Shakespeare in the later theatre
Shakespeare’s stage
* His guidance shaped the stage
* His enemies got the upper hand later on
* Sir Henry Irving’s portrayal of Shakespeare is magnificent
* Shakespeare made way for revolution
The interpretation of Shakespeare’s plays were fathomed according to
his own wishes when he wrote the scripts to suit actors that he knew
well and worked with. It was easy for him to explain to them what he had
in mind. With his guidance, they developed their own art to reach
excellence of the day.
But the theatre’s enemies got the upper hand in 1642 and the theatres
had to be shut down. When in 1660 when they reopened, they were
different to the ones that Shakespeare had known. Shakespeare opted for
the indoor theatre in the later years of his life and the Blackfriars
was available to him. For example, the Tempest reflected its different
resources but his company still played at the Globe. Sadly the open air
theatres did not survive into the late 17th century. From 1660,
Shakespeare’s plays had to be adapted to suit a different kind of
theatre much to his discomfort.
 |
|
Reynold’s famous portrait of Sarah
Siddons as the tragic muse. She projected the intensity and
power in Shakespeare’s characters. They complimented each
other and made their work immortal and everlasting |
By late 17th century without any rhyme or reason Shakespeare’s works
were being appreciated without exactly knowing why. May have been that
the critics and commentators worked on neo-classical literature in
theory with a little space for drama. Restoration writers flouted on
neo-classical rules so they could exploit the glittering attraction of
their own theatre concepts. It was also an age of reassurance in the
wake of the Civil War. Shakespeare demonstrably flouted at it which made
the Restoration writers simple let him be an example while they sat on
the others.
The Restoration actors enjoyed something of their Elizabethan
predecessors intimacy with their audience. As tradition continued to
dominate Shakespeare-acting, most actors were limited on time and the
deepening cultural conservatism of the 18th century that encouraged
audiences to patronize them. A crop of high profile actors saw the day
when Charles Macklin scored a huge hit as Shylock in 1741. However,
David Garrick was the greatest actor of the day with his London debut as
Richard III.
Yet, there was no assumption that performance needed to be organized
by the single interpretative mind of a director. At times, Garrick
over-ran this theory with his brilliant interpretation of several
Shakespeare characters. Even in the early 19th century interpretation of
many elements were still not in place. But the theatres in which they
were done, were getting bigger and bolder and thus resulting in Theatres
Royal at Drury Lane and Covent Garden. There were scuffles between the
holders of the patents who fought to retain their monopoly. So, they
enhanced the parent homes of Drury Lane and Covent Garden to bigger
audience capacity. Great stars like Edmund Kean and Mrs Siddons went on
playing their great roles over the years.
As the theatre gathered momentum, the course of the 19th century
began to change and in the mid-19th century, the restoration of
Shakespeare text picked up speed. In the only surviving illustration of
an original Shakespeare performance, a group of ancient Roman characters
in Titus Andronicus were shown in a mixture. But there was an increasing
sense of wearing 18th century clothes. Victorian Shakespeare tended to
be mounted in his most prestigious London appearances with great
attention in historical detail. With such effect taking shape, the
architectural historian. George Goodwin advised Kean on the design for
Macbeth.
The Shakespearean productions of Sir Henry Irving who used such
historically researched decor but on a vast and splendid scale, had to
plan his productions meticulously. So strong was Irving’s sense of this
separation that he himself felt some qualms about delivering soliloquies
out to the audience. Irving’s Shakespeare was magnificent if not
spectacular that he was forced into realism. In England Shakespeare
production became caught up in the revolution. Irving looks like the
last monarch of a toppled regime from today’s point of view. One must
take to account that the theatre of today is in may respects the
creation of theatrical revolutionies of the late 19th and the 20th
centuries, along with such greats as Ibsen, Strindberg, Stranisvksy and
Antoine.
That is why I say that Shakespeare became caught up in the
revolution. But the Bard knew what he was doing. To prove his point, he
built the best approximations he could manage to Elizabethan theatres.
His success was overwhelming though he dressed his actors as
Elizabethans but his audiences remained late Victorian. In this process,
the director had become central and this is partly because of the
growing complexity of the theatre equipment required so that it was easy
to co-ordinate performances. But it was more of a cultural diversity and
confusion.
Thus resulting in the huge publicity funded national companies of
today such as Royal National Theatre and the Royal Shakespeare Company.
We are primarily concerned about the diversity because this is true of
drama and its intensity of Shakespeare plays that have captivated the
world over.
Today, we feel as if we are living in a baffling matrix of many
different voices and points of view. However, in which ever angle we
look at Shakespeare work, we all end up at the greatness of his gift to
the world of drama and literature. Ultimately there being the many
individual audiences that assemble night after night around the world to
let the theatre attempt to perform one of its most important functions,
and that is taking a collection of diverse, separate individuals and
turning it into a group which enjoys a collective identity. This is true
of our approach to Shakespeare productions.
|
