Friday, 27 April 2012

Theatre of Disillusions 2: This Time, It's Versical

I have redone the prologue as verse, to see what would happen. What has happened is that it has become rather more explicit and didactic. The ghost of Brecht peered critically over my shoulder while I was at it. I think it's certainly more striking and interesting, but then the form suggests a rather grand idiom when this is all supposed to be deliberately sordid. Well, here it is: since both end by saying that everything is up to the audience, I had better leave it to you to decide which you prefer.


Theatre of Disillusions: a burlesque show in X acts

Prologue

Lights up. Stage empty but for the Master of Ceremonies, a tall, athletic man, very good-looking in a chiselled masculine way, dressed immaculately in Edwardian fashion. Young, but old enough for stubble. Could be a bit ethnic, but only a bit. Energetic and active: strides about and accompanies his words with expansive gestures. Distinctive voice: histrionic, but with a slightly tinny, grating, artificial note – as if heard through a loudspeaker.

Master of Ceremonies: My friends! I bid you welcome to our play,
Beneath whose powerful hypnotic sway
No thing upon the stage is what it seems:
Our International Theatre of Dreams!
In this, the planet’s greatest magic-show
We mean to upturn all you think you know!

In earlier ages, primitive and poor,
Beset by famines, plagues, and deadly war,
Illusion’s art was greatly in demand
From all the greatest powers in the land:
Without our magic-tricks, the masses might
Have asked about the reasons for their plight.
But what a simple stumbling display
These early efforts seem to us today!
On viewing them, we jaded moderns smirk:
How can a priest do a magician’s work?

Then came old Shakespeare, reckoned in his time
A crafty wizard: he could spin a rhyme,
I grant you, and his rhymes could make a king
Into a noble or a monstrous thing
Just as he pleased. But, well, these words recall:
[Quoting in a melodramatic Victorian voice]‘Suppose within the girdle of these walls
Are now confined two mighty monarchies.’
Such simple, humble, quaint effects as these!
To gamble all his labours of creation
Upon his audience’ imagination!
Good God! This was of all his several flaws
The worst: that he would bid the audience pause
And think! [this word to be enunciated much as a camp pantomime villain would the word ‘children’] A thought will make illusion flee
And leave exposed the grim reality,
More naked yet, once robbed of its disguise
Than if it had been plain before our eyes.

But never fear! Such thought-provoking feats,
Our modern methods render obsolete.
Imagination, now, has had his day:
He slowly starves to death for want of pay.
His job has gone to us, dear friends, who can
Turn strings of simple numbers into man,
And what is more, can likewise reduce man
To numbers in our simple formulae:
Such miracles we practice every day!
Our theatres to temples we can turn,
And temples as mere theatres we spurn!

It’s true, dear friends: the world will never know
So marvellously intricate a show
As ours; and yet all that would be for naught
Without a public free from loathsome thought.
All that we do is meant to entertain
You! [sinks imploringly to his knees], audience, and all would be in vain
If ever you should you should raise a heckling voice:
All our success, or failure, is your choice.
You are the kings and queens at whose fine court
We are but jesters who must sing and sport.
You are stern Caesars, who, with one raised hand
Can life and fame, or shameful death, command
For we who strain and struggle at your feet.
You are the gods whose favour we entreat
When every night we build and sacrifice
A new-made miracle of rare device:
A whole world put together in a day
Presented to you, juggled, thrown away!
And so, like Shakespeare, we must humbly pray
That you will kindly judge our little play. 

Curtain down. 

2 comments:

  1. Does it make any sense at all that what came into my head as I read first one and then the other of these two prologues was that show we went to in Prague, which was entirely without words? I am particularly impressed by your verse-ion, but they both have their merits. It probably depends what comes next.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wasn't thinking of it, but hearing you mention it I see what you mean. Probably it is because neither aspires to ordinary theatrical realism: in different, perhaps opposite ways, they both make large of the fact that this is taking place on a stage, rather than pretending that there is a fourth wall as in the 'standard' play. But as we say with the Henry V stuff, people have been doing that for a long time.

    ReplyDelete