Research your own Shakespeare play: Much Ado About Nothing What is the play about? When was it first performed? Find a contemporary production of the play you can get an idea of and research it in terms of concept, style, design, casting. Give some attention to your own character and their role in the play.
Much ado about nothing was most likely written around in 1598 but it's first performance wasn't until 1612. The play is about a band of soldiers returning from a war, victorious, and are welcomed into Leonato's home who is the governor of Messina and great friends with Don Pedro (Prince of Arragon). What follows is a set of capers, farce, romantic and evil plots. We encounter two sets of lovers within this play. Hero and Claudio our atypical Romeo and Juliet star crossed lovers and The reluctant and smart mouthed Benedick and Beatrice. After being rejected by Beatrice Don Pedro devises a plan to trick Benedick and Beatrice into falling in love with one another. While this goes Don John (Don Pedro's evil bastard brother) plots to trick Claudio into thinking Hero has been unfaithful the night before their wedding. This leads Claudio to shame her at the alter causing Hero to fake her own death to avoid public scandal and sort this mess out whilst causing massive guilt among her wrong doers. It all ends happily(ish) with Claudio and Hero plus Benedick and Beatrice all getting married. However there are some lose ends to tie up. How will Don Pedro punish his brother? Will he ever find a "wife"? Will Leonato ever invite the soldiers back again? Overall the play rings true to it's name as a lot of action takes place over seemingly nothing. This causes chaos and comedy and allows the audience to be thrown along with misadventure after misadventure.
Don Pedro in my opinion is the driver of the plot; events would not happen in the play without his intervening. He woos Hero for Claudio, He creates the plan for Benedick and Beatrice to fall in love, without his brother there would be no antagonist of the play. He is the matchmaker, peace keeper and puppet master of all and he does this with majesty and grace. However he also has a dark side as his loyal nature results in him helping to shame Hero at the wedding, he can be nasty when he wants to. For such a nice character he has a little bit of a sad ending. Much like Jaques in As you like it he doesn't join in with the end festivities as other thoughts preoccupied is mind. His loneliness? His brothers treachery? Overall Don Pedro has a very important part to play in the story and there's no way the play could exists without him.
A contemporary production of Much ado about nothing (2011) directed by Josie Rourke starring David Tennant and Catherine Tate as Benedick and Beatrice is brilliant to research an analyse as it has a simmilar concept to our own production. Set in 1980's in Gibraltar after the Falklands war. This brings the play into an accessible time period for many of the audiences creating a strong conceit for the action to take place in. The style also allowed the costumes to be vibrant and varied as you had a strong contrast between the white of the naval officers uniform and the outlandish costumes of the party scene. The production also featured a revolving stage. This meant that the fast paced action could be continuous and sharp as scenes could happen one after the other without set changes needing to happen. It also gave way to a lot of slapstick comedy with the hiding scenes standing out in particular as they became even more chaotic as the stage was literally turning around the actors. The casting choices were genius. Catherine Tate and David Tennant had such brilliant chemistry and their comic timing with each other was impeccable. They'd obviously already bonded over their run together in doctor who and this translated to the stage very well. Adam James played the part of Don Pedro extremely well as it is very easy for this character to be overshadowed by the hilarious Benedick however he delivered the part with such control and was essiential in setting up the comedy. For example during the proposal scene he didn't try to steal the lime light rather he let Beatrice play out the awkward atmosphere he helped to create.
Analyse contemporary Shakespeare productions with reference to live performances you may have seen or clips or footage available online. You should comment on what you notice about them and how they differ from what you know about the original performance conditions of Shakespeare’s work? (Don’t be afraid to point out the obvious).
Consider how these productions are employing all the techniques, technology and resources of modern theatre.
A Midsummer's Nights Dream at The Globe (2016) directed by Emma Rice is a contemporary Shakespeare that employs all modern theatrical mediums including lighting, sound, set, props, and even some really modern elements like colour changing weather balloons. The director took many risks including swapping the gender of Helena; re-contextualising the mechanicals as globe staff workers - completely shattering the fourth wall and even playing around with the original text. All these features allowed the production to feel really fresh and very relevant for a contemporary audience. This is because the creatives of the show utilised as many modern theatrical conventions as possible. For example using microphones meant the actors didn't have to work so hard on projection and resonation and could focus on other important stage craft skills like physical comedy and improvising off one another. They didn't have to work the language so hard to create atmosphere. For instance when the love potion kicks in the lights turn red and their was a strong "boom" sound effect. This immediately communicated to the audience the situation there characters were in this. This is very important in a modern Shakespeare production as contemporary audiences are unfamiliar with the archaic language that is used in the text and both actor and audience alike most work hard for the story to be clear. In relation to costume there was a mixture of modern dress and mashed up period clothing. This played with the audiences sense of time and space in relation to the action on stage and allowed their to be a greater sense of magic and mystery within the production.
On the other hand original performance would have been fundamentally different. The dramatist of the 16th and 17th century would have a lot less to work with. For example they would not have had sound or lighting to create atmosphere. This meant the actors would have had to work a lot harder on pushing the language to play with the audiences imagination. Take the ship wreck scene in The Tempest. The best the actors would have had was a primitive thunder sheet; they would really used the adjectives and imagery within the text to paint the picture within the audiences head. They would also obviously not have had microphones so this means they would have to project every single word like their life depended on it. Especially because the audiences would have been even bigger and they would expect to get their moneys worth. However a positive of the original conditions was that the audience would have been used to the archaic language used by Shakespeare. The audiences would have been accustomed to the speaking patterns of the actors moreover they have to work less hard to understand the production they were watching. In relation to costume they would have either been in extravagant clothing of the time or many use a toga for Greek and Roman historical pieces but most likely they wouldn't be experimental with their wardrobe choices.
In a production of As you like it at The National Theatre the set designer Lizzie Clachan used really complex and intricate set pieces to create a beautiful aesthetic for the Forest of Arden. There was an unforgettable moment when the audiences are transported from this colour office block to a bleak forest. This was done by the desks and chairs being scraped backwards and suddenly (as if by magic) suspended into the air. This clearly employed the use of some clever tech. This without a doubt created the dark mysterious atmosphere of the forest without a word of dialogue. It also allowed the audience to physically see the location of the action. The part of Rosalind was played by actress Rosalie Craig. This meant that when the character cross dresses Ganymede she had to wear a wig and adopt a masculine persona. This meant the audience had to suspend their disbelief as other characters fell for an illusion that she was actually a man. Finally in this particularly production there was no audience interaction. The fourth wall remained up the entire time. This meant we as audience members felt fully immersed in the world being created. This made us believe in the characters we were watching and felt there was truth behind the actors performance.
Women were not allowed to perform on the stage until 1660 after well after Shakespeare's death. This meant that the role of Rosalind would have undoubtedly been played by a man. This means when the she becomes a man the actor could revert to playing their true gender. This might have been difficult for the actor as they were now a man playing a woman pretending to be a man. However it would have meant the audience would have to suspend their disbelief and could truly believe that Rosalind was now a man. In original conditions their would have been a lot of audience interaction and breaking of the fourth wall. This was commonplace in most Shakespeare productions. This was because the audience would be field with rowdy peasants who could throw rotten fruit at a moments notice. It would have been better to incorporate the audience into the performance rather than try ignore them. This would have resulted in some hilarious impromptu comedy and entertainment for the audience.
What were the theatres or ‘playhouses’ of Shakespeare’s time like and how were plays staged in them?
In Shakespeare's time there were two types of playhouses; indoor and outdoor. There were many differences between them. For instance indoor theatres were sometimes called "halls" or "private" houses. This gives off the connotation of upper class leisure; this meant that the two types of theatre venues attracted very different crowds. This would have meant your social standing would have affected what place you would go to in order to enjoy your theatre. The first playhouse to be built was called the Red Lion in 1957 by John Brayne. This set off a chain reaction resulting in many more playhouses being opened in the next couple of decades. Although playhouses were famous for putting on productions there was more entertainment showcased in these places. A few examples include bear-bating, cock fighting and community dances. The playhouses themselves consisted of a central yard; a raised staged; a roof over the stage known as the heavens; galleried seats situated all around the theatre where the nobles of the time would have sat.
In relation to how plays were staged in them they had to be adaptable and capable of changing venues with each performance. Because there was such a high demand for good theatre that more often than not shows would tour to other play houses with slightly different configurations. This meant that plays would need to be able to adjust to the demands of a new space. This also meant that the directors of the time would most likely let the actors play around with improvisation in the productions. The plays would usually have been staged with extravagant costumes of the Elizabethan period. Most theatre companies would have invested in these costumes as this is what audiences would have expected when they came to the playhouses. Plays would have also been staged with minimal set. This meant the actors would have to rely on really using the language and using exaggerated gesture.
Who were the actors of Shakespeare’s plays and how did the experience of being an actor differ from the experience today?
The actors in Shakespeare's plays would have been male as acting was seen as profession only suitable for men and boys. This meant that the female parts would most likely have been represented by pre-pubescent boys who would have worn make-up and dresses. This meant that any form of "actor training" (there was no formal training system) in those days would start when you were young and was almost like an apprenticeship. The demands/expectations of an actor were quite high; singing, dancing, sword fighting and being able to learn lines really quickly were just a few qualities they were expected to posses. That shows how in that period of time actors were expected to be all round entertainers whereas nowadays and actor is expected to only hone specific areas of their craft. For example Judi Dench isn't expected to sword fighter, be a natural comedian while at the same time be a subtle nuanced performer.
The Actors in Shakespeare's company consisted of players like Will Kempe, Henry Codell and Richard Burbage. These people would have been really close to each other, slept, travelled, ate and fought with each other. This means that Shakespeare would have most likely been specifically writing for their skill set and their personalities. For example "Dogberry" from Much ado about nothing was written for Will Kempe because he was very good at physical comedy. This would obviously create some very strong theatre as the actors were perfectly suited to the parts they would play.
What was London like in Elizabethan times and who were the people attending the theatre?
London was minuscule, post-medieval and nothing compared to the bustling metropolis of modern day London. However it was filling up fast as thousands of people were flocking to this up and coming city. London was a prosperous and becoming an economic giant due to trade and a developing night life i.e. brothels, pubs, theatres etc. By 1600 London's population was 200,000 which meant that the city was getting crowded and unsanitary. There was no formalised sewer system so the streets were littered with faeces, urine, rotting meat and of course the rats that would feed off of all of that. This meant that London began to expand and every available space was being built upon to house, entertain and give work to all it's occupants. For the people living in this time it would have been quite an interesting time especially depending on your social status. People from outside of England were coming to visit now moreover London was becoming more multicultural. Rich middle eastern noblemen travelled from the East to entertain the monarchs in court, bringing with them culture. spices and most importantly knowledge and inspiration.
Although the over-population had a positive effect on the theatre world. By 1600 theatre attendance reached peaks of 20,000 per week! comparative to the population those numbers are almost unimaginable now. Due to tickets being so cheap (about a penny for yard viewing ) people of the lower classes could afford to go to the theatre. This was brilliant because it meant that lower class people could have access to entertainment, culture, literature, history all under one roof. Class had no bearing on whether you would go to the theatre however it did have an affect on where you would sit. The richest of the rich would sit in the nicer seats; perhaps they were cushioned with cover from the rain and a great view. They would not even think to go near the groundings full of peasants. The audiences behaviour would have been completely different. They would have been very active. booing when they see a villain, throwing rotten tomatoes at bad actors, shouting jokes and making merry with their neighbours. It would have been have been a very social experience.
William Shakespeare was born sometime around the 26th April 1564 and died on the 23rd 1616. He is the world's most pre-eminent playwright and is universally known for his sonnets, poems and creation of words and linguistics that hadn't previously existed. His repertoire consists of aproximately 38 full length plays, 154 Sonnets and two long narrative poems. However it is believed that this one single man was responsible for all of the literary accomplishments that have been afforded to him. His entire life is shrouded in mystery as few records were kept in those days; some say some success could be attributed to his contemporaries, other writers, aliens or even time travel. Either way what can be said that his influence has affected western literature for hundreds of years and will continue to do so for aeons.
Shakespeare was raised in Stratford Upon Avon which back then was a small market town with a population of around 1,000 people. In 1553 King Edward VI re-founded the grammar school and invested in the infrastructure of the town. This meant that it was now a good place to live and it's young citizens could get an education. Shakespeare was one of the lucky ones who was affluent to be afforded an education. However he didn't favour school and in one of his plays he mocked the institution. Even so this is where he learnt to read and write. Later on in his career he would use features from Greek tragedy, old stories/legends/literature; this meant that he found material he liked and improved upon it by refining; editing and re-writing tales to fit the audience he was trying to please.
William Shakespeare was born into a prosperous family that would have been considered middle class for the time which is rare considering most of the population lived in poverty. His mother was the daughter of a local farmer, his father a tradesman with good business. However his family life wasn't perfect as he lost his two older sisters to the plague (1 in 5 people died in Stratford during this time period). This could have had an effect on the way he wrote; for example a lot of his work centres around sibling relations: - from reunion in twelfth night and comedy of errors to the loss in King Lear. Also growing up with a socially mobile mother could have influenced his views on the female place within society; this was because he writes complex, three dimensional, diverse women throughout most of his plays.
In 1582 William Shakespeare married Anne Hathaway; he was just 18 years old when this occurred. This was unorthodox for the time as most men got married late so they could learn a trade and build a life and the women were young so they could bare the children. This relationship must have been based around something more than social conformity. Maybe it was true love? Anyway six months later she gave birth to his first daughter, coincidence? perhaps. Another important relationship that took place was the subject of his sonnets which were already dedicated to another man. Many theories surround this controversy but one popular proposal is that they were written to make another noble become "interested" in the subject if love and make him go off and wed a wife!
What sense do you get of what life was like in Elizabethan England? Try to include information on: The population, entertainment, religion, superstition, money, jobs, medicine, theatre.
1) Population: In a Elizabethan England life varied greatly; whether you were born into nobility had a great impact on what your life was like. Nobles were rich elite members of society who held titles. They would live extravagant lives and if they were close to the monarchy could enjoy all the benefits of court life e.g. fancy balls, fine food, entertainment etc. However this was only reflected in 3 percent of the population, the rest lived in extreme poverty by today's standards. Most Elizabethan citizens lived in rural areas in poorly lit, cold, damp cottages in the countryside with barely a cooking pot to call their own. They live in a pre-industrial agrarian society where if you wanted to eat you had to grow your own food. During this period there was a shift in the economical/societal model as the mediaeval feudal system was adapting to a new hierarchical scheme based around trade and barter with goods from the newly discovered world were making their way into Elizabethan Britain.
2) The idea of private entertainment in the 16th/17th century was non-existent If you were really lucky you might have a court jester or a minstrel to sing you songs or provide you with a light story otherwise most the time you would have to find ways to entertain yourself. This meant that people listened a lot more; secrets and scandal were a rife in this period and everyone knew everyone else's little secrets. However due to constant outbreaks of the bubonic plague morale was low so the poor needed a way to lift their spirits, forms of entertainment that did this include: travelling actor troupes, banquets and feasts, festivals celebrating special events, social dancing, jousts and tournaments, hunting and of course plays. Most Elizabethan entertainment was public which meant there must have been a strong sense of community for these people.
Religion was a huge part of every Elizabethan citizen's life. Due to the reformation of the church by King Henry VIII many people were split between being Catholic and now changing to protestantism. This was a huge deal as if you didn't follow the practises of the dominant religion you could risk being sentenced to death as a heretic. This meant that you had to change with the times or face religious persecution. After the dark days of Mary I (bloody Mary) who would tortured non-Catholics going back to another system must have been difficult for the Tudor citizens and must have caused confusion in their faith.
Superstitions were believed to be fact in these days. This was a time where witch craft was seen as a serious threat and magic was more than fairy tale. Witch hunts was a sexist way to control the female form and make sure that women did not educate themselves and remained domesticated mothers and wives and that was all. This was present in the plays of the time; Shakespeare's Macbeth warns against dabbling with the supernatural as it can have dire consequences on your immortal soul. But superstition could also be a nice thing; people would believe in fairies and the magic of the night and of the forest. This meant that their imaginations could easily be ignited with stories, poems and of course plays.
In Elizabethan England if you were a man it was very important to learn a trade by becoming an apprentice or learning from school. Such careers include; tailors, merchants, masons, smiths, shoemakers etc. Those are some of the higher end jobs that you could make a decent living off of. On the other hand if you were female you would more likely stay at home and raise the children but to earn a bit more of your upkeep you made take up weaving to make clothes or even servitude as cleaning appliances do not exists at this point.
Tudor medicine hadn't evolved that much from medieval times meaning that life expectancy was very low and general health was quite poor. In the countryside most cures would be from herbal solutions passed down through "old wives tales". This meant that villagers would live off the land for everything including solutions to their ailments. In towns and cities however blood letting was still a popular cure. Patients would have leaches attached to them because it was believed that too much blood is bad for you. Only the rich and powerful could afford doctors so if you really injured yourself you better start praying!
Theatre culture boomed in this time period. The public always wanted more this meant there were different plays always in rotation. The public consumed production after production, if the audiences didn't like what they saw, a play would simply disappear overnight as another one was ready to take it's place. Theatre provided an escape to the lower classes as life in generally was a struggle and having two hours of being transported to somewhere else probably made life just a little bit more bearable. Theatre also aided in educating the masses. Brilliant historical plays about previous monarchs meant that in those that never went to school could discover the past meaning even the lowest classes had some knowledge about the world they lived in.
