I recently finished 'Noh' or Accomplishment: A Study of the Classical Stage of Japan, by Ernest Fenollosa and Ezra Pound. It is, as the title suggests, a treatise on the Noh Plays, complete with numerous scripts for such plays.
I knew quite little about Noh plays before reading this book. "Quite Little" means: I had heard the word "Noh" before and I knew Noh plays were Japanese.
The conclusion after reading a book about Noh plays: to put it mildly, Noh plays are horrible. Even the best of them are barely worth reading.
But, the Noh play is supposed to be more than just a written play--it is a combination of play and music and dance--and of those the dance is far an away the most important. In other words, what I am reading is a book about a form of dance but the bulk of the book is not about the dance at all, but rather some "plots" of a dance in which the words are in translation, and so the music and visual aspects of the whole Noh experience is completely absent. Is it any wonder the scripts are terrible?
Two interesting notes from the book.
1. "But in Noh everything comes down by tradition from early Tokugawa days and cannot be judged by any living man, but can only be followed faithfully." That is a genuinely interesting idea--what if there was an art form that literally nobody on earth found meritorious--is it sill art simply because someone in the past thought it was Art? Is it worth watching today?
2. "Our own art is so much an act of emphasis, and even of over-emphasis, that it is difficult to consider the possibilities of an absolutely unemphasized art, an art where the author trusts so implicitly that his audience will know what things are profound and important." I suppose if that is true, it is no wonder that I have a hard time appreciating the Noh play.
I did YouTube "Noh" and saw some clips which I can only hope were horrible amateur imitations of a genuine art form.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment