The two hottest
Shakespeare tickets in New York right now, in a season chock-full of wildly
divergent takes on the Bard, are, in a sense, the most old-fashioned
productions of the lot. “Twelfe Night” and “Richard III,” both at the Belasco
Theater and starring Mark Rylance, one of the most celebrated classical actors
living, are “original practices (OP)” productions—that is to say, they seek to
perform the plays as they were staged in Shakespeare’s time.
This theatrical
movement, promoted by Shakespeare’s Globe in London—a faithful recreation of
Shakespeare’s own theater where both productions originated—is centered on
three principles: a close attention to the rhythms of the verse; a theatrical
style that acknowledges the presence of the audience; and a rejection of modern
stage contrivances that would not have been available in Shakespeare’s day. But
these productions go further: they use all-male casts—as was the practice in
Shakespeare’s day—build costumes out of traditional materials and with
traditional fasteners, and incorporate traditional instruments and dances.
That sounds really cool. Yes, it is true, there were no female actors
in Elizabethan stage, and men played the female roles.
Elements like these suggest
that OP is a kind of antiquarian fundamentalism, akin to Civil War
reenactments—hardly a model for living theater, nor the basis of a Broadway
smash. Is the point of OP to recover a lost theatrical tradition? Or is the
point to give us the illusion of being Elizabethans for a day?
That is a good point. Why go to that extreme when simple suggestion
of similar era-style costumes can fill the need? I don’t know, but I would love to see to
assess.
“Twelfe Night” and
“Richard III” are an interesting pair of plays to use to showcase OP. The first
because the play is (among other things) Shakespeare’s greatest cross-dressing
farce. Viola, shipwrecked and stranded in a foreign land, disguises herself as
a man for her own protection. She offers her services to the local Duke,
Orsino, who is in love with Olivia. Olivia spurns his overtures, so he uses
Viola as a go-between to press his suit. Olivia winds up falling for Viola
instead of Orsino, and meanwhile Viola falls in love with Orsino herself—but
can’t reveal her love because she’s disguised as a man. The play loads on
additional comic complications—more suitors, a mistaken-identity plot when
Viola’s brother, whom she thought drowned, returns—but following the original
practice of an all-male cast foregrounds the question of sexual identity and
presentation.
I have to say that Twelfth Night is one of my
favorite of Shakespeare’s comedies, and the cross dressing costume shifts does
make it ideal for this. I’m not sure why
they picked Richard III, perhaps for
its historical setting as Millman states.
“Richard III” is an
interesting choice for a different reason. For Shakespeare’s audience, the play
covered relatively recent history—foundational history for their political
system. The play is a searing portrait of a self-loathing, manipulative
psychopath, but there is a providential scaffolding around the action, the
notion that Richard was the “scourge of God,” sent to purify England of the
final stains of the Wars of the Roses, before being defeated by the man who
would finally unite the white and red.
I was curious whether
an “original practices” production would try to recover that political context.
But this production goes in the opposite direction. Indeed, it goes so far in
wiping out the War of the Roses that the part of “mad” Margaret, the character
who directly articulates that providential theme, is cut entirely.
I’m not sure the politics of Richard III synergize with the use of original period
production. The reason why one would
chose Richard III is that it’s the closest
of Shakespeare’s histories to his day, and the use of original costume might
provide a the realistic visual to the audience.
However, one could have gone in the opposite direct, chose a history
play the most distant from Shakespeare’s day and see if the costume clashes. But that’s more of an
assessment by subtraction, and why would a playgoer want to spend his money on
something that might be discordant.
No comments:
Post a Comment