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.
No comments:
Post a Comment