Following Sundays stimulating Skype session I have finally started to put pen to paper... or at least fingers to keyboard. The discussion around communication was fascinating and I related to several of the issues raised.
Like several others I struggle to know if what I am writing is written in an acceptable academic style. It was reassuring to hear that although there are certain conventions it is possible to develop an individual writing style that is direct and clear without using to much flowery language or "fluff". This train of thought got me thinking...
I work as head of dance in a ballet school run by a Norwegian opera company and we have just started our annual opera festival. This year we are presenting 2 verdi operas back-to-back and I watched both this weekend. Even though the operas are sung in Norwegian it is still quite hard to understand the text and it is very often the skill of the director that makes the storyline obvious for the audience. This years productions were very different in their approach.
"Rigoletto" directed by Mira Bartov was very spartan and stylised. The director chose to rely heavily on body language, facial expression and vocal dynamic to illustrate the story. There were few actors simple props and almost no extra "fluff". The dancers and chorus did simple but evocative movements and in the mocking scene their slow motion movement really accentuated the unpleasantness of the moment. The story was easy to follow and the directors intention was very clear.
"Macbeth" directed by Ronald Rørvik was much more complex. Again it was the fantastic body language of the soloists that made the text understandable, but here the stage was full of extra "fluff". Pyrotechnics, props and effects were used throughout to dazzle the audience. It was a very clever production set in a mental institution, with the main characters displaying different symptoms of mental illness. The ladies chorus were also patients, the mens chorus were guards and the dancers were nurses. The choreography had a musical theatre style and the dancers were almost a light relief in the madness and underlying malice. Despite being a thought provoking production, I found the story much harder to follow, the extra "fluff" detracted from the essence of the story and was at times distracting.
When I was listening to the Skype session on Sunday I started to wonder whether these two ways of approaching an opera production could illustrate the two different ways of writing we were discussing. The one more direct and pared down (simpler), the other more advanced using more elaborate, literary words. Each has an individual voice, but just because one appears cleverer it is not necessarily better.
It is quite a struggle to put my thoughts out there for others to read and I am not sure if my thoughts have any relevance to anyone but me. But this, finally, is a start.
