Saturday, 4 June 2016

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.   

No comments:

Post a Comment