Yes, poor old Shakespeare. And will the vogue for his plays indeed finally 'die the death'?
Not quite yet, perhaps, but things certainly are happening in the world of drama, that's for sure. And yes, it's "only in America", you might say. But "What America does today, the UK does tomorrow", as my dear late mother used to say (!).
The story I'm referring to was in this morning's Onion News, so it must be true. Some annoyingly thrusting youngish-to-young theatre director has decided to make a name for himself, by staging a Shakespeare play in its original setting and with its original dialect, which is sure to wreck the whole magic of the thing, to put it mildly!!!
What a crazy world we live in !!!!!
My medium-to-long-suffering wife Lois says "Good luck to him!", but I tend to be more cautious, fearing that this radical approach will could spell the end of Shakespearean drama as a "thing" altogether, call me an old stick-in-the-mud if you like!!!!Cancelled; could Kevin Miles' new approach to directing
Shakespeare spell an end to "The Bard" and his popularity?
It's perhaps appropriate that this new approach is being tried in America, however. As is well-known, if we heard Shakespeare talking today, he would probably sound more American than British, pronouncing all his 'r's with a 'rrrrrrrhotic' American 'twang', as did large parts of England right up until the 1950's. That kind of English, still around when Lois and I were kids, is now fast disappearing as we move into the new minnellium [sic], as this graphic shows.
(left) rrrrrrrrrhotic speech areas of England in the 1950's,
and (rrrrrright) in their much shrrrrrrrunken (!) form, in the 1990s.
We've noticed that the local speech in this part of Hampshire has become rather what-we-call "Londonized" - Liphook is very much London commuter-belt territory these days, and you can get from Liphook to central London by train in an hour or so.
And the rrrrrrhotic speech of older Hampshire, we've noticed, is now more confined to what we call the "Benny Hill" end of the county, the south western parts, nearer to Southampton, and all that "malarkey" (!). Yes, Lois and I have been monitoring local speech patterns "like proper little Mr and Mrs Professor Higginses" ever since we moved her 3 months ago, would you believe!
us on our morning walk today over Old Man Lowsley's Farm, when we discuss
the "Londonization" or speech in Liphook, now firmly part of London's commuter belt,
and (right) me quietly monitoring local speech patterns in a popular local café.
18:30 And there's more talk of local dialects this evening when we "plop" down on the couch to watch ex-Cabinet Minister Michael Portillo's latest "railway adventures" on BBC2.
"I con" instead of "I can"; "I han" instead of "I have"; "We goin" instead of "We go" - Chaucer would have said all those, explains Esther. And there are differences from Standard English in vocabulary also. The word "skull", which was brought to England by the Viking or Danish invaders of the 10th century, isn't used in the Black Country: in Wolverhampton they talk about your "brainpan".
People talk about taking their "snapbox" to work, a word which originated in the mines, because miners took their "dinner fittle" (i.e. lunch food) to work in a tin box that snapped when you shut it - otherwise the mice would "eat your fittle" (!). Esther doesn't say, but Lois and I hypothesise that 'fittle' must be a corrupted form of the word "victuals" or [vittles], as it's pronounced.
But what madness !!!
Then Michael asks Esther about the local vowel sounds.
Time for Michael to "move on" maybe, to another county entirely, where they "speak English proper [sic], like what Lois and I speak" (!). Bought your next ticket yet, Michael?
Ironically, there's criticism of Michael's so-called "Great British Railway Adventures" in a reader's letter to next week's Radio Times, the listings magazine that "plopped" through mine and Lois's letter-box this afternoon. Radio Times reader David Windsor complains that many of the places Michael visits aren't reachable by train or even by bus these days. Many of them are miles away from the nearest railway station, and you'd only be able to get to them by taxi.
What madness isn't it!!!
And disappointing for any viewers who can't afford to take a taxi for 9 miles, for example, to get from Frant railway station to the museum of musical instruments, Finchcocks, as Radio Times reader David Windsor points out in his letter, the letter for which David wins a well-deserved award of a DVD of some old drama rubbish.
Kudos, David !!!!!
And perhaps Michael's series "Great British Railway Journeys" should be re-titled to "Expensive British Taxi-Rides", possibly ?
I wonder..... !
[And 'kudos' to you, Colin. and 'congrats' on another hard-hitting but thoughtful 'editorial'! ]
Will this do?
[Oh just go to bed! - Ed]
22:00 We go to bed - zzzzzzz!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment