones and silence, and that makes her speech a bit of  a song, one that appeals for justice and a restoration of her honor.

This is the animated version of the play done by BBC. Our scene starts at about 2:25 and goes to about 4:17. This is a short poignant version of the scene. It really brings to mind the spectacle part of the Romance plays, with the whooshing winds, the fact that Hermione's veil is always moving, and the flashing lights. Sound wise, I thought it interesting that this scene was set in a giant room, and all the words echoed. It gave it an eerie, other worldly type of feeling. It's different than the mute surroundings in the first production, which brought all emphasis on the words, in the moment of speech, rather than the echoes that came after

I am looking for more productions. If anyone can find a good rendition of the monologue by Paulina, please let me know. That was the speech I was originally looking for!