Thoughts on Arthur: The Hunt
The play opened at Taproot Theatre on Friday night to a mostly warm reception. As one reviewer has said, these plays are not for everyone, but what most people are picking up on is that there is something of an unusual effort going on. Joe Adcock, of The Seattle P-I, complained of some "stilted theatrics" (not sure exactly what he meant), but people are leaning forward as the play goes on, listening carefully, wanting to catch the sense of language that the play is offering. We live in an age of visual images that speak profoundly with no words at all. What sense is there in asking people to listen to words--what seems to be miles and miles of them. But if there is one thing that drives me out of my mind it is the notion that profound thought can somehow be more easily digested and owned in simplistic language.
In this, I am out of step with the times. Few really trust language anymore, trust its ability to speak clearly and truthfully. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems that less and less of us really love words and sentences, caring not only for the thing said but for the way in which it is said as well. The story of Arthur is a towering story, one with enough legs to run for hundreds of years, calling to screenwriters and novelists by the dozens. I simply wondered why not create an epic sort of thing for the theatre? And for that you need language and actors, not sets and costumes. And of course, you need actors that can speak the language, understanding that language is action, that language is something other than talking.
We'll get a better understanding on whether folks are connecting with the story of Arthur and poor Morgan as the run goes on.
...pay what you can tomorrow night...
7:05:23 AM
