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:

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!

Book-ing and Movie-ing and Think-ing

As I've mentioned before, I'm searching into sounds in Shakespeare's texts. I don't know which aspect to take, really, so I've just been exploring these past few days. How narrow should I be getting, anyway?

So in my adventures, I found some fun toys to play with.

The Sound of Shakespeare, Wes Folkerth. This book talks about "listening as Shakespeare listened," which is something that fascinates me. Shakespeare, according to Folkerth, listened to sounds uncommon, common, and everything in between, and then used his knowledge of people's expectations in his plays to work on people's emotions. I want to get more into this book for sure.

Author's Pen and Actor's Voice: Playing and Writing in Shakespeare's Theater, Robert Weimann. "This study redefines relations between writing and playing... as marked by difference as well as integration in... the production of early modern stages." That's what the back of the book says. I'm trying to see how sound focuses the text, and how it can help interpret the play. There is a section on "Pen and Voice" and the difference between the visual and the auditory. I wish to investigate that aspect.

Shakespeare's Use of Song, Richmond Noble. What is more sound-y than music? What got me started on this focus was reading The Tempest, and seeing all of Ariel's songs. This book has a section that is all about Ariel's songs in that play. Good find? I think so. 

I haven't read all of these texts yet, but I'm getting started on them. All three of these books were written by intelligent people at universities like Oxford and Stanford. AND I found all of them in our library. Did you know that there are tons of books on Shakespeare up there? I got distracted with all of the topics, and actually took note of a few because I knew some of my classmates had related topics.

Anyway, those are some texts that I'm diving into to get some grasp on where to go from here. Also, this weekend, I plan to be watching some adaptations of either Taming of the Shrew (ie, 10 Things I Hate About You, Kiss Me, Kate), or Twelfth Night (ie, She's the Man). If anyone wants to have a party, or owns one of those movies, let me know.