QUESTION about Hopkins, Blame

[Liam]

I do believe I understand your point that, like Hamlet, the words in the play ( or show ) were provided to the performers, and that the performers are not speaking for themselves but to portray a feeling or message that is typical of drum corps members ( in the eyes of the author who wrote the words for the performers ). But the analogy while compelling in support of The staff at The Cadets does omit some obvious differences. First, the actors that portray Hamlet are given WIDE lattitude in interpreting the words of the author. Most actors do not get instruction from Shakespeare on where and how to stand. They get no input from Shskespeare, as Shakespeare is long deceased. Shakespeare's Hamlet theme likewise is not about the " value of Choices ", and Hamlet does not utter .... " I believe in Choice..... It is my life...... and I get to choose ". Had Shakespeare organized a theme for Hamlet that involved the value of choices and utiilzed these similar words, Shakespeare's Hamlet would not become the literary classic that it has become. Actors who portray Hamlet interpret the authors words and portrayal of the role as they THINK Shakespeare would have liked. The narrators for the Cadets had no such interpretive powers. They were told what to say, when to say it, when not to say it, where to stand, where not to stand, and even how to say it. The fact that the theme was about the value of choices and who gets to decide is as far removed from what Hamlet actors do in their portrayal of Shakespeares Hamlet as can be. And it is not about degree either. If you can't understand the difference between an actors portrayal of the deceased writer Shakespeares Hamlet and that of the Director of a Corps making all the decisions wuth the narrators in a Drum Corps show regarding a theme about " The value of choices " and selecting words for them, ie " It's my life and I get to choose " etc, then frankly I can't help you any further understand the stark differences.

Okay, we're getting closer :)

First of all -- the actor in Hamlet or whatever, only has latitude to the extent that the director allows him to. Things like where to stand and what emotion to portray and even what interpretation -- all that stuff is ultimately in the hands of the director, not the actor. If the director CHOOSES to let the actor have more leeway, so be it, but the director is still ultimately responsible for the protrayal. Now we can have a totally different discussion about the direction of the Cadets show and the quality of writing and all that, and we may or may not be on the same side there. But that is totally different from the thought that there is a hypocracy of actors saying words about choice that they didn't choose.

Secondly, we (or at least I) don't know for sure that the members of the Cadets had ABSOLUTELY NO SAY in the emotion or other interpretation of the words they performed. Was the director ultimately the arbitor of what they could and couldn't do, of how far they could go in interpretation? Probably, and rightly so -- he's the director. Much like I imagine soloists collaborate about the emotion and texture of the musical passage, but ultimately the staff and director set the limits. Since I wasn't at every practice to say how this went down exactly, it would be "disingenuous" of me to assume to know who was allowed to interpret what.

Thirdly, if you're whole point is that Shakespeare wrote his words a little better than the Cadets, you'll get no argument from me :). As I said, if you want to have a seperate discussion on the quality or propriety of the writing ... well, that's a totally different discussion :). But to say that Shakespeare didn't use the word CHOICE, so even though his meaning was about choices in life, he wrote it better, so therefore the actor is only an actor, but the Cadets didn't write it as well and blatently used the word CHOICE so therefore they are putting their so-called actors in a hypocritical position and besides Shakespeare is dead so we can't ask him but Mr. Hopkins is alive so therefore he shouldn't be putting words in our mouths even though we're actors just like the Hamlet guy .....

wait a minute, I'm a little dizzy :P

Okay, better now. Let me sum up with this .... in ANY production, whether it be a movie, play, opera, drum corps show, or 3rd grade Xmas show -- the actors read/sing lines written for them by a writer and in the manner desired by the director. Can the same person play multiple roles (writer/director/actor)? Sure, but are still playing those DIFFERENT roles. You want to argue about the quality of the writing or directing? Have at it. But the actor is acting, and is not personally responsible for the words, no matter how terrific or horrible they are, no matter whether the writer is dead or alive, no matter whether that show is about Criminals, or Vegas, or Life's choices. I mean it's almost as if you're saying it's okay to write a story about anything and have actors play it professionally, but if you write a show about choices then all bets are off and the actors must be invested in the writing or it's all hypocritical.

This rambled a bit more than I intended, and I apologize for that -- was just typing faster than I could keep my thoughts straight!!!

Edited August 17, 2007 by Liam

[Officer_Jenny]

Shakespeare, as I'm sure you are aware, was a Writer not a producer or director. He wrote his stories for plays, but he was not involved in the actors portrayal of his works. When alive, Shakespeare was not involved in staging, delivery where the stage play " Hamlet" was performed. His writings were open to interpretation by actors world wide. And yes, I am well aware that the Director of The Cadets was ' alive and kicking " and you are aware too that he was directly involved in all manner of staging and delivery of the show theme of his Corps.

OK...many of Shakespeare's plays were premiered by his own theater company. To say that he was not involved while his vision was being realized is completely ignorant.

[DrumCorpsFan27]

Spoken like a true outsider David. How do I know...b/c I was there. I marched with her (Barbara Maroney in case you didn't know what her name is) for two years before the change in bringing the horns up was made. It was not changed to accomodate her. It was changed in 1983 simply to be different. The corps was in the midst of forging a new identity which we could call our own and not be anything like any other corps in DCI.

Then I stand corrected.

It still looked really cool!

Edited August 17, 2007 by DrumCorpsFan27

[George82]

So, you know for a fact that each and every Cadet member agrees totally with Hopkins' outlook? There isn't one who disagrees, yet marched because they wanted to be in The Cadets for what ever reason, not one?

I don't know where this rant about booing came from. I was not in Pasadena or any theare. I have never booed a corps and I have done several of the things you suggest people do.

Let's say that I am much, much closer to the situation than you are. My rant about booing wasn't really directed to you personally but as more of an overall rant. I apologize if you took it as such.

[X DM]

OK...many of Shakespeare's plays were premiered by his own theater company. To say that he was not involved while his vision was being realized is completely ignorant.

I said in my comments above ( quote ) "that he wrote his stories for plays ". He was NOT involved in the staging, nor the delivery. He was a wealthy man who made his financial wealth as a real estate investor before finding the tIme to later become a prolific and gifted writer who financed his own Theatre Company. But YOUR ignorance aside, WS did not select the actors, not was he involved in the direction, staging, nor delivery of the stage production of his writings.. He had others do that. And multiple shows went on throughout the country all the time with his works even when he was alive. Then again, there are fringe groups out there that believe an anonymous actor or actors actually wrote most of Shakepeares works and that Shakespeare's name was used with his consent in order to publically finance and advance the plays. But who knows.

But we do know that the Narrators of The Cadets were " controlled" in this year's Cadets theme just as much as any Corps that did not have the theme on " The Value of Choices " and a schooling of the audience that " It's my life..... and I get to choose "..... and it's MY choice ...." and blah blah blah.

Edited August 17, 2007 by X DM

[LisaLisaMoMeesa]

I've been trying to find a counter to the "they're just actors reciting their lines" argument. It does seem ironic that they are reciting scripted lines that have a theme of choice but hey they are actors. There are times when actors reciting lines doesn't work. Like if Robert Downey jr. was playing the role of a straight laced cop with a serious anti-drug message you would probably go "huh?" but for various reasons that doesn't apply here. Actors giving speeches is new to dc and some people are having a hard time with the concept. My only problem with it is that it seems so Disney stage show cheesy as opposed to maybe a cool Laurie Anderson performance art type thing that it could be if done right. I'm sure someone will get it right if they have the courage to keep trying.

Perfectly put. I thought the voices sounded a little "magoo" as well. But I think, in time, voice interlaced with a drum corps show could be pretty cool.

[atlvalet]

The music is laughable compared to major musical works of our time and the narration is laughable compared to major literary works. But within the genre of marching arts, it's great stuff. So just enjoy it.

Ummm, no. Rudimentally, the drum parts are much harder than what I have seen in many orchestral works. So, your premise there is wrong.

I can't speak to the technical demands of the brass book, but to use that idea (that the arrangements are "laughable") as an excuse to accept poor, hackneyed and bad writing for narration is silly.

The standards should be similar (in my mind). You don't want a Maaco paint job on a Mercedes...hence, either 6th graders should start performing DCI shows or the narration should rise to the level of excellence present in the rest of the Cadets show (or anyone else's).

[LisaLisaMoMeesa]

I fail to see what any of this has to do with Lionel Richie.

Or Lionel Reekie.

[Officer_Jenny]

Ummm, no. Rudimentally, the drum parts are much harder than what I have seen in many orchestral works. So, your premise there is wrong.

I can't speak to the technical demands of the brass book, but to use that idea (that the arrangements are "laughable") as an excuse to accept poor, hackneyed and bad writing for narration is silly.

The standards should be similar (in my mind). You don't want a Maaco paint job on a Mercedes...hence, either 6th graders should start performing DCI shows or the narration should rise to the level of excellence present in the rest of the Cadets show (or anyone else's).

rudimental drumming is not as important in any other genre than it is in marching percussion. I was talking about the musical presentation as a whole. From an outsider looking in, drum corps is a bunch of chopped up arrangements of some great musical works. Many professional musicians do not find drum corps to be legitimate because it takes some great music and destroys it, in their eyes.

Edited August 17, 2007 by Officer_Jenny

[atlvalet]

rudimental drumming is not as important in any other genre than it is in marching percussion. I was talking about the musical presentation as a whole. From an outsider looking in, drum corps is a bunch of chopped up arrangements of some great musical works. Many professional musicians do not find drum corps to be legitimate because it takes some great music and destroys it, in their eyes.

Well, I could really care less if "many" professional musicians don't find drum corps legitimate. Besides, Canadian Brass seemed to think Star was ok.

Regardless, I think you're skirting the issue of juvenile narration. Drum corps is the height of marching performance. Why not make every aspect of the program great? The "many" professional musicians that look down their noses at the activity says more about them than it does about DCI. If the narration doesn't rise to the same level of excellence as the rest of the show, why do it?

Edited August 17, 2007 by atlvalet