The more I think about Pericles, the more I see it as weird, a jumble of playwroughting (sp?) techniques.
We get a choric figure, but a named one, one that we’re supposed to know (and in a sense know that he wrote the source for the play we’re watching).
Within those choruses, we get dumb-shows. Which really don’t add much to the choruses.
We get dances.
We get music.
We get a pageant of knights.
What we don’t get is a protagonist that pushes the narrative (rather it seems to push him around).
On the page, Pericles always seems so flimsy, and yet every performance I’ve ever seen of it has been both moving and memorable. Maybe its very lack of cohesion allows a good director to shape it into something powerful? Or maybe, once again, our Will knew something more than we do?
Jean,
I couldn’t put it better myself; in fact, I’m already working on my wrap-up, and I touch upon the same theme… I’ve seen the play twice–once at OSF a couple of years back, and nearly a decade ago in a college production (one that could be fraught with weaknesses). And while this is a strange little play with little to recommend it on the page, each time I’ve seen it on the stage, it’s been incredibly moving and evocative.
I think your idea about good directors may be right on the money…