The Gulf Wars
Iran - Iraq war
Iran was taken over by islamic fundamentalists
The government was neutral rather than being controlled by one muslim group
USA funded the Iraqis to avoid the spread of islamic fundamentalists
The Berlin war came down in 1989 and soviet union dissolves
American focus then shifts from Europe to the middle east
The more oil that's produced reduces the price of it which ruins the economy which is why the wester world wants to control the oil flow
Invation of Kuwait
Saddam Hussein accuses Kuwait of stealing Iraq's oil
He demanded 2 billion dollars
He blamed kuwait for the overproduction of oil
George Bush did nothing to prevent invasion and in 1990 Iraq forces attacked
Saddam Hussein was a dictator was a right wing military dictator with a secular façade
America had an oil deal with kuwait so america went to the UN and posed economic sanctions on Iraq
Operation Dessert Shield
after 9/11 the war on terror was declared
This house is going to be in a stable area of the region housing american troops after operation Desert Storm.
Pro american base in Jordan
Tuesday, 26 April 2016
Tuesday, 12 April 2016
5. SHAKESPEARE TODAY
Analysis of contemporary Shakespeare Productions with reference to live/filmed performances i may have seen. I should comment on what i notice about them and how they differ from what i know about the original performance conditions of Shakespeare's work
This post is written based on my watching of...
...Othello, 1989, The Other Place, RSC Stratford-Upon-Avon, The Young Vic (Recording)
Henry VI, 2012, Donmar, All female cast (Live)...
in comparison to the research i've conducted on Shakespeare and his productions in the Elizabethan Era
Technology, Staging, Acting and Audiences,
In both of the productions i watched technology played a minor part. They both employed basic artificial lighting allowing them to create night/daytime scenes with greater ease. The actors of Othello were mic'd making projection not particularly necessary. The revolution of technology made the production of props and costume a lot easier and affordable so there were a number of detailed props and set that most likely wouldn't have been possible in Shakespeare's era.
They were both set indoors as opposed to in amphitheatres like The Globe, however, there were indoor theatres in Shakespeare's time, despite them being a fairly new concept, so this could be considered a similar aspect of the productions. Henry IV was staged in thrust similar to the Globe's many production in the Elizabethan era, however, Othello was Proscenium though this was different as it was filmed. By filming the production there is a new found sense of intimacy and for scenes like Iago's (played by Sir Ian McKellen) monologues, he can break the 4th wall and stare directly into our eyes through the camera. There's also a range of possibilities in volume as Iago tends to whisper "aside" lines expressing the duality to such a well known villain in a revolutionary but somewhat familiar way.
As Henry IV was performed with such a small audience, there was a heightened sense of intimacy and actors could play with volume to an extent but still had to fill the room. The cast of both productions were mostly classically trained drama school alumni and so had developed a repertoire of skills including naturalism which of course actors in Elizabethan plays did not.
Audiences have dramatically changed and the art form itself is completely different. Henry IV even employed physical theatre which is abstract theatre and definitely wouldn't have featured in an Elizabethan production however dance was commonly be incorporated which can be seen as origins of theatres development.
Society
They were both set indoors as opposed to in amphitheatres like The Globe, however, there were indoor theatres in Shakespeare's time, despite them being a fairly new concept, so this could be considered a similar aspect of the productions. Henry IV was staged in thrust similar to the Globe's many production in the Elizabethan era, however, Othello was Proscenium though this was different as it was filmed. By filming the production there is a new found sense of intimacy and for scenes like Iago's (played by Sir Ian McKellen) monologues, he can break the 4th wall and stare directly into our eyes through the camera. There's also a range of possibilities in volume as Iago tends to whisper "aside" lines expressing the duality to such a well known villain in a revolutionary but somewhat familiar way.
As Henry IV was performed with such a small audience, there was a heightened sense of intimacy and actors could play with volume to an extent but still had to fill the room. The cast of both productions were mostly classically trained drama school alumni and so had developed a repertoire of skills including naturalism which of course actors in Elizabethan plays did not.
Audiences have dramatically changed and the art form itself is completely different. Henry IV even employed physical theatre which is abstract theatre and definitely wouldn't have featured in an Elizabethan production however dance was commonly be incorporated which can be seen as origins of theatres development.
Society
Society has changed and therefore have a number of aspects of Shakespeare's plays. Othello is now often, if not always, played by a black actor and female characters are often, if not always. played by a woman (though i have heard in some cases that directors have subverted the traditional roles.)
Contemporary directors are known to make any number of artistic choices when exploring Shakespearean texts, they look to approach the work from/at a different angle and tell the story in a way that it hasn't been told before (seeing as it has been told the same way internationally for hundreds of years.) An example of this could be when Phyllida Lloyd/Harriet Walter's all-female cast Placed the play "Henry IV" in a women not only subverting the gender but also switching up the class of the characters, the setting of the play and the time period the story takes place in. It was fresh, exciting, gripping and incredible to say the least. Shakespeare's original Henry IV would no doubt have been a lot more grave and serious as the all female cast found comedy through irony of the gender decision. Part of what was so captivating about this performance was the political stance and strong feminist outlining message which completely juxtaposes the original text. If i'm being entirely honest, seeing a production of the same play as Shakespeare intended after watching that performance at the Donmar would have likely proved boring, the unjust and outdated politics of Elizabethan theatre may have even angered me from the patriotism to the misrepresentation / mistreatment of women.
Trevor Nunns, Othello was definitely a lot closer to the original productions but this was set during the american civil war and Othello (as well as Bianca, interestingly) were played by people of colour, as opposed to the original production. In the all female Henry IV production the artistic casting decision is more of a granted fact than a political message seeing as Othello was in fact a Moor. The idea of someone putting on make-up to darken their skin is now something completely politically incorrect. Similar to the Henry IV show, if I were to watch the original Othello production i would most likely find it offence. As mentioned in the previous post i'm also unsure as to weather Othello was played with sincerity or not but Willard White played Othello in a much more naturalistic manor which in turn built pathos for the character. I feel that the original portrayal of Othello may have been somewhat minstrel-esque.
It is said that Literature is a reflection of the society in which it is written in and since the Elizabethan era it can be said that quite a lot has changed therefore the art form of theatre has changed. Despite this, there are a number of things relevant to a Shakespearean audience that still resonates with audiences today. Themes such as jealousy, pity, fear, joy etc. and how they are so well communicated through William Shakespeare's writing is probably why his works are still so popular 400 years later.
Contemporary directors are known to make any number of artistic choices when exploring Shakespearean texts, they look to approach the work from/at a different angle and tell the story in a way that it hasn't been told before (seeing as it has been told the same way internationally for hundreds of years.) An example of this could be when Phyllida Lloyd/Harriet Walter's all-female cast Placed the play "Henry IV" in a women not only subverting the gender but also switching up the class of the characters, the setting of the play and the time period the story takes place in. It was fresh, exciting, gripping and incredible to say the least. Shakespeare's original Henry IV would no doubt have been a lot more grave and serious as the all female cast found comedy through irony of the gender decision. Part of what was so captivating about this performance was the political stance and strong feminist outlining message which completely juxtaposes the original text. If i'm being entirely honest, seeing a production of the same play as Shakespeare intended after watching that performance at the Donmar would have likely proved boring, the unjust and outdated politics of Elizabethan theatre may have even angered me from the patriotism to the misrepresentation / mistreatment of women.
Trevor Nunns, Othello was definitely a lot closer to the original productions but this was set during the american civil war and Othello (as well as Bianca, interestingly) were played by people of colour, as opposed to the original production. In the all female Henry IV production the artistic casting decision is more of a granted fact than a political message seeing as Othello was in fact a Moor. The idea of someone putting on make-up to darken their skin is now something completely politically incorrect. Similar to the Henry IV show, if I were to watch the original Othello production i would most likely find it offence. As mentioned in the previous post i'm also unsure as to weather Othello was played with sincerity or not but Willard White played Othello in a much more naturalistic manor which in turn built pathos for the character. I feel that the original portrayal of Othello may have been somewhat minstrel-esque.
It is said that Literature is a reflection of the society in which it is written in and since the Elizabethan era it can be said that quite a lot has changed therefore the art form of theatre has changed. Despite this, there are a number of things relevant to a Shakespearean audience that still resonates with audiences today. Themes such as jealousy, pity, fear, joy etc. and how they are so well communicated through William Shakespeare's writing is probably why his works are still so popular 400 years later.
4. THEATRES, ACTORS AND ACTING IN SHAKESPEARE’S TIME
What were the theatres or "playhouses" of Shakespeare's plays like?
Indoor Theatres
Indoor Theatres were smaller than outdoor theatres and held mere hundreds as opposed to thousands.
They were often built in pre-existing buildings and were a more expensive to view than outdoor shows. They offered artificial lighting as well as windows (natural lighting).The stages were also smaller creating a more intimate setting than the amphitheatres but making it a lot more difficult to perform battle scenes.
In terms of the cast/actors, until 1609 indoor theatres were only used by boy companies (aged 7-early 20s.) These companies came from choir schools and only played once a week as opposed to the adults companies who performed every day. Post 1609 adult companies began working in indoor theatres which is a trend that stuck and became the mode (as it is now).
The audiences of indoor plays were largely more educated, wealthy and of a higher social class, contrary to outdoor theatre audiences. It wasn't uncommon for Shakespeare's company and other groups to put productions on in palaces for royalty which was obviously quite a different experience to performing to London's drunk and unruly working class. Indoor theatres had more music, extravagant props (more intimacy = more attention to detail), and more speeches than acting. You could imagine that this would be a totally different and new experience/challenge for actors as there is less of a need for explicit performance. They essentially took a step towards what would later be known as naturalism.
When working as part of The Kings Men (adult company), Shakespeare would have used both The Globe (outdoor theatre) and The Blackfriars (indoor theatre) and put on well known plays in both performance spaces.
How were plays staged in these playhouses?
Society / Morals
Of course amphitheatres are still used and performed in today but in the elizabethan era there was no form of amplification and outdoor performing was the norm making good projection a fundamental aspect of acting. Actors would not only have to battle with the natural ambience but also the bumbling spectators whilst reaching back to audience members in the thousands. The popularisation of Indoor theatres meant that actors were less inclined to shout for miles and they could access more hushed tones which became even more apparent with the much later modern technology of screen acting.
Training
Actors were often expected to be able to fence on stage, sing songs or play instruments and perform challenging acrobatic dances as well as act to (what was considered then) a high standard. Training would often start as a young boy. Most actors would join a company as an apprentice and be mentored by a senior actor. Nowadays actors apply for Drama Schools" where they pay large sums of money to spend a number of years "training" and are then be dumped back into the industry with no experience, and lacking opportunities.
Casting
Women were playing female roles around Europe but in England boys still played roles such as Ophelia and Desdemona and men playing older female parts (often comic roles played by a popular comedian/clown.) Some actors were renowned for playing certain roles which led to characters being written for particular actors such as Much Ado's Dogberry being written for renowned actor at the time William Kemp as he was so good with physical comedy. In this respect not a great deal has changed. Elizabethan audiences looked forward to seeing big names/their favourite actors perform, much like today where terrible actors such as John Travolta are payed huge amounts of money to play roles badly.
Costume
The City officials didn't like the disruption theatres caused so most theatres were built outside the boundaries of council control. Theatres were categorised with animal baiting arenas, brothels and taverns in Elizabethan entertainment/pastime
Indoor Theatres
Indoor Theatres were smaller than outdoor theatres and held mere hundreds as opposed to thousands.
They were often built in pre-existing buildings and were a more expensive to view than outdoor shows. They offered artificial lighting as well as windows (natural lighting).The stages were also smaller creating a more intimate setting than the amphitheatres but making it a lot more difficult to perform battle scenes.
In terms of the cast/actors, until 1609 indoor theatres were only used by boy companies (aged 7-early 20s.) These companies came from choir schools and only played once a week as opposed to the adults companies who performed every day. Post 1609 adult companies began working in indoor theatres which is a trend that stuck and became the mode (as it is now).
The audiences of indoor plays were largely more educated, wealthy and of a higher social class, contrary to outdoor theatre audiences. It wasn't uncommon for Shakespeare's company and other groups to put productions on in palaces for royalty which was obviously quite a different experience to performing to London's drunk and unruly working class. Indoor theatres had more music, extravagant props (more intimacy = more attention to detail), and more speeches than acting. You could imagine that this would be a totally different and new experience/challenge for actors as there is less of a need for explicit performance. They essentially took a step towards what would later be known as naturalism.
When working as part of The Kings Men (adult company), Shakespeare would have used both The Globe (outdoor theatre) and The Blackfriars (indoor theatre) and put on well known plays in both performance spaces.
Outdoor Theatres and The Globe
Ampitheatres and playhouses like the Globe were cheaper and great in the summer were largely out of use through the winter months whereas indoor theatres would operate all year round. They all had an open sky. "The Theatre" was built by a man named when Shakespeare was around 12 and still living in Stratford. It was one of the first of many structurally, with a central exposed yard surrounded by three tiers of sheltered seating and a raised stage. Shakespeare's company the "Lord Chaimberlains Men" were one of many groups to perform at the famed theatre when it was first built, it was then reconstructed to form a bigger playhouse just south of the thames (now named the globe) which the Lord Chaimberlains Men company held shares in. The Globe opened in 1599 and hosted some of Shakespeare's most famed works. The Globe burned down during a performance of Henry Viii and a new second Globe was built on the same spot and eventually opening 1614.
How were plays staged in these playhouses?
The Globe employs the most common and earliest used type of stage in western theatre, the thrust stage. It was popular amongst ancient greek theatres in the 6th century, most playhouses at the time and even theatres now. I think this style is popular because there is a greater intimacy between performer and audience and of course a greater audience capacity meaning more money.
The stage itself was more often than not completely bare, (similar to Grotowskis methods) putting pressure on playwrights such as shakespeare to create vivid imagery through text and moreover the actors to convey the writing and make the story / the world of the play more believable. An object or prop would only be on stage if it was absolutely necessary to the plot. Scenery was minimal or often non existent, this was also probably due to lack of finances and the fact that plays were often temporary to either be toured or replaced. Directors had the option of sending actors on from the heavens or the hell (the trap door below the stage). Exits and entrances aside from this were in plain view of the audience.
Plays had to be versatile as they were often toured between a number of different spaces such as outdoor theatre's, indoor theatres, royal palaces, courtyard. This resulted in shows where only the necessities were used by directors in terms of scenery and props.
Plays had to be versatile as they were often toured between a number of different spaces such as outdoor theatre's, indoor theatres, royal palaces, courtyard. This resulted in shows where only the necessities were used by directors in terms of scenery and props.
Special Effects
Special effects were used but only sporadically as it was often expensive (for equipment and operators). Stage combat and battles on stage weren't uncommon. Most of the work in terms of special effects were illustrated through language by the writers and actors of Shakespeare's day, however there were certain effects that were in fact possible, to the amazement of an Elizabethan audience who firmly believed in witches and magic. Audiences in fact looked forward to seeing special effects and hearing music as a part of their over all theatrical experience. There wasn't exactly a wide variety of effects they could make either. Most of the effects were based on the creation/illusion of a storm. (a popular convention in Shakespeare's plays)
The Creation of Thunder Storms
Drums were beat off stage/ a cannonball was rolled across the floor of the heavens. If the theatre was lucky they might have a thunder machine which worked on a similar concept (a wooden box balanced like a see-saw with a cannon ball rolling from end to end producing the sound of thunder.) Lightning flashes were made by throwing a flammable powder into a candle flame, the powder would create a flash mimicking that of lightning. Lightning bolts were created by machines called swevels. A wire was fixed from the roof to the stage, a firecracker was fixed to the wire and lit on que. The firecracker would shoot from the top of the wire to the bottom, making sparks as it descended.
Smoke
A lot of theatre companies used smoke as an effect for magic or fire. Actual fire was rarely used due to the buildings being fade of flammable materials such as wood or hay. They could produce a variety of colours in smoke including black, white, yellow and red.
The Danger of Special effects
Special effects were potentially dangerous which is evident in the burning down of The Globe in 1613 during a performance of Henry VIII. Many ingredients used to create special effects smelt bad such as sulphur (produces a smell commonly likened to that of rotten eggs) and saltpetre (a substance made from dung. Both of these substances were used to make gunpowder used in performances.
When the Witches in Macbeth conjure their spells ("fog and filthy air") It is likely that the theatre would have been filled with putrid if not dangerous smells
Who were the actors of Shakespeare's plays and did the experience of being an actor then, differ from the experience of being an actor today?Special effects were used but only sporadically as it was often expensive (for equipment and operators). Stage combat and battles on stage weren't uncommon. Most of the work in terms of special effects were illustrated through language by the writers and actors of Shakespeare's day, however there were certain effects that were in fact possible, to the amazement of an Elizabethan audience who firmly believed in witches and magic. Audiences in fact looked forward to seeing special effects and hearing music as a part of their over all theatrical experience. There wasn't exactly a wide variety of effects they could make either. Most of the effects were based on the creation/illusion of a storm. (a popular convention in Shakespeare's plays)
The Creation of Thunder Storms
Drums were beat off stage/ a cannonball was rolled across the floor of the heavens. If the theatre was lucky they might have a thunder machine which worked on a similar concept (a wooden box balanced like a see-saw with a cannon ball rolling from end to end producing the sound of thunder.) Lightning flashes were made by throwing a flammable powder into a candle flame, the powder would create a flash mimicking that of lightning. Lightning bolts were created by machines called swevels. A wire was fixed from the roof to the stage, a firecracker was fixed to the wire and lit on que. The firecracker would shoot from the top of the wire to the bottom, making sparks as it descended.
Smoke
A lot of theatre companies used smoke as an effect for magic or fire. Actual fire was rarely used due to the buildings being fade of flammable materials such as wood or hay. They could produce a variety of colours in smoke including black, white, yellow and red.
The Danger of Special effects
Special effects were potentially dangerous which is evident in the burning down of The Globe in 1613 during a performance of Henry VIII. Many ingredients used to create special effects smelt bad such as sulphur (produces a smell commonly likened to that of rotten eggs) and saltpetre (a substance made from dung. Both of these substances were used to make gunpowder used in performances.
When the Witches in Macbeth conjure their spells ("fog and filthy air") It is likely that the theatre would have been filled with putrid if not dangerous smells
Society / Morals
Only males were allowed to be on Elizabethan stages meaning that female characters were played by men and boys which is interesting seeing as being transgender/homosexual was far from accepted in that society. I mention homosexuality because these boys playing girls would've had to kiss men playing their characters husband/love interest. I wonder why drag/homosexuality was completely acceptable in a theatrical setting but not at all in general society. People of colour also obviously weren't allowed anywhere near theatres meaning that white actors would play roles such as Othello raising questions of the writers intentions. Did Shakespeare mean for Othello to seem relatable and gain audience empathy or did he paint the message that Moors are savage, mentally unstable murderers who will bring about tragedy. Seeing a white actor playing this part in that social climate would definitely prove interesting. I wonder if Othello was played so as to build pathos or played satirically. In 1822 a soldier on guard duty shot the actor playing Othello saying "It will never be said in my presence a confounded negro has killed a white woman" making me question the politics of certain shakespearian theatrical decisions.
Projection
Of course amphitheatres are still used and performed in today but in the elizabethan era there was no form of amplification and outdoor performing was the norm making good projection a fundamental aspect of acting. Actors would not only have to battle with the natural ambience but also the bumbling spectators whilst reaching back to audience members in the thousands. The popularisation of Indoor theatres meant that actors were less inclined to shout for miles and they could access more hushed tones which became even more apparent with the much later modern technology of screen acting.
Actors were often expected to be able to fence on stage, sing songs or play instruments and perform challenging acrobatic dances as well as act to (what was considered then) a high standard. Training would often start as a young boy. Most actors would join a company as an apprentice and be mentored by a senior actor. Nowadays actors apply for Drama Schools" where they pay large sums of money to spend a number of years "training" and are then be dumped back into the industry with no experience, and lacking opportunities.
Casting
Women were playing female roles around Europe but in England boys still played roles such as Ophelia and Desdemona and men playing older female parts (often comic roles played by a popular comedian/clown.) Some actors were renowned for playing certain roles which led to characters being written for particular actors such as Much Ado's Dogberry being written for renowned actor at the time William Kemp as he was so good with physical comedy. In this respect not a great deal has changed. Elizabethan audiences looked forward to seeing big names/their favourite actors perform, much like today where terrible actors such as John Travolta are payed huge amounts of money to play roles badly.
Companies
Theatre companies drastically varied depending on money and where the company was working. Most companies were based in London or other cities with high population, but companies did tour England or sometimes even nearby countries such as Germany or Holland. A wealthy company performing in a theatre might've had 8-12 seniors and 3-4 boys, a number of hired men (to play insignificant roles), stage hands, tiremen (who helped actors change costumes) and some musicians. Companies were formed under the patronage of a monarch or nobleman, such as "The Queens Men" or "Lord Chamberlain's Men". Nowadays it's much easier to start a theatre company and driven young thespians such as Daisy Ashby-Hawkins can start a theatre company with a less serious name. A name such as Pie Face Theatre.
Preparing For a Part
Whereas now an actor would thoroughly research their part, look into physicality/voice choices, action their scripts etc. an actors job in Shakespeare's day was simply to know lines and cues
Payment
Most company worked using a shareholder system and sharers earned more than hired men. Shakespeare was a sharer of the Chamberlains Men and later the Kings Men. There was more money in London so actors would get paid more for performing in the city however there was also a lot more competition. This still stands today and is why most of the big/popular theatres are located in the capital (e.g. The National Theatre, Donmar, Young/Old Vic The Royal Court Theatre etc.)
Actors typically wore modern (at the time) attire, and lead parts would wear beautiful clothes as a reflection of their status. At the time, clothes reflected status and were therefore an important part of theatre. Costumes were often a major investment for the theatre companies as they could be transported easily if toured unlike other aspects of theatre we take for granted today. Companies would buy second hand clothes from real-life nobles (royalty, highly ranked figures in society etc.) On the other side of the scale, smaller parts may have worn their own clothes. In a year a company would spend an approximate equivalent of £35.000 on costume. Actors often left each other clothes/costumes in their wills showing just how valued they were.
If the play called for it (was set in ancient Greece or Rome) characters may have worn a simple toga but the costumes generally weren't at all historically accurate.
When portraying women actors would wear simple, ordinary clothes and more importantly wigs, which determined a lot about the character in terms of class and age. This was shown through the colour of the wig (e.g. grey or blonde) and style (e.g. more fashionable hair-styles or less fashionable hair styles)
Make-up
Similar to costume, make-up helped convey the character and therefore convey the story. Black facing was common for actors playing Moors (Othello) which now would be considered racist, however black people were far from having any rights so this was normal to society. At the time it was considered that desirable women were pale and make-up reflected this in desirable female characters such as Juliet. Presumably this idea existed as paler women hadn't been labouring in the sun as the lower classes did. This ideology exists in places like Cuba and juxtaposes the modern western trend of women wanted to look darker.
A white face, red cheeks and a blonde wig made a boy a beautiful young woman. Crushed pearls or sliver were often put in make-up to create a shimmering effect. This was popularised by the rise of indoor productions and emphasised by candle-light.
Some records show that people (early make-up artists) were hired to paint the actors faces but they most likely, more often than not did it themselves.
Tuesday, 5 April 2016
3. SHAKESPEARE'S LONDON AND ELIZABETHAN AUDIENCES
What was London like in Elizabeth times and who were the people attending the theatre?
LONDON
Despite already being great for it's time, London was continuing to grow... a lot. Between 1550 and 1600 the population went from around 50,000 people to 200,000. The city was expanding and every available space was being built on, which still applies even now where councils are running out of space (in terms of land) and having to build upwards. London was horrifically overcrowded with visitors describing streets as "dark and narrow", making it subject to the quick spread of plague (especially in the summertime) In 1593 around 10,000 people died of the plague causing all of the theatres to close.
Why was Shakespeare in London?
As previously touched (in question one), Shakespeare spent a lot of his working life in the city of London. London was and still is where you'll find large audiences and quantities of money/consumerism. Around 20.000 people went to theatre each week, it was firmly a part of english culture. Even the crown endorsed theatre pushing money and legal support into (mostly just London based) theatre companies. Between 1603 - 1613 Shakespeare's company performed at King James' court around 15 times a year. London was clearly the central hub for theatre and money making in general.
Where did Shakespeare live/work and why? (roughly 1590 - 1613)
- The London parish of St Helen's (mid 1590's) - It was close to The Theatre and The Curtain
- Paris Gardens, Bankside, South of the river Thames (1598-1602) - It was near The Globe
- Silver Street (around 1602) - Once he was famed and wealthy, he rented this house off of a rich French family who made luxurious expensive hats.
London Landscape incl. the globe (top right)
AUDIENCES
As so many people attended theatres plays had rather short runs before they were replaces. In the space of 80 years around 3,000 new plays were written simply to attract crowds. Much like todays industry (especially in the film/tv industry) violence, music, special effects and comedy was used to keep the audiences attention. It was especially important to keep audiences happy in these times as if they weren't they would militantly make their points heard.
Who Attended Theatre?
Generally, a mixture of different people. More men attended than women especially in the lower classes but this isn't unexpected in such a society. In some theatres diversity was richer than others but the globe was quite good and rightly so seeing as it had the capacity to hold around 1,500 people. Royalty didn't really attend public theatre but theatre companies and actors would sometimes be summoned to perform at the courts of Elizabeth the first and James 1.
Class and Money
In terms of pricing, Shakespeare's audiences (at the globe) would have been pretty diverse for it's time though, there was still a strong sense of segregation between classes in terms of where in the theatre they would be placed. The working class (e.g. tradesmen) may have been able to attend on occasion but the lower classes (which made up a substantial proportion of London's populous) could barely afford to eat, let alone go to watch theatre. The upper classes most likely would have regularly attended theatre as a social event. To simply stand in the pit it would cost one penny (nearly an entire days wage). To be seated in the Galleries it would cost 2 pence. To be placed in the Gentlemen's room's it would cost 6 pence and The Lords' room 1 shilling (12 pence).
A Swiss doctor, visiting from Basel commented on the pricing and his experience of the globe saying.
"Anyone who remains on the level standing pays only one English penny: if he wants to sit, he is let in at a farther door, and there he gives another penny. If he desires to sit on a cushion in the most comfortable place of all, where he not only sees everything well, but can also be seen then he gives yet another English penny.In the pauses of the comedy food and drink are carried round amongst the people and one can thus refresh himself at his own cost." - Thomas Platter
Audience members may have drank ale (at the lack of availability of clean water) or snacked on fruits and nuts. Excavations have resulted in the discovery of cutlery, oyster shells, bottles etc. pointing towards the notion that theatre audience consisted mostly of the rich and wealthy. Other theatres such as the Blackfriars held fewer people but ultimately cost a lot more (basic tickets started at a sixpence, and the super rich could buy tickets at the side of the stage for 2 shillings)
The Globe Theatre layout
Audience Behaviour
Audiences were a lot more unruly in comparison to todays silent, respectful spectators. They were loud clustered and prone to distraction from the drama off the stage.
"You will see such heaving and shoving, such itching and shouldering... such care for their garments that they be not trod on... such toying, such smiling, such winking, such manning them home that it is a right comedy to mark their behaviour" - Stephen Gosson (1554 - 1624)
I feel that theatre was more of a social event than a form affair where people would drink converse and argue rather than attentively watch and analyse. It must have been pretty irritating for the real theatre enthusiasts to pay attention whilst such ruckus surrounds them. Audiences would clap for heroes and boo/hiss villains much like the modern day pantomime. It was common to have thieves attending theatre events as it was one of the rare social events that brought the rich/poor together which thieves obviously saw as n opportunity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)