PART I
“A Ghost
Story of Christmas.”
That’s what
Charles Dickens called it. An odd epithet for an odd story that, one hundred
and seventy years later, we take for granted as a holiday classic- and which we
all know better as A Christmas Carol.
As I look
around the circle of actors tonight, the night of our first read-through
rehearsal, I wonder how we can possibly breathe any new life into this old
chestnut. The script is good, somehow managing to both condense and flesh out
the story and its many characters. The actors, many of whom I’ve shared a
staged with in the past, seem first rate. But still: it’s A Christmas Carol.
Done and overdone in an endless parade of motion pictures, plays and parodies.
What can the fledgling Zionsville Radio Players do, in only their second
production, to make it fresh, entertaining- meaningful even- to a
listening audience that has seen and heard it all before?
A Christmas
Carol truly is an
odd story, and oddly titled, being neither a carol nor, beyond the setting, a
tale having much of anything to do with Christmas. There is no mention of a
stable, shepherds watching their flocks by night, or a virgin birth- not even a
Charlie Brown Christmas style reading of the Gospel. Despite his heavily
supernatural overlay of ghosts and seemingly miraculous travels through space
and time, Dickens presents a thoroughly secularized picture of Christmas in
which to work his magic on Scrooge’s heart. Sweetest Day would have worked as
well, I think; Halloween certainly better. So what is it that draws us to think
of this story as a Christmas classic? Why the almost universal appeal at this
time of the year?
No comments:
Post a Comment