The ASC Interns' Blog

A Mad World, indeed!

2012-02-24T12:52:00.002-05:00

Shakespeare-centric theatrecompanies often willfully restrict their performance canon to a base of 37plays. (Or, 38 or 39, depending on what you think of some of the apocrypha). WhileShakespeare was very good at what he did, he was only one of the many authors writing400 years ago, so, barring the discovery of some magical folio containingcountless previously unknown plays with “Yes, I totally wrote these. Love,William Shakespeare” stamped across the front, we have 37 generally-agreed-uponplays to work with.

I am of themind that half the fun is in interpretation and will happily sit and watchevery single production of Much Ado aboutNothing the ASC has mounted in the last ten years (many with the same orsimilar cast members as the Much Adocurrently running in the Blackfriars Playhouse) and then ask for more. I’veseen so many different productions of Hamletthat my eyes cross just trying to remember them all, but – hey! You’re doing Hamlet? Where? I’ll totally be there.Can’t wait!

Yet, nomatter how many self-admitted weirdos like me there are out there, 37 plays mayjust not be enough for a year-round, internationally renowned company, frontingboth a resident and a touring Shakespeare troupe. And (I suppose I shouldprobably say this now) it turns out there were other playwrights in the early modern English era. It also turnsout that some of them were writing some great stuff. Choosing to draw from thiswell, the ASC does not exclusively perform Shakespeare. Since the ASC's firstnon-Shakespearean early modern production, Beaumont and Fletcher's The Knight of the Burning Pestle in1999, the company has mounted thirty-two plays by Shakespeare's contemporaries.The current Actors’ Renaissance Season features Beaumont and Fletcher’s Philaster, which is such a joy, andopening tomorrow is Thomas Middleton’s AMad World, My Masters.

My point about the wholeShakespeare-centric, only-37-plays-to-work-with thing is that it’s rare forsomeone like myself to go into the theatre completely ignorant of the play.Usually, I’ve at least got the plot down, which frees my brain to focus onother elements of the production. It’s easier to take in the nuance ofperformance choices when you’re not constantly worried that you may have missedsome vital structural information. For MadWorld, though, I decided to skip all the rehearsals, to eschew reading theplay, and generally to remain ignorant about all of it – and then to show up tothe dress rehearsal and to see what’s what.

Here’swhat’s fun about dress rehearsals, especially during the ARS: the audience issparse, usually just in the single digits and made up of stage managers,dramaturgs, box office staff, and interns. It’s low-pressure but high-fun. Theactors have had about ten days of rehearsal, this is the fourth play of theseason, and let’s just say I was certainly not the only one who’d never heardof it until now. Oh, and it’s filthy. And I mean filthy. (The filthiness is scholastically verified by renownedscholar Peter Saccio, so you know it's not just our dirty minds making too muchof the text). As a result, the actors are barely off-book, they’ve got on someof the more insane costumes I’ve seen in my time here (Dan Kennedy as BounteousProgress is… words fail me), and they have to perform what is among thebawdiest, raunchiest,more-venereal-disease-jokes-than-even-George-Carlin-finds-appropriate play ofthe early modern era.

They rocked it. This company is a well-oiledmachine. A fine wine. A perfectly tuned piano. They make mistakes the way PaulaDeen makes food: deliciously cheesy. Dan Kennedy, with fake facial hair andold-man walker, lost his mustache several times during the performance and wentthrough such calisthenics to retrieve it from the ground that I was convincedthey’d planned it; it wasn’t until he righted himself, after much effort, andcalled “Prithee!” that we realized the mustache was supposed to stay on hisface. That’s saying something, because this happened about five times, and eachtime I was shocked when he called for line. That is, I would have been, if Ihad had enough breath left to be shocked; most of it was spent laughing so hardI may have bruised my ribs.

I’m glad I waited, because whileit’s a joy to watch a play progress over the rehearsal period, it’s equallylovely to have a show bombard you, all at once, with every wonderful andridiculous device in the plot and the actors’ decisions on how to interpretthem. I don’t want to ruin too much, but here’s what you can look forward to:Greg Phelps dressed as a woman and singing Aretha Franklin, Jeremy West tied toa chair in a cop uniform, Dan Kennedy in general, a lot of rhyming verse, somevery loud sex, and some inappropriate, on-stage bodily functions.

A Mad World, My Masters is a delightfullygut-busting play, made more so by the company that performs it. The Pay WhatYou Will opening is tonight, February 24^th, and the show plays untilApril 7^th, You’re not going to want to miss this one. I walked intothe theatre with no idea of what I was getting into and feeling a bit wary, andI walked out once again thankful that the ASC exists and performs shows likethis.

My Funny Valentine

2012-02-13T09:29:00.000-05:00

Valentine’s Day is tomorrow andwe’re all getting ready here at the ASC. The Blackfriars Playhouse has limitededition chocolate heart lollipops for sale in the gift shop, and a certaineducation intern keeps receiving large, elaborate bouquets from various secretadmirers. (One of those statements may not be true.)

What’s thebest way to woo your valentine? Let’s take our lessons from the plays currentlyrunning during this year’s Actors’ Renaissance Season. First, there’s Much Ado about Nothing, which is all todo with love. Next, Richard III, whichputs its own dark spin on wooing and winning a woman. Lastly, there’s Philaster, or Love Lies A-Bleeding,which (if the title wasn’t enough of a clue) features love gone horribly awrydue to secrecy, jealousy, and stabbings.

If you wantto woo like those in Much Ado, firstdecide if you’re a Claudio or a Benedick. If a Claudio, find a rich andgood-looking friend to ask the object of your affection out on a date on yourbehalf. Make sure the friend is honest and virtuous. There’s no way this canpossibly go wrong. If a Benedick, engage the object of your affection in verbalsparring as often as possible. Be witty but not cruel. Maybe date the objectfor a bit and then dump him/her unceremoniously. Wait several years. Repeat.Eventually realize you love the object (the use of an elaborate trick played byyour friends to jumpstart this realization is recommended but not required) andcorner him/her in an emotionally fraught moment (for example, after her cousinhas just been slandered and left at the altar – or something along thoselines). Tell the object you love him/her. If you’ve done these steps correctly,the object will ask you to kill your best friend. This means he/she loves youback.

If you wantto woo like Philaster, start by yelling at the object of your affection’sfather in a very public place. Make sure the object is there to see it. Next,wait for the gods to strike the object full of love. This may take a while.Once you have the object’s love, threaten to kill yourself. Then threaten tokill the object. Then actually try to kill yourself. Then try to kill theobject. Repeat as many times as you feel is necessary to completely win theobject’s love, then put on masks and get married.

I reallydon’t recommend wooing like a Richard, but if you’re set on it then you need tobe fully committed. Are you? Good, let’s get started. First, kill the object ofyour affection’s spouse. Then, kill the spouse’s father. Then barge into thefuneral and tell the object that you killed those relatives because you lovehim/her so much you couldn’t stand to see him/her married to anybody but you.Marry the object. Become the monarch of wherever you’re living (this step isoptional, but it makes the following steps easier). Now, pay close attention,because this next part is important: you have to find a new object ofaffection. Why? The next step in the Richard Wooing Manual is to kill theoriginal object. Attempt wooing tactic from Object #1 (kill spouse and spouse’sfather) on Object #2, except this time, kill his/her brothers and most ofhis/her uncles. Say it is for love of him/her, etc. Disclaimer: this tacticrarely works, and always ends with your death. If you’re determined, though,give it a shot.

I hope youfound that educational! Although, if none of those wooing tactics meets yourfancy, you could always take your sweetheart out to dinner and a show at the BlackfriarsPlayhouse! Now there’s a perfect Valentine’s Day.

-Lia Razak

It’s not every day you see a play like Philaster. Don’t miss your chance!

2012-02-08T11:42:00.003-05:00

Imagine a play with the moody,intellectual protagonist of Hamlet, the rampant sexual jealousy of Othello, the inappropriately raunchy cross-dressing of Twelfth Night, and the brief pastoral reprieve of Cymbeline. Now add a dozen or so stabbings, some live music, and the best Spanish-Italian-Russian accent you’ve ever heard. What have you got? Philaster, Or Love Lies A-Bleeding. Disclaimer: neither Francis Beaumont nor John Fletcher (the co-authors of Philaster) is Shakespeare, though the latter did collaborate with him occasionally. As such, Philaster can’t promise you a “to or not to be” moment. If you want Shakespeare, you know the ASC has him: come see Richard III and Much Ado about Nothing, two of the other shows currently running in our Actors' Renaissance Season. If you, like many frequent theatregoers, need a break from Shakespeare,but aren’t keen to walk away from his themes of usurping kings, melancholy princes, and lovers running amok in the woods, come see Philaster.

At the talkback after Philaster’s opening night (the ASC offers talkbacks after every school matinee and on most Thursday nights, so stick around after the curtain call to hear the actors’ perspective), Greg Phelps,who plays the titular character, opined that in the Actors’ Renaissance Season the chosen texts, especially those by Shakespeare's contemporaries, are often rightfully obscure - but that Philaster isn’t. It’s true that not many people know it (even certain interns who may or may not be dramaturgs), but Philaster is a play that deserves a second chance.

The play is never boring. It is at once tender and funny. The love scenes between Arethusa and Philaster are heartbreakingly sweet without being sickening; they remind you of passing your first crush in the hall between classes. They move effortlessly into the comedic scenes, both romantic and rustic. Pharamond’s attempted wooing of Galatea and successful conquest of Megra is as physically comedic as a Marx Brothers’ movie, while the innuendo rivals that of a best selling bodice-ripper. There are also scenes featuring the lower classes – woodsmen, citizens, mutinous rabble-rousers –and they come as a welcome break and an interesting contrast to the shenanigans going on in court.

Between the first reading and opening night, Philaster bloomed.Each rehearsal brought new discoveries and challenges, and each performance bears out the actors’ hard work. There's nothing not to like in Philaster, and there’s a whole lot to learn. Come see the show -- It runs through April 6, 2012, and you may never get a chance to see this play again. After all, not every theater has the good sense to stage it.

Here’s a chart, highlighting some of the prominent Shakespeare-esque themes and some of the all over best moments in Philaster:

What Is It?	What Happens?	Spectacular Factor 1-10
Hamlet alert!	Philaster feigns madness (or maybe he’s really mad?), and yells at the King in front of the court and freaks out when he pretends (again, maybe?) to see his father’s spirit.	5 – Mostly for sheer audacity, as we all know nobody talks to the King that way, but also for Greg’s face when he “sees” his father’s spirit.
Swagger like a Fop Star	Aidan O’Reilly (playing Pharamond) walks around and says things.	8 – Come see the show; you’ll get it.
Green Eyed Monster	Philaster immediately believes his servants when they falsely tell him the princess Arethusa has taken up with her page boy. Philaster – without even asking for proof – resolves to kill her. Or himself. Or maybe both.	6 – See Greg try to explain to his servants (John Harrell, Dan Kennedy and Ben Curns) why he’s so angry over the princess’ lusty missteps, since the servants know nothing about Philaster and Arethusa’s hidden love.
It is a woman!	In some very Twelfth Night-esque scenes, both Philaster and Arethusa seem a bit too interested in the page “boy,” Bellario.	4 – When the reveal came on opening night, the audience groaned amusedly as if to say, “You didn’t figure this out four acts ago, like the rest of us?”
Tourist Trap	Alli Glenzer plays a country fellow who interrupts Philaster and Arethusa during an intimate moment in the woods.	10 – The ARS at its best: the actors take a moment that is inherently funny but difficult to stage, and make the absolute most out of it. The whole play is worth it just for this one scene.
A page out of Cymbeline	Philaster wanders about in the woods, musing that his life would be better if he had been born, raised, and married there.	5- It’s a poignant moment not only about the difference between country and city, but also about Philaster’s constant “the grass is always greener” syndrome.
Groove Factor	Ben Curns, Jeremy West, Dan Kennedy and John Harrell stage a very jazzy pre-show.	10 – A jazz trio, interesting information about the ASC and the ARS, and a werewolf. No, seriously. A werewolf.
Swoon Factor	Chris Johnston opens the show with his rendition of Bon Iver’s “Skinny Love.”	10 – If you’re into that sort of thing. Which everybody is.

-- Lia Razak

A Moving Moment from Philaster Rehearsal

2012-01-30T16:32:00.001-05:00

There’s a moment in Philaster in 4.6 where our hero, wounded, asks Dion, Cleremont, and Thrasaline to help move him closer to the bleeding Bellario. No explicit stage direction exists to guide this movement, and the text is unclear with its embedded directions. Does he actually move? Do the other three characters help him to do so? If he does move, how close to Bellario does he get? Most importantly: why does he need their help? It’s moments like this which make the rehearsals for the Actors' Renaissance Season so fun to watch, because the actors have to answer these questions themselves, and quickly. When you only have two weeks to put up a show, you don’t get the luxury of lounging about, debating at length over staging.

The first few times they ran the scene, they skipped over this moment. There’s so much going on before and after it (stabbings galore, mostly) that the actors hadn’t had time to address it specifically. They ran the scene with Philaster standing, having run away from an altercation in which the Country gentleman stabs him, and Thrasaline, Cleremont, and Dion leading Bellario away on his feet moments after Philaster stabs him (I wasn’t kidding about the stabbings galore). Since, later in the play, Dion mentions that their wounds were superficial, they played the scene as though they weren’t hurt.

But Philaster says: “some / good body lend a hand to draw us nearer” (4.6110-1), which is a clue. The actors decided that if Philaster needs a hand to move about six feet, he must be seriously wounded. This means they had to rethink the scene in which he gets stabbed to make it clear how hurt he is, and it also means that Greg Phelps, who plays Philaster, has to change his physicality in the scene in order to portray it. Bellario must also be near death, if he cannot move to get closer to Philaster, and Miriam Donald, who plays Bellario, had to adjust accordingly. After deciding on the severity of the injuries, both actors immediately changed their physicalities, and the scene suddenly started to make more sense.

“Lay me gently on his neck” (4.6.113) is the next clue. Does it have to actually be on his neck? That seems painful and awkward, and they decided against it. Instead, Greg leans on John Harrell’s Dion in order to limp over and collapse next to Miriam. Greg crawls behind her and takes her in his arms so that her upper body is off the floor and cradled against his chest. He weeps and implores the others standing by, “Can you see / such clear, pure blood drop and not cut your flesh / to stop his life?” (4.6.120-2). It’s an extremely touching moment, and adds another layer to the already complex Bellario-Philaster relationship.

This is what the Renaissance season is all about, and it is a joy to watch the process. The actors took a moment that had previously been a bit of a strange throwaway and turned it into one of the most powerful parts of the play. This whole process happened in just twenty minutes. Look for this moment when you come see Philaster, which opens on Friday, February 3, with a Pay-What-You-Will preview on Thursday. With the way the scene is shaping up, it’ll be impossible to miss.

-Lia Razak

Succession-Anxiety: From Richard III to Philaster

2012-01-23T15:22:00.002-05:00

Richard is dead!

Now what?

Questions of succession are swirling around the ASC, first with Richard III – the bloody culmination of the War of the Roses – and next with Philaster, Or, Love Lies A-Bleeding. This multifaceted play, written in 1609 or 1610 as a collaboration between Francis Beaumont and John Fletcher, begins with some royal problems. The nameless King, who rules the fictionalized twin kingdoms of Sicily and Calabria, is the son of a usurper – his father stole the throne. And our hero Philaster, the son of the deposed king, lives still. This is Hamlet a generation later, if Claudius had lived to have a son and Hamlet had delayed his revenge until that son was crowned.

One of the most influential conceptions of the English monarchical political structure was the divine right of kings. The monarchy was not simply a legislative office but also a religious covenant; the throne was the earthly seat of God and the rightful King his corporeal embodiment. The vehement pearl-clutching that resulted from the ascendancy of a usurping king was so all-encompassing that we now have (in addition to the insanity that was the English line of succession in general, but particularly between 1337 and 1558) a whole catalogue of wonderful plays and books dealing with the topic. Now, we’re moving from a semi-historical depiction of succession-anxiety (however fanaticized or misleading it may be) in Shakespeare’s Richard III to a fictional, metaphorical account in Philaster.

These types of plays were exceedingly popular, likely because they were resonantly topical. Philip Henslowe’s diary indicates that Shakespeare’s Henry VI trilogy was among his biggest financial successes, though today those plays rarely see performance. (The ASC has produced all three during Actors' Renaissance Seasons since 2009). Just as we flock to the movies to see films about our own history, particularly the histories of our wars (Saving Private Ryan and The Great Escape come immediately to mind) so did the people of London flock to the theaters to see their past acted out for them. It was exciting and cathartic to watch the death of kings and usurpation of thrones safely depicted in a fictional setting; when it really happened, heads rolled. And the question was never far from anybody’s mind: in 1610, James I sat on the throne, and though his reign was not nearly as complicated as a Lancaster’s or a York’s, it was fraught with enough problems that Philaster, in coming too near some of them, found itself heavily censored in its first Quarto printing in 1620. (More on this to come!)

Though the deposition happens before the start of Philaster, and though the play turns from political to romantic to tragic to comic, the thread of political intrigue runs throughout, permeating the action. Nobody ever really forgets that the King is the issue of a usurper, and that until Philaster regains his kingdom, divine powers will keep the world out of joint. The King laments this in a Claudius-like fashion during an aside, begging the gods to:

forgive the sin

I have committed: let it not fall

upon this undeserving child of mine;

She has not broke your laws. But how can I

Look to be heard of gods that must be just

Praying upon the ground I hold by wrong? (2.4.57-62)

and eventually admits his guilt and steps aside, saying to Philaster, “I have wronged you, / And though I find it last and beaten to it / Let first your goodness know it … Be what you are born to” (5.3.176-9).

This is how these plays must end: with the restoration of the “right heir.” Until whoever is born rightfully to the throne (according to the complicated and convoluted laws of the time) is sitting unchallenged upon it, the world of the play (and the response of the audience) is jangled and out of tune. If the wrong guy is sitting up there at the end, well… it’s not the end. It took Shakespeare 10 history plays, from King John to Henry VIII, to get the ending “right,” because historically it took hundreds of years for the English to resolve the incidents leading up to and occurring during the War of the Roses. The succession-anxiety imbued in these plays would have infused the time as well, creating a constant state of uneasiness and panic. Not until the tyrant falls in Richard III can the audience breathe easy, and Philaster must end not only with the hero getting the princess and with the girl dressed as a boy identifying herself (It is a woman!), but with the previous usurpation reversed and with Philaster regaining his birthright. It’s not just for the sake of the plot, but for divine law, which, when bent or broken, gives rise to a Richard instead of a Henry.

-Lia Razak

"Before the times of change, still is it so"

2012-01-23T14:19:00.001-05:00

One of the most exciting aspects of sitting in on rehearsals throughout the lead-up to Richard III is being able to see how the play changes as it progresses. The most obvious change between rehearsal and performance is the presence of costumes and make-up, since neither of these aspects were a crucial part of the rehearsal process. This addition was evident on opening night, particularly on Sarah Fallon (playing Margaret) and Miriam Donald (for the Duchess). Both of these women are older characters, so the actors decided to show this through cosmetics and costume choices.

Even on opening night, there were other significant changes to the play that had nothing to do with its material elements. During Margaret’s cursing scene (1.4), Ben Curns (Richard) spit out his drink in Sarah Fallon’s face after she lashes a series of curses at him and others. During rehearsals, the two never practiced this or acknowledged that this would take place in the performance, so I found myself wondering if Sarah was as shocked as I was in that moment! This visual and aural effect created a powerful statement to the audience about Richard’s mental state during Margaret’s rant against the Yorks, where he does not have many lines.

Another change came later in this scene when Sarah chose to jump on the table to yell her insults at Rivers and Grey, creating a different power dynamic than the actors had previously rehearsed. While Margaret is the center of attention in this scene, during rehearsals she was physically on the same level as the other characters; yet now her elevation communicates to the audience that she is the most knowing character in this scene, because many of her curses prove true by the end of the play. Her insult to Elizabeth: “die neither mother, wife, nor England’s Queen” comes to apply to many of the women by the play’s conclusion. This staging choice highlights that while Richard’s war is ultimately against men, it is often the women who prove to be his most vocal and demeaning foes.

When rehearsing this scene, Miriam pointed out that she (as Grey) and Gregory Jon Phelps (as Rivers) have little to do or say throughout this scene, and questioned whether they should be sitting at a table, center stage. The company decided to keep this prop in place because they felt it made the most sense for the scene’s opening. This decision forced Margaret to stand to the side of the table during her lengthy passage cursing everyone in rehearsal. Now, they have eradicated this problem through Margaret’s forceful jump atop the table to deliver these powerful lines. Sometimes these changes come from audience’s response to a character, or from practical concerns such as movement and costuming that may not have been evident in rehearsal. Regardless of their purpose, these minor changes affect the way the actors tell the story, and I look forward to seeing what else they adapt as the production moves forward.

--Amy Kenny

“I would have it suddenly performed”

2012-01-18T15:43:00.002-05:00

Wednesday: With the dress rehearsal looming this evening, the rehearsal process is practically over for Richard III, and these two weeks have gone by quickly (I’m sure even more so for the actors who are actually in the play). The production is like a giant jigsaw puzzle with many pieces worked on independently that somehow must fit together on opening night. Throughout the entire rehearsal process, the actors have adhered to a similar formula for each scene. First, they did a read through of the scene to make sure everyone understood what is happening and where people are needed. Often, actors only become aware of what their characters are doing through their fellow actors’ lines, particularly when working with cue scripts. For example, in the wooing scene, Richard orders the guards, “stand thou when I command,” indicating to the audience that they have disregarded his earlier order. As this unfolded in the read-through on stage, it became clear that the actors must determine their blocking accordingly; otherwise Richard’s second line would not make sense. The actors are required to be “off-book” by the first day of rehearsal, having already completed their scansion and paraphrasing by the time the process begins, but it is still helpful for them to hear the scene in its entirety so they can make collective decisions about how it should be performed.

After they did a read-through, the company began working each scene “on its feet,” moving around the stage and deciding which configurations are best to tell the story of that particular scene. I noticed that the actors often favored a triangular arrangement on the stage, which some of the actors have told me is most powerful. They were always concerned about the location of exits and entrances, as this is typically the only way of distinguishing between various locales on a sparse stage. While they openly discussed their ideas about blocking, crossing and even plot at times, the actors never gave one another notes on acting style, as it seems to be understood between the company members that they trust each other’s work.

For the past two weeks, the company worked on the scenes somewhat chronologically because it helped the actors understand what the characters have been through emotionally and physically up unto that point in the play. For example, the company worked on Margaret’s cursing scene (1.3) before her scene teaching the Duchess and Elizabeth how to curse (4.4), so the actors were aware of the significance of this scene for each of the characters, and the transformation they go through between them.

In addition to rehearsing scenes, the company traded duties on other elements of production throughout the rehearsal process. Allison Glenzer worked on creating props; Jeremy West choreographed the fight sequences; and numerous company members arranged musical sequences for the pre-show and interlude. In fact, that all of these activities occurred simultaneously means that the dress rehearsal will be the first time that all of the elements have come together for the production. The company did a run-through of the text and sound cues on Tuesday, but most of the props, music and costumes were yet missing from the play at this point. Some of the actors have rehearsed particular scenes in costume to ensure there is enough time for a change. Aidan O’Reilly, for example, needed to change from Ratcliffe to the ghost of Clarence in the nightmare scenes (5.3-5), so he wore his characters’ apparel during the run-through to make sure this quick change was feasible with the costumes he had chosen. Yet, the day before the dress rehearsal, some actors have yet to choose their costumes because they were working on other elements of the production. It is fascinating how little this matters, actually, because the production does not necessarily highlight the material elements of performance, instead focusing on telling the story of the play.

It is also interesting how the play is constantly evolving both in textual choices and movement. Even during the run-through, Allison Glenzer changed one of her lines from the Folio to Quarto text based on what she was trying to evoke as Elizabeth in that scene. While Kim Maurice (the prompter) took notes of all of these changes, they often take place so rapidly that there is not time for the company to discuss them. It is obvious that productions of these plays by Shakespeare’s company, working under similar time constraints, would have evolved over the weeks, months, and years of performance based on a number of factors: actors’ choices, audience reactions, or practical concerns. Many conditions of performance dictated the text, rather than the other way around. Modern readers are frequently unaware of the fact that the text of any given Shakespearean play in front of us today has gone through a number of mutations throughout history, and therefore, that there is no one “authoritative” text. This is something that I have often heard before, but which becomes completely apparent while watching the rehearsal process for the Renaissance Season, where pragmatism often outweighs other concerns.

--Amy Kenny

“my battle shall be ordered”

2012-01-17T17:58:00.001-05:00

Sunday: the company worked on the final fight sequence, where Richmond kills Richard, bringing about unity and the Tudor era. Battles are crucial to the history plays because they illustrate the on-going War of the Roses to the audience in a tangible way. Jeremy West volunteered to be the fight choreographer for Richard III and came up with ideas about how they should stage each “moment of violence,” as he terms them, before rehearsal. He has 10 years of experience choreographing fights and it shows in his technical knowledge about what the actor must do to suspend disbelief for the audience. His main goal is to make sure that the actors are as safe as possible while performing a fight sequence that looks as realistic as possible.

He detailed each move for the actors himself before they stepped in to take over the scene, first performing it in slow motion to acclimate their bodies to the movements. He explained to the actors the technical information of how the body would react to such a wound, so that they were able to visualize performing each maneuver. I was surprised to find that the slightest movement can drastically affect the believability of a punch. After explaining the technical side of it, Jeremy related what is happening in the story during that scene and how the fight enhances that moment. As a fight choreographer, he has a lot of room to influence characterization, since Shakespeare leaves many stage directions for fights ambiguous.

The stage direction for one of the fights they choreographed states, “Alarum, Enter RICHARD and RICHMOND; they fight. Richard is slain. Then retreat being sounded, exit Richmond, and Richard’s body is removed. Flourish.” Jeremy thought that the story they could tell through the choreography between Ben Curns (Richard) and Gregory Jon Phelps (Richmond) is that Richard has more brute force than Richmond who is of a smaller build, but that Richard’s overconfidence allows Richmond to serve him a fatal blow. This is based partly on the physical build of the actors, and partly on his reading of the characters in the play. All of the actors agreed on this narrative and used it to fill in the gaps in choreography, when there are lulls in the movements to ensure safety because the actors are not actually fighting.

After he advised on the technical and dramatic impact of this moment in the production, Jeremy watched the fight from various angles to ensure that it looks natural to the greatest amount of people in the audience. Often he asked the actors to move upstage to block the vantage points where it is obvious that the punches and sword fighting are merely fabricated. At one point, they even asked me to sit on a gallant stool so they could become accustomed to having audience members on stage throughout the fight, as will happen during performances. No one said watching rehearsals was going to be easy! The acoustics of the Blackfriars, particularly when sitting on a gallant stool, mean that the fights are incredibly impactful because every clink of the swords reverberates through the audience. The actors in Shakespeare’s company would have had a great deal of technical knowledge about swordsmanship, as would those in his audience, so it is fitting that many of the ASC actors have also been technically trained for these scenes.

--Amy Kenny

“Despair and Die”

2012-01-17T10:23:00.003-05:00

Thursday: the actors tackled the ghost scene (5.3-5), where ghosts of many Richard has murdered come back to haunt him before the Battle of Bosworth and curse him, “Despair and die.” Almost every actor in the company is in this scene, and those who aren’t are sounding the various trumpets and alarums that the text calls for, as well as paging the curtains and doors. The first thing I noticed about this scene in rehearsal is how the doubling in this production creates a visual connection for the audience of the two parties at war, the houses of York and Lancaster (and later Richmond). For example, Gregory Jon Phelps plays both Henry VI (on stage as a corpse in 1.2, as well as having played the role in last year’s Henry VI, Part 3) and Richmond, later Henry VII, serving as a physical connection between the two characters. This not only makes it easier for the audience to understand which “team” each character is on, but also demonstrates why Richmond has such an investment in killing the king, because Richard has wronged so many in his own family. Ben Curns commented that when cutting the script, he tried not to have one actor on stage as one character and then doubling as another character too soon afterwards so that the audience is always aware of who each actor is playing. These visual connections ease the audience into an understanding of the complicated familial history of these plays, even if only subconsciously.

The first major decision that the company made about this scene was how and where to pitch the tents that the texts call for. Allison Glenzer took on the role of prop master and volunteered to slit a sheet down the middle and stitch it up again to create a tent-like effect covering each of the flanking doors. Since the company has used the Lancaster and York roses throughout their productions of the history cycle, they wanted to keep this imagery for the audience. After some discussion about what Richmond’s rose should be (since he is technically not York or Lancaster), John Harrel suggested that he should have both to symbolize the unity that he brings about at the play’s conclusion, and asked me for pictures of the Tudor rose so they can replicate it (right). Props were limited and therefore symbolic on the early modern English stage, so a singular rose could easily signify the entire army of either Lancaster or York.

After figuring the props out, the company tried to block the scene, first with the ghosts walking in a circle around Richard; then by walking in a figure eight across the stage; until finally they decided upon having the ghosts enter through the trap. This solution created an eerie effect as though they were coming from the underworld back into Richard’s life. The nightmare was not over for the actors, however, as they could not decide how to get all of the ghosts off the stage after this point. Various members suggested working the exits one way or another before they decided that they group of ghosts should exit simultaneously through the discovery space. Since they did not fit linearly, they grouped together, creating a tableaux reminiscent of a family portrait; only one of the Adams family instead of the Bradys. However, this is unsettlingly fitting for the tumultuous family drama that encompasses the play and will create a wonderful dramatic conclusion.

--Amy Kenny

‘Was ever a woman in this humor woo’d?’

2012-01-12T09:17:00.002-05:00

Tuesday: It was the first full day of Richard III rehearsals after the read-through on Sunday, and there were a lot of scenes on the docket. One of the major scenes the actors covered was the wooing scene (1.2), where Richard famously woos Anne in front of her husband’s father's corpse. This is a horrific act, yet the way that Richard is able to woo Anne in the face of her disdain with only his words illustrates Shakespeare’s own command of language, which he certainly seems keen to show off to his contemporaries at this early stage in his career.

The actors first tried to figure out the blocking of the scene -- specifically whether or not Gregory Jon Phelps should be on stage as the corpse of Henry VI or if it should just be a dummy. They ended up deciding that it would be more powerful and impactful for the audience to have an actor in that position throughout the scene. Then they had a discussion as to whether or not the blood that seeps from Henry’s wounds in this scene is real or imagined, and, if it is real, how to stage it. Brandi Rhome voiced her opinion that it should be bleeding in the presence of the murderer as a sign of Richard’s villainy to Anne. The audience informs many of their decisions, both practically, such as keeping track of who can see what’s going on, and also thematically, to make sure the audience can always understand the story they are telling.

Watching the actors work without a director is intriguing because they make all of their own decisions about blocking and crossing, among other things. They decide how everyone should enter based on the exits from the previous scene and on the information the text provides. In this scene, the halberds are initially heading towards Chertsey, and then Richard tells them to go to Whitefriars instead. The company decided to physically demonstrate this shift by having the halberds originally headed towards the left door and then changing to the center discovery space for their eventual exit.

Getting the right ratio of intimacy and disdain in this scene is important for showing Richard’s characterization, and Ben and Brandi walked through the lines while having René Thornton Jr. watch to give his opinion on their movements and dialogue. They noticed how the switch from the formal you to informal thou is important and should indicate something in their physicality. They decide to use this point to move closer towards one another, crossing the lifeless body of Anne’s husband and Richard’s latest victim. It’s amazing to see how Shakespeare embeds many of the details of the play — the staging, characterization and plot —in the lines. Frequently, one actor suggests that someone storm off or be friendly towards the other characters in the scene, only for someone else to point out whether or not that fits with the rest of the information given in the play.

Based on Anne’s retort, “’Tis more than you deserve,” Ben and Brandi decided to stage the lead-up to a kiss immediately before this moment so she uses the line to refuse him. During Richard’s line, “Bid me farewell,” Richard moves in for a kiss and lingers, waiting for Anne to requite his love. Their decisions show how intimate this scene is, while still getting across the fact that Richard is ensnaring Anne in his web.

--Amy Kenny

'Richard III' Rehearsals Begin

2012-01-11T09:28:00.002-05:00

Sunday evening: the first day of rehearsal for Richard III, and I am excited to see the actors at work. They have just come off of putting up Much Ado about Nothing in two days, so are understandably tired, but all show up ready for the first read-through of Shakespeare’s most popular history play. After seeing Ben Curns and Miriam Donald duke it out as a hilarious and well-matched Benedick and Beatrice, I am a little uncertain for what lies ahead in Richard III. Can Benedick really be malicious enough to be the “bottled spider?” I'm uncertain going into rehearsals, but less than five minutes in, I need no more convincing. I am thoroughly scared by Ben hurling insults across the table, and I find it amazing how everyone just slips right into character even while at the table reading lines. No costumes, no stage, no set: just twelve actors sitting around a table, yet the characters and plot come alive.

The company has a jovial rapport with one another. When Sarah Fallon (playing Margaret) finishes her list of curses against Richard, Ben playfully responds, “Lady Disdain, art thou still living?” -- a throw-back to his line in Much Ado aimed at Beatrice. I can tell that many of them have worked together for years. They need little explanation and speak in a form of cliff notes with each other. As each person reads his/her part, the company is making sure that the cues are accurate (and not repeated -- as was the case a few times). On a few different occasions, an actor stops to clarify to whom the line is directed, or which actor is playing that part as there are a lot of roles. There are over 52 speaking parts in this play and only 12 actors, so even with doubling, some roles are getting axed. By the end of the play, Richard does that to most of the characters anyway, so it is of no consequential loss! They have already done paraphrasing and scansion before the read-through and most of the actors are off-book: a surprising feat considering they just began Much Ado a few days ago as well.

As the read-through progresses, I notice that many actors choose to substitute words that they feel work better in the scene. The substitutions are still, however, Shakespeare's words. The play exists in the 1623 First Folio and in six earlier Quarto versions, so the actors are able to replace particular words and phrases from another edition if they feel that those lines work better. Sometimes the flow and rhythm of the line is improved with a different word. Other times, the word substitution changes the meaning of the line (ever so) slightly.

After the read-through is done, the actors discuss some pronunciation points, making a collective decision for all of the proper nouns and removing references to those characters that have been cut. Ben, who also cut the script for this production, has taken on a leadership role (a good idea for the actor playing the Machiavellian?) and has outlined the historical background of each of these characters on a chart on the wall, creating a (crazy) family tree of sorts. Even though Shakespeare plays pretty fast and loose with these histories, sometimes it is helpful for actors to know what Shakespeare’s audience was aware of when watching the play. Over the next two weeks of rehearsal, I will be interested to see how the Buckingham-Richard relationship develops, because Rene and Ben already have quite a history acting together and this relationship can make or break the play. I’m also excited to see Sarah as Margaret, because if the read-through is any indication, she has a lot of vengeance to voice!

--Amy Kenny

The Renaissance Continues, Dives Into Tragedy

2012-01-10T11:46:00.006-05:00

The 2012 Actors' Renaissance Season presses on at the American Shakespeare Center. However, next on the list isn't a heart warming comedy; there won't be happy marriages, star-crossed lovers, or hilarious cases of mistaken identity. Next on the list is Richard III, one of Shakespeare's darkest tragedies; a play that contains murder, betrayal, and perhaps the most villainous character in all of Shakespeare's works. The title character in Richard III begins as the Duke of Gloucester and later becomes king. His ascension to the throne could hardly be called smooth, and defines why he is the cruelest of villains. At the beginning of the play, Richard openly admits to being "subtle, false, and treacherous". His ambition drives him to the point of murder more often than not, and family means absolutely nothing to him (made pretty obvious by the fact that his brother is one of his main targets). The ensuing events are suspenseful, intense, and full of death and suffering. With that being said, this play is not without humor, albeit dark and subtle humor. Richard goes about destroying all those in his way, all the while winking at the audience to make sure they know what he's about to do. He draws the audience in so that they almost feel like a co-conspirator, and because of that the audience begins to forgive Richard a little bit more than they should, and even, dare I say it, root him on.

I recently sat in on a rehearsal for Richard III as I did for Much Ado about Nothing, and although the plays are wildly different, my impressions didn't change that much. The actors raced through the script, blocking it out and sculpting the action in a way that told an effective story, they were all memorized on their lines (even more impressive since Richard III is the second longest Shakespeare play behind Hamlet), and the actors gave their characters a subtlety and specificity that is mind-boggling at this early stage in the process. What pleasantly surprised me was the use of humor. In places, the actors worked diligently to bring out the humor as much as possible. This created small reprieves from the violence where I could catch my breath, and because of that, the plunge back into the tragedy grabbed hold of me even harder.

Watching Richard III is kind of like watching a really good thriller movie (not that terrible gory stuff...I'm talking Hitchcock here). You have an idea of what's going to happen, but Shakespeare draws scenes out in a way that slowly pulls you more to the edge of your seat; you're waiting for something crazy to happen, you know something is right around the corner, but you won't see until Shakespeare has made you whittle down your fingernails with anticipation. A good example of this is the murder (or almost murder...you have to see the show to find out what really happens) of Richard's brother, Clarence. I won't give anything important away for you future audience members, but two hired hands are about to kill Clarence in his sleep. At the last moment, Clarence wakes up and, better yet, he knows what the two men are there to do. What follows is a heart stopping dialogue between the three men about the afterlife, the meaning of family, love, and a man's dignity. That scene was rehearsed today while I was sitting in the seats at the Blackfriars Playhouse, and let me tell you, I can't remember if I was breathing the whole time.

In the end, this kind of tragedy is not for everyone. However, I think it's well worth everyone's time; The story is compelling, the individual performances (from what I saw) are great, the epic nature of the play promises to broaden anyone's horizons, and you get to feel a little bit like a villain's side kick. I mean, come on, who doesn't like to feel a little bad every now and then?

A Change of Pace: Actors Begin Rehearsals for Renaissance Season

2012-01-03T11:58:00.006-05:00

"I wonder that you will still be talking, Signor Benedick: nobody marks you." This is the opening line in the first of many volleys in the fast-paced, hilarious war of words between Benedick and Beatrice, two of Shakespeare's most beloved characters. They come from Much Ado about Nothing, which opens the American Shakespeare Center's 2012 Actors' Renaissance Season. Much Ado is a great play to begin the season for the American Shakespeare Center; it moves very quickly (the ASC has an internationally acclaimed reputation for taking all the fluff and snobby intellectualism out of Shakespeare, and instead giving highly energized, entertaining performances that focus on the actor-audience relationship), and, especially poignant following the holidays, gives the audience laugh-induced stomach aches.

When I was presented the opportunity to observe the show's first rehearsal, I was naturally pretty excited. I've always been interested in seeing what a rehearsal for the Renaissance Season looks like, because it's unlike any process that's used in normal practice today. Here's what you could expect if you walked into a normal rehearsal hall in the beginning stages of a show's creation:

1) The actors, director, and creative team (lighting designers, costumers, etc.) all meet on the first day for introductions. The designers give short presentations on what they're thinking about doing with the show. They often times have models, sketches, or even power point presentations.
2) The director then sits at a table with the actors and they read through the script together, taking time to discuss meaning, theme, character, and anything else that can be gained from the words on the page.
3) After a few days of this, the director begins to stage the play, telling the actors where to go and when. Depending on the director, actors have either a good deal of freedom in what they do, or none at all.
4) This continues until the entire play has been staged, dress rehearsals are then done, adjustments are made, and then it's time for opening. When all is said and done, this process normally takes 3-8 weeks.

How is the Renaissance Season different, you ask? Well, first you get rid of the creative team. No designers, no costumers. The lights never dim at the Blackfriars, so a lighting designer wouldn't be able to do much there, and the actors pick out their own costumes from what's in stock. Next, you get rid of the director. The actors are responsible for working together to create the staging in a way that effectively tells the story. So that's it! There's also one more tiny, miniscule, little detail. Remember how the process from the first rehearsal to opening night can take as long as 8 weeks? The actors of the Renaissance Season get 2 days. Yes. 2 days. Many actors I know would faint if that's what they got. Or quit. Or just cry.

So here I am, quietly sneaking into the back of the balcony by myself on the first day of rehearsal, and the actors are already blazing through the Much Ado script. I shouldn't have been surprised, but it seemed like in the time it took me to take off my bag and coat and settle into a seat, they had already moved onto the next scene (I should note that I had, earlier that morning, sat in on the beginning of the same rehearsal block alongside a tour group of 39 children with accompanying adults, all of whom sat, entranced by the performers' prowess and by the beauty of the theatre itself). However, the actors at the ASC are seasoned for it; they love the challenge, and they realize that they don't have time to get hung up on concepts, style, and overly intellectualized conversation. They act on impulse. They go with their gut. If a choice doesn't work, nobody apologizes, nobody beats themselves up, they just acknowledge that it didn't work and find another option.

By the time the actors took their first break of the day (a little under an hour and a half into rehearsal), they had staged close to ten pages of the script, or roughly ten minutes of the show. Here's how to put that into perspective: A general rule-of-thumb for many directors in America is that one minute of a play requires an hour of rehearsal. The actors of the Renaissance Season did ten minutes in an hour and a half, and did it well.

At that point I slid out of the theatre and headed to the ASC's office a few blocks away, but the impression that rehearsal left with me has stuck. I am hard pressed to remember a time when I've seen actors work with such tenacity and passion. Even though they were working at incredible speeds, they were still able to make me laugh hard enough to worry that I was disrupting rehearsal. I'm not sure that you could say one method of rehearsing is better than another. Each production has its own needs, but it was refreshing to watch professionals work in the manner they do during the American Shakespeare Center's Renaissance Season. Sometimes we need to pick up the tempo in order to make things more interesting, not only in theatre, but in life as well. A change of pace is certainly something this Much Ado brings to the table, and I'm pretty excited to see the opening performance.

- ASC Intern John G.

Henry V and Tamburlaine

2011-08-11T16:19:00.003-04:00

This year the ASC brings the remarkable histories of Shakespeare and Marlowe to life. History plays were immensely popular in Elizabethan England and always a safe bet at the box office. Of course, what made the history plays great wasn’t necessarily their accuracy, but rather the playwright’s methods of representing familiar stories on the stage. Today we examine some of the historical figures behind the title characters in William Shakespeare’s Henry V and Christopher Marlowe’s Tamburlaine the Great.

Henry V of England, born 16 Sept. 1366, was not, at the time of his birth, directly in line to become king. His father, Henry IV (formerly Henry Bolingbroke, just one of Edward III’s numerous grandsons), led the Lancastrian usurpation against Richard II, making himself king. Luckily for England, Henry V proved to be a remarkably gifted military commander and a domestic favorite, cementing his position as the country’s leader.

During the period of the 100 Years War with France, England needed a strong and able leader. However, not everyone was on board with Henry’s battle plans. Indeed, as depicted in the play, the government convicted and executed three traitors just six days before Henry’s army set sail for France. The Earl of Cambridge, Henry Scrope of Mashom, and Sir Thomas Grey, were convicted in the so-called “Southhampton plot,” an attempted assassination of the king.
Henry’s famous campaign proved favourable to the English with victories at Harfleur and Agincourt. Shakespeare’s play stages these campaigns, from the lofty promises of victory to his troops to the less-noble decisions to threaten Harfleur’s citizens and to execute French prisoners. After his victory, he made his way into the heart of France to negotiate with the French King Charles IV, who agreed to name Henry his successor and seal the deal with a marriage to the French princess Catharine. Charles was in poor health and had suffered some time from mental illness, so it seemed that Henry would outlive him and soon seize the crown with his French queen at his side. Unfortunately, a bout of dysentery killed Henry two months prior to the death of the French King. Henry never wore the crown of France, and he left an infant behind as King of England. England’s dominance of the French was short-lived, and Shakespeare chronicles the loss of Henry’s gains in the Henry VI trilogy.

So what of Marlowe’s Tamburlaine? Surely this character’s history couldn’t be as extraordinary as that of the great English king. Well, that’s true; it’s actually much more extraordinary. Marlowe’s play is loosely based on the life of Timur, a one-of-a-kind, hardcore Mongolian warrior. His name “Timur” comes from a word meaning “iron”. If that conjures up images from Rocky IV, then you’re getting the right picture. An exhumation of his remains confirms that he was broad-chested and tall with strong cheek bones. The Persians dubbed him Tamburlaine, which essentially translates as “Timur the lame” (he reportedly limped from a battle injury. The injury, however, doesn’t seem to have deterred his fierceness).

From 1383-1387, Timur stayed busy conquering Persia, while his sometimes-rival/sometimes-ally Tokhtamysh enjoyed a takeover of Moscow. Then, Tokhtamysh decided to get in on the Persian conquest, invading Timur’s Azerbaijan, a move which kicked off a decade-long war between the two ending in Tokhtamysh’s defeat at the Battle of Terek River in 1395. For some conquerors, this might have seemed like a grand enough accomplishment, but Timur was insatiable. Next, he set his sights on India.

Invading India in 1385, Timur demonstrated his tactical skill and prowess. In one instance, Timur repelled the attack of the Sulton’s 120 fully-armoured war elephants by strapping wood to his camels’ backs, lighting them on fire, and spurring the camels toward the elephants -- causing them to panic and trample their own army. He, like Henry, ordered the execution of prisoners on several occasions. If prisoners showed the slightest sign of revolt, he wouldn’t hesitate to execute tens of thousands at a time.

He finally saw defeat as he set out to conquer China, but was beset with fever and plague, succumbing to death Feb 15, 1405. He was survived by his son Shah Rukh and his Harem.

Two legendary warriors, two playwrights and two box offices smashes of the early modern period. Come and claim your seat in the Blackfriars Playhouse to witness Henry’s famous victories and Tamburlaine’s wild conquests.

by ASC Education Intern, Kyle Oram

"Here 'tis, here's a paper. Shall I read it to you?"

2011-07-26T14:57:00.007-04:00

On Wednesday, July 20th, the ASC offices underwent a thorough reorganization. Cabinets, desks, bookcases all pranced about in a wild dance that somehow settled into a neat and tidy new arrangement. It was a good time for change. With the summer heat draining morale, headaches from debt ceiling debates, and post Harry Potter depression looming in the minds of every fan, our fearless leaders seemed to know instinctively that a change of scene would serve as a catalyst of new found creativity and bravado. It would seem these events in themselves would account for the recent changes in the office, but the insiders perspective suggests a different story... the story of a new intern, an intern with extraordinary ability in using... ellipses.

Starting July 5th the ASC offices would be forever changed. The events of July 22nd as it were, are no more than a physical manifestation of the literal transformation that began the day ASC intern Kyle Oram arrived. Heralding from Utah Valley University, this intern has embarked on a mission... a mission never before undertaken by interns past and present... The mission of the annotated bibliography on early modern theater structures! Upon arrival he began weaving a story that rivals in its scope and awesome wonder even the best theatrical trailers for Mission Impossible IV. In his daily work he combines the Tom Cruise run with DaVinci Code-esque research montages.

Given the extremity of his schedule in completing the impossible mission, we are unquestionable grateful to get a glance at his work, and bring you the Early Modern Theater book of the Week!
That’s right, each week, the interns’ blog will be featuring one of our heroic intern’s favorite references on the early modern theater. Today’s feature:
The Shakespearian Playing Companies by Andrew Gurr

The observant reader may offer a riotous objection to this selection, recalling that the bibliography is to deal with “Early Modern Theater Structures.” This book, by its title, indicates an examination of the companies rather than the structures in which they played. However, the construction of my bibliography has led to an interest that goes beyond structure to the actual workings of the Theaters and their relationship to the players and community. In this respect Gurr’s work always provides rich details. One particularly notable account details the penalties set forth in an actors contract working for Henslowe (pg 99). The evident priority in severity of punishment reveals something about the acting culture of the time. The theaters had been extant for decades by 1614 and the contract consequently was wisely specific.

Rehearsal missed: 1 Shilling
Failure to be dressed and ready for afternoon performances: 2 Shillings
Judged to be drunk at playing time in the opinion of four sharers: 3 Shillings
Failure to attend performance1 pound and forfeiture of his share of gallery takings: 10 Shillings
Wearing any of the company's apparel outside the playhouse: 40 Pounds!!!
Carrying on the legacy of Will Kemp... Priceless

There are some things money can't by, but for everything else there's Henslowecard.

This resource also provides unique anthologies of the companies at-a-glance. At the end of each chapter is a detailing of the companies plays, managers, players, playhouses and travelling records. It is a feature that makes this book invaluable in piecing together the history of the playhouses in Elizabethan England...
But you don’t have to take my word for it.

Ba dum duh!
-Kyle

"Come, sing me a bawdy song"

2011-07-22T14:23:00.003-04:00

Who says that Victorians didn’t have a sense of humor? (Well, Oscar Wilde for one, I suppose.)

For a people often classified as uptight, dour, and repressed, Victorians certainly had a healthy love for the bawdy. One manifestation of this love of which I have only recently become aware is the so-called burlesque, specifically the highly intriguing Shakespeare burlesque. (That’s right; it’s not just a movie starring Cher and Christina Aguilera.) So, if you think satire and parody are modern conventions, think again. The Shakespeare burlesque of the nineteenth century took spoofing to a whole new, Mel Brooks-worthy level.

First of all, Shakespeare underwent a great resurgence of popularity in the nineteenth century, which expressed itself in everything from the most serious (and now legendary) performances of actors like Edwin Booth, to the broad caricatures of the burlesque. The Victorian burlesque, also known as a “travesty” or an “extravaganza,” was simply a parody of any well known opera or classical play – a musical comedy featuring fairly low-brow humor and women in tights. Although, to be fair, with any burlesque there was an assumed expectation of familiarity with the source material, implying a certain level of intellectual in-the-know.

One of the first Shakespeare burlesques was based on Hamlet: the 1810 Hamlet Travestie in Three Acts with Burlesque Annotations, after the manner of Dr. Johnson and Geo. Steevens, Esq. At the end of the show, Hamlet and Laertes square off in a boxing match rather than a duel, and all concludes with Hamlet gasping out, “Here goes, Horatio – going –going – gone!” More burlesques followed closely on Hamlet’s heels. Richard III became “A Merrie Mysterie in One Act;” The Tempest became The Enchanted Isle; and The Merchant of Venice became “Shylock, or The Merchant of Venice Preserved, An entirely new reading of Shakespeare, From an edition hitherto undiscovered by modern authorities, and which it is hoped may be received as the stray leaves of Jerusalem Hearty-Joke.” And let us not forget A Thin Slice of Ham Let! from the 1860’s.

Bad puns abounded in these works. Puns were the primary comedic weapon, and the worse the pun, the better the burlesque. In one take on Macbeth, Macbeth and Banquo appear first under an umbrella. Upon the witches greeting of "Hail! hail! hail!", Macbeth asks Banquo, "What mean these salutations, noble thane?" and is told "These showers of 'Hail' anticipate your 'reign'.” (Get it?)

Sheet music for the burlesque, Faust up to Date

Some select dialogue from this work:

Mephistopheles: "Along the Riviera dudes her praises sing."
Walerlie: "Oh, did you Riviera such a thing?"

Burlesques were usually written in verse, as exemplified in Gilbert Abbot A’Beckett’s Shakespeare burlesque King John (With the Benefit of the Act), when Hubert tells John of the mysterious appearance of multiple moons in the sky:

Hub. To night, my lord, they say twelve moons were seen,
Three pink, three orange, half-a-dozen green,
And in addition to this crowd of moons,
There have been five and twenty fire-balloons.
K. John. Oons! -- moons! -- balloons!
Hub. The people in the street,
Shake their heads frightfully, whene'er they meet;
And he that speaks, doth grip the hearer's button,
While what he says the other chap doth glut on.

Another trademark of the Shakespeare burlesque was large quantities of added music and songs. One 1859 burlesque of Romeo and Juliet contained some twenty-three musical numbers, including renditions of popular songs of the day, like "Buffalo Gals." At the end of A’Beckett’s King John, the glib conclusion runs:

Enter all the Characters for the Finale
Fate comes, we needs must take it, and not pick it,
Bring me the bucket, for I'm going to kick it.
Slow Music -- The King dies.

Lest this be too downbeat for anyone, though, John soon after rises to join in the song, declaring that he’d not “the slightest idea of dying.”

Frontpiece for the Shakespeare burlesque, King John (With the Benefit of the Act), featuring King John in his ridiculous, pseudo-medieval garb.

All things considered, this scenario isn’t too far removed from what Shakespeare’s original audiences would have witnessed: the tragic characters rising from the dead at the conclusion of a play to join in a merry dance. Elizabethan audiences loved a good song and dance, and sixteenth-century theatre frequently incorporated such things as an entertainment bonus. They also relished physical comedy, puns, and rude humor – staples of the burlesque. Plus, Shakespeare’s own comedies often venture into the realm of the burlesque themselves; just look at the “Pyramus and Thisbe” debacle in A Midsummer Night’s Dream. So, while the Shakespeare burlesques caused a good deal of controversy in their day for presuming to mock the sanctity of Shakespeare (Othello, the Moor of Fleet Street, anyone?), in truth they displayed a theatrical sense that the Bard himself probably would have enjoyed.

Natalie A.

Top Five Archive Finds

2011-06-30T13:14:00.001-04:00

Over the past month the American Shakespeare Center offices have been turned upside-down, cleaned, and re-organized. In late May the education department tackled the archive, cataloging folder upon folder of pamphlets, programs, letters, pictures, and DVDs, all of which were neatly filed away in boxes to be moved to Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Virginia. Three weeks later Tou operations Manager, Darlene Schenk and I cleaned out an old filing cabinet containing tour information dating back to 1990.

During these two explorations of ASC history I came across many strange and wondrous things. Here are a few of my favorites.

1) Key rings

In the 1993 Midsummer Night’s Dream folder were three key rings. While there were no keys, each had a neon fob labeled “The Grey Ghost,” or, as one of the key chains proclaimed, “Grey Nissan Truck.” After asking around I discovered that “The Grey Ghost” was the nickname for the touring van back then.

Three of the drivers (actors in that year’s troupe) apparently decided to preserve their key rings for posterity. There were many things in the archive that made me ask “why did we keep this?” – including several scrawled-upon post-it notes and innumerable pieces of scrap paper. However, the key rings were by far the strangest. In an archive made composed mostly of paper, they really stand out.

2) Photos from yesteryears

Dr. Cohen, Jim Warren, John Harrell, Dr. Menzer… most people connected with the American Shakespeare Center know their names. I thought I knew their faces until my colleagues had to point them out to me in the many photos and DVDs we archived. For example, Mr. Harrell was once known as “John Chidester Harrell.” He also had long, curly, blonde hair. He is pictured in a 1992 article strumming away at his guitar, hair pulled into a ponytail, before a performance of Merchant of Venice.

Another favorite photo is of Jim Warren. He is in the background, giving a note to an actor. The photograph would not be remarkable if not for the fact that his hand is raised to scratch his nose, a habitual movement that survives to this day.

3) Money

Not really. I found touring contracts. Early on, they are one page and very straightforward: what show, when, where, how much it will cost. Over the years the contracts grew and grew, going from one page to nine pages, and the performance fees increased exponentially. Building the world’s only recreation of Shakespeare’s indoor theater may have had something to do with it, as it increased the company’s prestige and name recognition.

4) Thank-you notes

These were by far my favorite things to catalog. Lucky for me, there were (and are) hordes of them. The Shenandoah Shakespeare Express left in its wake happy teachers, ecstatic parents, and many a budding Shakes-nerd. One San Fransisco family rented the Emma Thompson Much Ado About Nothing after seeing the SSE’s production in 1994. The children were interested in “anything with Shakespeare,” but found the movie “much less enjoyable” than the SSE.

5) Letters from a Correctional Facility

Did you know that in 1994 the Shenandoah Shakespeare Express performed Taming of the Shrew for a prison? Dr. Thomas Berger of St. Lawrence University, a long time friend of the company, arranged for the SSE to perform for the inmates of the Riverview Correctional Facility in New York. According to Superintendent Barkley, Taming was reviewed in the inmate newspaper; unfortunately no copy of the review survives in our archive. The superintendent’s letters thank the SSE for their time and patience when dealing with the facility’s requirements. Apparently several props had to be changed, and the programs could not be given out because the SSE’s address was on the cover. “All in all,” writes Barkley, “the evening went smoothly and the audience enjoyed the production.”

--Jane J.

The Shakespeare Code: Part II

2011-06-01T15:21:00.005-04:00

As I mentioned in “Part I” of this blog, I have recently stumbled into a slew of Shakespearean authorship theories, uncovering all sorts of speculative connections between Shakespeare and myriad secret societies, individuals, locations, etc. – “some serious and some fictional.” Since my previous blog explored the “serious” side of things, this one shall turn to the fictional. Of course, the amount of fiction out there about Shakespeare – the man and the myth – is vast, and I only have time to write one small entry. The book I read, which was also my introduction to modern Shakespeare-centric fiction, was Harvard professor Jennifer Lee Carrell’s Interred with their Bones. First, however, a warning: If this book happens to be on your “to read” list, proceed no further, as here be spoilers!

* * * * *

Written in the distinctive and oft-copied vein of The Da Vinci Code, Carrell’s book has all the requisite elements of Dan Brown’s thriller. It begins with the death of a scholarly mentor-figure who leaves behind a tantalizingly vague clue, sending the protagonist off on a race to uncover a trail of historical hints which could, in turn, lead to the revelation of a massive historic cover-up. Enter a relative (well, sort of, in Carrell’s case) of the deceased to assist the protagonist. Furthermore, the protagonist is affiliated with Harvard. There’s also a mysterious assassin. There’s a dogged policeman. There’s even the older Sir So-And-So figure, with a deep love and/or scary obsession for the subject matter who turns out to be a double-crosser. Now, I freely admit that I am a fan of Dan Brown. I do think it’s a mistake to take his fictional stories as gospel (so to speak), but I think he writes frothy and entertaining tales for the history buff. Personally, I wasn’t thrilled with Carrell’s writing style, nor with her heroine, the terminally underdeveloped and perpetually personality-less Kate Stanley. This blog post, however, is not meant to be my own review of Carrell’s book itself, but rather a rumination on the impetus behind it. The review on the invaluable website Mr. William Shakespeare and the Internet pretty well encapsulates my own feelings (except for the part about Carrell being a better writer than Brown, with which I would respectfully disagree).

Fiction is certainly an interesting, and I would say more appropriate, vehicle for putting forth theories on the “Shakespeare authorship question,” and Carrell’s contribution makes an appealing companion study piece to Amundsen’s Organisten. Like Amundsen in real life, Carrell’s characters are after Shakespeare’s lost manuscripts; in this case, the once documented but now lost Cardenio. Given my recent discoveries in this area, I was rather hoping the story would build up to a dramatic conclusion on Oak Island – but, alas, it was not to be. It goes almost everywhere else, though, from England to ghost towns of the American southwest to Washington, DC to Spain and back again. Along the way, Kate Stanley and co. find long lost letters in secret compartments, ciphers embedded in old texts, and manuscripts hidden in desert caves, among other adventures. Also like Amundsen, Carrell touches on the figure of Francis Bacon. In Carrell’s world, however, Bacon is only one part of a so-called “chimerical beast” – an entire committee of Shakespeares who pool their talents to create the plays. This tag-team of writers includes all the big candidates who have been put forth over the centuries: Bacon; Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford; William Stanley, Earl of Derby; Mary Sidney, Countess of Pembroke; and the actor William Shakespeare himself.

Shakespeare + Bacon + de Vere + Stanley + Sidney =
William Shakespeare, famous playwright?

On a personal level, Carrell describes herself as “happily agnostic” in regard to the Shakespeare dilemma, but she also admits to having a distinct Stratfordian leaning. This confession, at least, makes me appreciate the fact that she’s not taking herself too seriously throughout Interred with their Bones; it’s meant to be fun, not fanaticism, and she’s not pushing an agenda. On her official website, Carrell calls the historical figures featured in her work “fantasias upon fact.” Indeed, one particularly interesting section of the site is devoted to “Fact and Fiction” and provides a thorough compendium of knowledge relating to the theories set forth in her story, including a great collection of links.

Without doubt, William Shakespeare of Stratford has had some famous doubters throughout history. And I don’t mean just Peter Amundsen. Henry James, Mark Twain, Sigmund Freud, and even the renowned modern Shakespearean actor Sir Derek Jacobi are counted among his non-believers. One of the most recent anti-Stratfordians to come out of the woodwork, however, is film director Roland Emmerich, whose upcoming movie Anonymous is a vehicle for his own, ahem, informed opinion. Thus, it seems only fitting that this film be the topic of the final part of my “Shakespeare Code” trilogy.

Natalie A.

Mother of the Bard

2011-05-06T12:51:00.003-04:00

Here’s something I didn’t know: In 1914, Mother’s Day was first established as an official national holiday by US President and Staunton native Woodrow Wilson. But although the holiday with which we’re familiar might be a relatively new conception, a healthy appreciation of mothers is no new practice. As pillars of strength, pictures of gentleness, embodiments of love, and epitomes of wisdom, mothers throughout history have inspired and spurred their children on to greatness – when not achieving greatness themselves. True, there have been a few kooky ones in the mix, but on this holiday, I think it’s only fair to focus on the majority, those wonderful moms we all know and love.

The Christian Church, one of the dominant institutions of Shakespeare’s world, set the bar high with Mary, mother of all mothers, who was a symbol of love and understanding to countless men and women. Indeed, a predecessor of the modern Mother's Day may be found in the early Christian tradition of honoring the Virgin Mary, along with the church in which one was baptized, one's “Mother Church,” on the fourth Sunday in Lent. In the sixteenth century, this celebration was broadened to include human mothers and not just spiritual ones, and it became known as “Mothering Sunday.” As a particular bonus, the day was also declared a reprieve from Lenten fasting, so indulgent feasts were often prepared with mothers as the guests of honor. The traditional English Mothering Day treat was, and still is, the Simnel Cake, a fruit and spice cake topped with eleven balls of marzipan, representing eleven of the apostles – sans that troublemaker Judas. Today, Mothering Sunday is still celebrated in the UK and is the equivalent of our own American Mother’s Day.
Proud Mamas - Elizabethan sisters and their babies (ca. 1599).

Mothers, without question, did not have it easy in Shakespeare’s day. Elizabethan England was, despite the matriarch who lent her name to the age, a firmly patriarchal society. Yet women carried numerous responsibilities on their shoulders, while at the same time submitting in all formal customs to their men and masters – meaning they did a lot of the work with few of the perks. Not the least of these duties was the responsibility of bearing children (preferably of the male variety). Women ran a high risk of dying in childbirth, and, should they survive that ordeal, they had also to endure the all-too-likely chance that their child would then die in early life. Legally, a married woman’s rights were curtailed at every turn, and her position was subservient in every way to her husband. In fact, a mother had no legal guardianship over her children, unless appointed as such by her husband in his will. In spite of these official restrictions, though, many Elizabethan mothers were highly involved in the running of their household. They managed property, oversaw domestic duties, and planned for and negotiated their children’s education as well as (most important of all!) their marriage.

Shakespeare’s own mother provides us with an example of the strength required of Elizabethan women through the common trials and tribulations of the time. Mary Arden came from a respected, well-to-do family, yet in 1557, at seventeen, she married John Shakespeare, a mere yeoman farmer. John was an ambitious fellow, however, and he rapidly rose to prominence in his home village of Stratford, ascending from ale-taster (sounds like fun, but this was also a critical job in the days when water was usually too dangerous to drink) to Chief Alderman. But almost as quickly as he had risen John Shakespeare fell from social grace, becoming indebted and impoverished. One reason for this, which is still debated, may be that he and Mary faced public hostility for being Catholic at a time when England was predominantly Protestant. Elizabeth’s sister and erstwhile Queen of England, the fanatically Catholic “Bloody Mary,” hadn’t left Protestants well-disposed toward their Catholic neighbors. Still, through all of these socials ups and downs, Mary stood by her husband and her faith, while also dealing with the struggles of raising a family. Two of her daughters died in infancy before a son, William Shakespeare, was born in 1564. But the firstborn son caused his fair share of troubles for his mother. In 1582, Mary received what must have been the rather unwelcome news that eighteen-year-old Will had gotten the twenty-six-year-old Anne Hathaway pregnant. After a hasty marriage, Mary found herself a grandmother at forty-three. Luckily, things eventually began to look up for Mary and John, as their errant son made a name for himself as a playwright in London, and his parents were restored to some of their previous wealth and social standing. Mary died in 1608, seven years after her husband and eight years before her legendary son.

Mary Arden’s childhood home in Wilmcote.

Sadly, it’s up to our imaginations to theorize what influence Mary Arden might have had on the plays of her son. Mothers in Shakespeare’s plays run the gamut, from Lady Macduff to Lady Capulet; from Queen Margaret to Queen Gertrude. It's fair to say that not many of them are shining examples of benevolent motherhood; warm and fuzzy they are not, when they’re present at all. But they are all strong, in one way or another; they are all fighters. And even if what they are fighting for isn't always “right,” it's frequently on behalf of their children. So this Mother’s Day, pause for a moment, and – whether you’re feeling grateful your mom isn’t as quite as, shall we say, tempestuous as that Queen of the Goths, Tamora, or you’re admiring her Hermione-esque patience and tolerance – give credit where credit is due to mothers around the world and through history.

Natalie A.

Dedicated to my own mom – whom I’m slowly but surely bringing around to a reluctant enjoyment of that boring Shakespeare guy.

"In the spring time, the only pretty ring time."

2011-04-24T12:38:00.003-04:00

“Perchance he’s hurt i’ th’ battle.” All’s Well that Ends Well, 3.5.86

While we here in Virginia have certainly been living recently with all the trials of

“The uncertain glory of an April day,
Which now shows all the beauty of the sun,
And by and by a cloud takes all away,”
(The Two Gentlemen of Verona, 1.3.85-87)

we may hope for a sunny, idyllic (and tornado free!) Easter this Sunday.

Like so many of our most popular holidays, Easter began as a pagan celebration, morphed into an intensely Christian holiday, and has today settled into an odd hybrid of the two – with a healthy dose of Cadbury Cream Eggs thrown in.

The name “Easter” is presumably derived from the Germanic goddess of fertility, Eostre, in whose honor festivities were held at the spring equinox to mark the advent of the season. Thus, Easter stems from the ancient tradition of celebrating the rebirth and renewal that comes at this time of year. In fact, two of the items most commonly associated with the holiday, eggs and rabbits, were both ancient symbols of fertility. (Well, not quite; hares were the original “Easter Bunny,” or “Osterhase,” but eventually were replaced by the better known – and cuter – rabbit.) And when these two unique objects combined, you got an egg-delivering rabbit that would become an indelible image of Easter through the centuries.

In keeping with the theme of rebirth, Easter was adopted by the Catholic Church at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus. It does not, however, fall on the same date every year, but continues, in the pagan tradition, to be governed by the cycles of the moon. Easter is always on the first Sunday following the full moon of the vernal equinox on March 21. Yet Easter is really the culmination of a whole season of religious observances, beginning 40 days prior on Ash Wednesday. The following period of fasting and restraint, known as Lent, culminates in Holy Week, or the week leading up to Easter Sunday and encompassing Palm Sunday, Maundy Thursday, and Good Friday. This lengthy period of fasting could be where the tradition of hard boiling Easter eggs comes from, since that may have been the way in which the eggs were preserved through Lent, when consumption of meat, dairy, and eggs was forbidden. As you might imagine, by the time Easter itself rolled around, people were ready to feast and let loose.

An Elizabethan Easter

This year, Shakespeare shares a special bond with Easter, since the Bard’s birthday falls on the very same weekend. Although in the plays themselves, references to this spring holiday are limited to one: In Romeo and Juliet, Mercutio chides Benvolio, asking, “Didst thou not fall out with a tailor for wearing his new doublet before Easter” (3.1.26-27)? This quip refers to the popular custom of the time of wearing one’s new clothes on Easter. This was a chance for people from all levels of society to show off their new garb, from simple to fantastic. For some, it was an especially momentous occasion, since it might be the only time they received new clothes all year. Today, people still like to show off their snazzy new “Easter bonnets” on the day.

16th Century Shepherds

Other activities which Shakespeare’s contemporaries would have enjoyed include various outdoor games and dancing. Morris dancing, in which belled and beribboned men would perform intricate dances to frighten away the spirits of winter, was especially popular. The practice of dying and decorating eggs is thought to have begun as early as the 13th century, and in Elizabethan England the colorful eggs were exchanged as gifts between young people. Small children would lay out nests at night, in which the Easter hare would deposit eggs for them to find the next morning – the predecessor of the modern Easter basket. The image of little Will Shakespeare laying out his Easter nest, hoping to find colorful treasures there in the morning, is a charming one.

Of course, what would any decent holiday be without some delicious food to help you celebrate? If you choose to pass up the chocolate bunnies and marshmallow Peeps for some more historical fare (or maybe you’d like to indulge in both, which may or may not be what I’ll be doing…), you might want to try the ubiquitous hot cross bun. Read the history of this baked good, which includes a reference to Ben Jonson’s Bartholomew Fair, here.

And Happy Easter to one and all!

Natalie A.

"Born under a charitable star."

2011-04-23T07:41:00.003-04:00

It cannot be denied that, for a man of 447, William Shakespeare has held up remarkably well. Since his death in 1616, each subsequent generation has adopted the world famous playwright for their own, using Shakespeare’s words in some unique way to represent their own time. There are myriad ways in which he is still being discovered and exulted, this blog being one example amid thousands. This year, upon the birthday of the Bard, a whole collection of well-wishers are sharing their love at HappyBirthdayShakespeare.com, and my own tiny tribute will be among them.

Working at the American Shakespeare Center, I have had the opportunity to indulge my love both of Shakespeare and of history and to combine them in heretofore unimagined ways. As a historian, I have above all enjoyed placing the works of Shakespeare in a historical context. For me, coming to see the plays in the framework of their own place and time and not just as SHAKESPEARE’S PLAYS, floating in a timeless vacuum, was something of a revelation. Above all, it has helped to humanize William Shakespeare, the man. Discovering the ins and outs of early modern theatre – the business, the technical details, the glorious heights and monumental lows – and the comedic and tragic facets of daily life in Elizabethan England, is still an ongoing process in my work, and the findings often overflow into my writing here. In that vein, I thought I would take a look at Elizabethan birthdays, and April 23 in particular, since it carries with it the added weight of also being an important, stand-alone English holiday.

"It is my birthday."

Although it isn’t known for sure that Shakespeare was born on April 23, the name of baby Will, or “Guilemus filius Johannes Shakespeare,” appears in the baptismal record of the parish church in Stratford, England, on April 26, 1564. Since a child was commonly required to be baptized on the first Sunday or holy day following their birth, the 23rd is the commonly accepted date chosen as the one on which little Shakespeare entered the world. It is also St. George’s Day, St. George being the patron saint of England perhaps most famously invoked in Shakespeare’s own Henry V. Like many other aspects of the man’s life, however, the true date of Shakespeare’s birth will likely remain forever a mystery.

Although not the glut of presents, pointy hats, and party favors that they are today, a birthday would indeed have been a day of note in early modern England. After all, celebrating birthdays was a tradition which went back millennia; in his Histories, Herodotus says that the ancient Persians, presaging countless others down through history, liked to commemorate the occasion by eating “an abundance of dessert.” The tradition of making a cake to commemorate one’s birthday certainly existed in Shakespeare’s day, but there were likely no candles, due to the expense, and definitely no singing “Happy Birthday to You,” a jingle which didn’t appear until the twentieth century. The Elizabethans possessed an ever-growing love for sugar, which they had begun importing in increasing quantities from far off lands in the East and West, and which they incorporated into both their baking and medicine. On the day of his natality, Shakespeare might have enjoyed some Banbury cakes with family or friends, an original recipe for which appeared in the 1615 English cookbook, The English Huswife:

To make a very good Banbury Cake, take four pounds of Currants and wash and pick them very clean, and dry them in a cloth: then take three Eggs, and put away one yelk, and beat them and strain them with the Barm, putting thereto Cloves, Mace, Cinamon, and Nutmegs, then take a pint of Cream, and as much mornings Milk, and set it on the fire till the cold be taken awy; then take flowre, and put in good store of cold butter and sugar, then put in your eggs, barm and meal, and work them all together an hour or more; then save a part of the past, & the rest break in pieces, and work in your Currants, which done, mould your Cakes of what quantity you please, and then with that paste which hath not any Currants, cover it very thin, both underneath and aloft. And so bake it according to the bigness.

In addition to utilizing generous portions of sugar, this recipe also makes use of currants, and spices such as cinnamon and nutmeg, all popular ingredients of Shakespeare’s world. If you'd like to make some Banbury cakes in his honor, but all that “baking according to the bigness” sounds a tad daunting, try the friendlier, modern recipe.

If April 23 really was his true day of birth, it is tantalizing to imagine Shakespeare taking special pleasure each year in the St. George’s Day festivities, enjoying the fact that his own birthday was being celebrated by all across the country. After all, during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, St. George’s Day was a holiday of tremendous importance, on par with Christmas Day. There would have been music, dancing, and feasting, and men would often wear red roses, while the red cross of St. George’s flag would be flown proudly around the town.

In a compelling bit of symmetry, April 23 is also the day on which Shakespeare died, in 1616. Between these two matching bookends falls a life of soaring accomplishments and particular genius, as well as long, empty stretches of the unknown. So, whether you want to celebrate his life or his death, or anything that fell in between, there are lots of ways you can turn this Saturday, April 23, into a party! UNESCO has since declared April 23 “The Day of the Book,” in honor of the power of the written word throughout history, and especially of Shakespeare. It has also, unofficially, become “Talk Like Shakespeare Day,” so break out your “thees” and “thous,” and raise a glass to William Shakespeare…or to St. George, if you prefer. But don’t let the day slip by unnoticed.

And, while I won’t be around to see it, I like to think – and truly believe – that in another 447 years we will still be celebrating Shakespeare, in all his magnificence and mystery. (Unless, of course, we’ve discovered time travel…or cloned him.) Just look at all he has influenced; look at all there is to learn, and, should you accomplish that, all there is yet to find out. After all, as Ben Jonson declared in that oft repeated phrase from his own dedicatory poem to Shakespeare, “He was not of an age, but for all time!”

Natalie A.

The Shakespeare Code: Part 1

2011-04-08T12:30:00.003-04:00

Where’s Dan Brown when you need him? Because Norwegian author and code-cracker Petter Amundsen clearly wants to be the next Robert Langdon. Along with fellow Norwegian Erlend Loe, Amundsen has written Organisten, or The Organ Player (Amundsen’s own profession). In the book, Amundsen claims to have discovered hidden ciphers within Shakespeare’s First Folio of 1623. These secret ciphers, according to the author, reveal not William Shakespeare but Sir Francis Bacon as the true creator of the plays. But Sir Francis was not alone in these endeavors. Instead, all text was created out of an editorial partnership between Bacon and the Rosicrucians (or the Brotherhood of the Rosie Cross), a secret philosophical society with ties to the Masons. And there’s more! The uncovered ciphers not only shed light on the true authors(s), but also lead the way to the long lost original “Shakespeare” manuscripts, hidden long ago, Amundsen believes, by Bacon and his Rosicrucian conspirators. Now, I was familiar with the Bacon-as-Shakespeare theory, but the whole Rosicrucian/Masonic element was a new one to me.

The cover of Amundsen’s book. The fact that he was able to lift from an arbitrary passage (Ben Jonson’s commendation of the Droeshout engraving of Shakespeare) his title word, “organisten,” would seem to rather take away from than lend credence to his other embedded findings.

Amundsen’s book is not yet available in English, but a brief foretaste of his findings may be found at BaconSocietyInc.org. In Shakespeare and the Rosy Cross: First Folio Breakthrough – Crucial Signatures Arose (Get it? Arose?), Amundsen asks the questions, “Might there have been a grander motive behind this issuance [of the First Folio] than merely the hope for pecuniary gain? Could someone else be sponsoring the publishers? Someone with an agenda?” Needless to say, Amundsen believes the answer is “yes.” The conclusion is reached that the Shakespeare First Folio was, in fact, both written and then published by the Rosicrucians, whose goal was to spread knowledge and free thought to all levels of British society through the medium of public theatre. As proof, Amundsen goes on to cite various pieces of evidence he has found within the text, each of which involves some complex number patterns that are, I am sorry to say, far over my head. They have something to do with 3 and 17, Pythagorean 3-4-5 triangles, and the number of times “rosie” appears in the First Folio.

The word “CROSS,” discovered in Cymbeline, 2.4.

For example, Amundsen has this to say about the appearence of ”rosie” in Shakespeare’s Sonnet 116: “Sonnet 116 is the only sonnet with a numbering typo. It reads 119, an error of three. [...] Following the pattern observed in the Folio we jump 17 sonnets ahead. Sonnet 133 has the word crossed as word 69. This is an increment of three from Rosie which was word number 66, 17 sonnets back. Please recall that the typo consists of a 6 made into a 9. 3 = C. 17 = R. Rosicrucians called themselves cabalists. This warrants a geomatrical calculation of their chosen name, Rosie Cross. 17+14+18+9+5 + 3+17+14+18+18= 133. Just like the number of the “crossed” Sonnet.” Indeed.

A documentary has even been made about Amundsen and his discoveries. Called Sweet Swan of Avon: A Movie about the Greatest Mystery in Global Literature, it was produced by the Norwegian company AS Videomaker and The British Shakespeare Company of London. The film is not yet available on DVD, but you can watch the introduction here. I could definitely picture this finding a place on the History Channel – perhaps between Ancient Aliens and MonsterQuest?

In the end, Amundsen’s research leads him to, of all places, Oak Island, Nova Scotia. This enigmatic island, it turns out, is the wellspring of a whole host of lost treasure myths and has been given the moniker “the Money Pit.” It is thought to be the resting place of everything from Blackbeard’s secret pirate hoard to Marie Antoinette’s jewels, and even possibly the Holy Grail and/or the Ark of the Covenant. So, is this the resting place of this lost literary treasure – Bacon’s original writings and trove of Rosicrucian knowledge? Unfortunately, the story is stuck in a cliff-hanger for now. Exploration for riches of all sorts continues today on Oak Island, but Amundsen has not yet managed to unearth these elusive documents.

One blogger’s finding (“BACon”!), highlighted in red.

However, Amundsen’s work has inspired others to (re)jump on the Bacon bandwagon, as this blog shows. There’s even a Facebook group dedicated in support of Amundsen’s findings, with the understated title, “The worlds [sic] most important treasure is buried on Oak Island!!!” But is it? All of this has gotten me thinking: the offices of the ASC are located in an old Masonic building. Coincidence? I think not.

Natalie A.

PS. Researching Amundsen and his book has unearthed my own, Oak Island-worthy hoard of fun and fascinating Shakespearean conspiracies, some serious and some fictional. Therefore, I hope to make this entry the first part in a planned trilogy dealing with more of these findings. So, stay tuned...

A Festival of Theses: The Sequel

2011-03-22T16:00:00.002-04:00

It’s hard to believe, but it’s that time again. Yesterday, I found myself attending the Spring 2011 Thesis Festival at the Blackfriars Playhouse. Thirteen Mary Baldwin MLitt/MFA students were on hand to share their Shakespearean (and non-Shakespearean) discoveries, but, this time, instead of dead leaves crunching underfoot and the smell of various pumpkin-flavored beverages in the air, forsythia and daffodils were blooming and t-shirts outnumbered turtlenecks. The sense of scholarly excitement was the same, however, as students and professors and the curious public (like yours truly) gathered to hear what these graduate students had to say.

There was a glut of information at this spring’s Festival for someone of a history bent, such as myself. Before the day even began, my inner medievalist was already excited to see Shakespeare’s Chaucer, presented by Matthew Carter and featuring the illustrious authors themselves (in the forms of Kimberly Maurice and Maria Hart, admittedly). This examination of “source studies” looked at Chaucer’s Troilus and Criseyde as one of the inspirations for Shakespeare’s own Troilus and Cressida, while studying the different historical contexts out of which each sprung. England of Chaucer’s day was embroiled in the Hundred Years War with France and beset by plague, while Shakespeare was writing for “God fearing Englishmen who love a fight.” This, Carter theorized, caused Chaucer to focus on the romantic while Shakespeare embraced the military aspects of the story. Yet Carter pointed out that both works, frequently regarded in a strictly literary light, should also be appreciated as performance pieces, since that was the intention of their respective authors.

Another presentation with a medieval component was Maxim Overton’s The Pyrotechnique Story: Commanding Devils, Dragons, the Natural, and the Celestial, which looked at how the introduction of gunpowder to England in the late Middle Ages came to play a critical role on the early modern stage. Overton called the printing press and gunpowder the two most significant introductions to early modern England, and the two both played a role in the theatrical world. Unlike regular fire, which in earlier, medieval productions was often associated with heavenly figures, gunpowder and fireworks in an early modern show routinely symbolized devils and other evil characters. Overton even theorized that the dragon seen on the title page of Christopher Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus was a firework-powered property -- the same, in fact, used for an earlier play by Robert Greene on notorious “pyromancer” Roger Bacon.

Faustus and the possible firework-spouting dragon.

At the opposite end of the historical spectrum, Katy Mulvaney, in “They Won’t be Troubling Shakespeare but They’ll Do”: Contemporary Playwrights Writing for Shakespeare’s Globe, spoke about some more modern plays which have been performed at Shakespeare’s Globe in London, specifically Peter Oswald’s The Storm and Jack Shepherd’s Holding Fire! Mulvaney looked at how these contemporary shows play with early modern staging conventions (demonstrated by volunteer actors staggering about in supposed blindness on the brightly lit stage in a send-up of universal lighting) and also how the playwrights can harness anachronistic uses of the Globe space unheard of to Shakespeare and his fellows. Yet Mulvaney drew an intriguing link to early modern performances in the form of audience interaction. Modern theatre at the Globe may revive the feel of the more rambunctious, participatory audience of Shakespeare’s day through new techniques for involving audience members directly in a show. Mulvaney echoed this concept in her own presentation by calling on volunteers from the audience and planting actors throughout the playhouse. In this way, even contemporary productions at the new Globe are retaining the spirit of the Elizabethan theatrical experience.

I also enjoyed tremendously Mediated Dramaturgy: Using Technology to Improve Different Forms of Dramaturgy, by Paul Rycik, on the potential uses of media in dramaturgy (yet more on education and the digital world – what seems to be a running theme through my blog contributions), and The Physics of Contranymy: Indefinition, Sublim(inal)ity, and Play, by Zachary Brown, which, once I finally wrapped my brain around the topic, was a fascinating study of the repercussions of differences between the written and spoken word and the possible subconscious effect on this wordplay on an audience. As before, for a more in depth look at each of the thirteen presentations, check out the ASC Education liveblogs of Session 1, Session 2, and Session 3. Also as before, I had a great time at this event and would heartily encourage anybody and everybody with a glimmer of interest in Shakespeare, Marlowe, Middleton (any Elizabethan playwright), history, literature, fireworks (literal and rhetorical), or theatre (early modern or just plain modern) to come out to one of these festivals. Let’s put it this way: you could be a Lady Gaga fan, and there would have been something entertaining for you yesterday.

Natalie A.

Happened Upon Discoveries: Other People Who“Do It With The Lights On” (Even in 1917!)

2011-03-17T15:26:00.004-04:00

The American Shakespeare Center has been ‘doing it with the lights on’ at the Blackfriars Playhouse in Staunton, Virginia since 2001. For ten years, this small theatre on Market Street has brought the staging conditions of Shakespeare productions and his contemporaries to life in a beautiful re-creation of Shakespeare’s Blackfriars Playhouse (the world’s only re-creation, in fact). As many of the preshow speeches dictate, the use of universal lighting creates a unique environment for audiences and actors in which “they can see you, you can see them and you can all see each other.” This essentially avant-garde brand of theatre is attributed to the loyalty the American Shakespeare Center has on early modern practices. The playhouses in Shakespeare’s period would have been lit by either sunlight or candlelight, neither of which could have been dimmed or altered for the purpose of the production. This knowledge allows the American Shakespeare Center to support academically their choice to keep the lights at the same level throughout each and every production. Living, studying, and working in this community has altered my conception of theatre forever. I was an English major whose only exposure to live Shakespeare performances was at Public Theatre’s Shakespeare in the Park in New York City. After eight months here now, I can’t really imagine seeing Shakespeare in the dark ever again. To be honest, I don’t know if I would enjoy theatre as much if the actors couldn’t see, talk to, and engage with me as an audience member. Theatre here is a continual conversation with the audience, and I cannot really imagine being shut out of that conversation ever again (although I still would like to see the Broadway Addams Family.)

To clarify my seeming divergence, the reason I have brought up our universal lighting practices and the American Shakespeare Center preshow is that universal lighting seemed to me as a characteristic of early modern theatre that common practice had abandoned until the American Shakespeare Center and places like it brought the conversation back into the light and the audience back into the play. Can we really believe that after proscenium arches and footlights the audiences was always in the dark? Can we as theatre audiences accept that the conversation just stopped until 2001 in Staunton, Virginia? Or rather, in 1988 when Dr. Ralph Alan Cohen and Jim Warren founded Shenandoah Shakespeare Express (the theatre company that would eventually become the American Shakespeare Center)? I am sure lights-on productions happened throughout those few hundred years of interim. This assurance turned into a hypothesis, and I started reading about the historical evolution of theatre and theatre audiences. I picked up a book of that same title, Theatre Audiences by Susan Bennett, and found one section that was of particular interest to me. In the section entitled “Historical Approaches to Theatre” she breaks down the evolution of theatre in terms of audience throughout history:

“A history of audiences in the theatre demonstrates, of course, a changing status. Medieval and sixteenth century audiences did not enjoy the power of the Greek audiences, but nevertheless still functioned in an active role. There was flexibility in the relationship between the stage and audience worlds which afforded, in different ways, the participation of those audiences as actors in the drama. With the establishment of private theatres in the seventeenth century, however, there is a move towards separation of fictional stage world and audience, and with the beginnings of passivity and more elitist audience came codes and conventions of behavior. In terms of English theater, audiences became increasingly passive and increasingly bourgeois. With the exception of the first forty years of the nineteenth century-when the working-class audience created noisy disturbances and occasional riots in the pits- this is a steady progression to a peak in the second half of the nineteenth century. After 1850, with the pits replaced by stalls, theatre design ensured the more sedate behavior of audiences, and the footlights first installed in the seventeenth century private playhouses had become a literal barrier, which separated the audience and the stage. As Michael Booth puts it, ‘After 1850 behavior improved, and complaints were eventually made, not of uproar in the pit and gallery, but of stolid indifference in the stalls.’ In the last hundred years, none the less, there have been many challenges and disruptions of the codes and conventions which demand passivity.”

After reading this breakdown, I realized that the evolution of theatre over the past hundred years was designed to make everyone behave and follow the rules of social conduct. With the lights off, your options are limited. Your choices are either to pay attention to what’s in the light, to make out with your date, or to fall asleep. Limiting the choices of the audience removed the conversational element the Blackfriars has completely from the plays. Susan Bennett goes on to mention the consequence of proscenium theatre: passive audiences. I thought of theatre productions where passivity in the audience was actively combated against. In the Blackfriars Playhouse, actors talk directly to audience members. They present questioning lines as questions and wait for responses. The actors even physically interact with audience members. This practice destroys the comfort zone that would traditionally foster a passive audience. I can recall numerous productions where this frees audience members, and pulls them further into the world of the play. I can also recall multiple instances where audience members are unsure of how to act. The American Shakespeare Center breaks three hundred years of theatre behavior rules, and they expect their audiences to forget the rules they were raised in and to see an early modern play without concerns for the code of etiquette. Audience members are invited to sit on stage, to answer the actors, and to look wherever they please. They can even get up and get a drink at the bar whenever they would like to. The American Shakespeare Center actors create the world of the play for the audience and then invite them to live in it fully instead of just observing a show.

As I continued reading Susan Bennett’s Theatre Audiences I came across the phenomenon in the twentieth century. Productions started dissolve the convention of the fourth wall and to shock audiences out of the stasis of passive observation. Throughout the fascinating list of avant-garde early twentieth century production style, I came across one that hit close to home. Susan Bennett explains the theatre style of Meyerhold’s production of Lermentov’s Masquerade, a production in Russia in 1917 that kept the lights on in the theatre throughout the production. I shared this exciting bit of information with my boyfriend, a former theatre professor and current Masters Student from New York who perked up at the mention of Meyerhold. I will fully admit I did not know who this man was. I was simply excited that people other than the American Shakespeare Center and early modern England had “done it with the lights on.” I proceeded to Google, as any good scholar would. I found that Meyerhold had worked in Russia and eventually took over for Constantin Stanislavski as director his theatre. For those of you who did not go to acting school, as I did not, Stanislavski is a big name in the acting world. He essentially invented the method of acting that directly opposed the Western method acting movement of the time:

Meyerhold's acting technique had fundamental principles at odds with the American method actor's conception. Where method acting melded the character with the actor's own personal memories to create the character’s internal motivation, Meyerhold connected psychological and physiological processes and focused on learning gestures and movements as a way of expressing emotion outwardly. Following Stanislavski's lead, he argued that the emotional state of an actor was inextricably linked to his physical state (and vice versa), and that one could call up emotions in performance by practicing and assuming poses, gestures, and movements. He developed a number of body expressions that his actors would use to portray specific emotions and characters. (Although Stanislavski inspired method acting, he was also at odds with it, because like Meyerhold, his approach was psychophysical).

From my reading and various discussions with actors I have gleaned that Stanislavski was instrumental in the evolution of acting as it exists today. Meyerhold was essentially his legacy in the world of Russian theatre and is now the link between their revolutionary production style and American Shakespeare Center’s choices to “do it with the lights on.” According to The Russian Theatre Under the Revolution by Oliver M. Sayler written in 1920, Meyerhold made many of the same choices in production as the American Shakespeare Center makes now. “In performance, it was sheer joy,--the joy of the theatre as theatre. You face Meyerhold's stage with no illusion that it is not a stage. Of course it is a stage! Why pretend it isn't? There it is, under the full lights of the auditorium, curtain removed and apron extended twenty feet beyond the proscenium arch. It's a play you shall see, a play, you who love the theatre for its own sake! No cross-section of life here, no attempt to copy life! No illusion here, to be shattered by the slightest mishap or by a prosaic streak in the spectator's make-up. It's a play you shall see, and you'll know it all the time, for you'll play, too, whether you realize it or not. The audience is always an essential factor in the production of drama.”

I was excited to make this discovery and to share it with all of you. I hope you find it as interesting as I did. I think that it is always nice to realize your world is far larger and more influenced than you originally thought. While the American Shakespeare Center is not the first modern theatre to keep the lights on the audience and to invite everyone into the world of the play, the ASC is in good company.

(K.A. Lenz)

Actor-Scholar Council 3/4/11

2011-03-08T14:44:00.002-05:00

Last Friday’s council focused on 3 Henry VI, which opened last week. Actors in attendance included Tyler, Ben, Sarah, Greg, and Alli. The ASC is working its way through Shakespeare’s two tetrologies of history plays, doing a play from the War of the Roses each Renaissance season and play from the Henriad each fall season. Dr. Menzer, who led the council in Dr. Ralph’s absence, said that it has become fashionable among theatre companies to do the whole set of history plays in one season or festival. The Royal Shakespeare Company has done this twice in the past decade. I’m glad the ASC isn’t doing that, because I don’t think I could sit through eight two and a half hour plays.

The only character who appears in all four plays of this tetrology (the three parts of Henry VI and then Richard III) is Margaret, played by Sarah Fallon. Sarah feels the Margaret in Richard III (which the ASC will perform in the 2012 Renaissance season) is hard to understand unless a person has seen the Henry VI plays. Carrying the character through the tetrology proves difficult, partly because a year separates the staging of each play. Also, a lot of Margaret’s story in the first two parts revolves around Suffolk, who is killed at the end of Part 2. Instead of focusing on him, Margaret must now focus on her son Ned.

Greg, who previously played Suffolk, now plays the titular character. King Henry, he thinks, differs in this play from in the others. He sees the king as someone who never wanted for power or kingship and must try in vain to explain to those around him, who seek just that, that other things have greater import, such as stopping all the killing. Greg calls Henry a “good king, in the wrong play.”

Ben, who plays Richard Duke of Gloucester (later to be Richard III), also played the former duke of Gloucester, Humphrey, in parts 1 and 2. This correlation gives him a lot to draw on, especially in the contrast between the two. Humphrey always tried to do right (and gets killed for it—which explains why Richard at first thinks Gloucester too ominous a dukedom to accept), while Richard does only wrong. Ben argues that Richard only becomes so bloodthirsty after Clifford brutally kills his father and little brother. Before that, he focused on getting the crown for his father, York. With them dead, he feels free to be vicious. Viewers of last year’s Part 2 will remember that the seeds of viciousness were visible when Richard impaled Somerset on his sword and hoisted him over his head.

One part of rehearsing that makes history plays unique among the ASC show: they have tech rehearsals. All the fighting, sound cues, and stage directions make them more complicated. Henry VI Part 3 has over 70 sound cues, all of which are done live by actors. They have almost no down time backstage and must work hard to bring it all together. This show even included blood, mostly in the scene of Clifford’s death. The actor playing Clifford really wanted the blood, and the scene comes just before intermission, which gives the stage managers a chance to clean up the blood. The actors would have loved more gore, but technical, costume, and time constraints prevented it. Time constraints also prevented them from having a big celebration at the end of the play, when Edward gets crowned and everyone thinks the War of the Roses ends. While this leaves the ending more open to the violence of Richard III, the actors wish they could have ended with a jig.

The actors talked about the importance of heart and emoting in making the play work. By emoting, they keep from going into what Dr. Menzer calls “historical pronouncements,” or from making a blatantly allegorical scene seem overbearing. The actors need to find out how the action relates to their characters personally, and the audience will feel their emotion. The audience may not follow all the complicated family ties, but they understand the concepts, like family or civil war. If each actor knows how he or she feels and has a firm internal grasp on the character’s history and family, that will be enough.

Today’s podcast also featured a discussion of comedy in Henry VI Part 3, some hilarious banter from Dr. Menzer, and Greg’s fascinating extended conceit about . . . toast? So be sure to listen to the council’s podcast, available soon on the website.

Forgotten Folios and Private Portraits

2011-03-04T16:47:00.006-05:00

As I was watching Antiques Roadshow the other night (yes, that is correct, I watch Antiques Roadshow), much to my surprise, amongst the Federalist furniture and Tiffany lamps, there unexpectedly appeared a partial first folio of Shakespeare’s plays. True, this was not the entire folio as it was first published by Shakespeare’s colleagues Heminges and Condell in 1623, of which some 219 are known to still exist of the original printing of approximately 750. Instead, this one had been re-bound sometime in the nineteenth century and contained only the complete first and third parts of Henry VI (the latter of which you may, coincidentally, see currently on the Blackfriars stage). Still, these two plays along, along with the remaining individual pages from several other plays, were valued at $40,000 to $50,000. ‘Swounds! See for yourself.

Now, of course, all first folios were at one point “privately owned.” Yet to see an original printing of Shakespeare’s work, partial or otherwise, appear from the dusty depths of someone’s attic was a shock. The idea of artifacts directly relating to the celebrated Shakespeare not all being appropriately stowed in various libraries or museums was one I, at least, had never before considered. A quick internet search of various auction houses and newspaper articles reveals, however, that pieces of Shakespeare are still out there to be had – if, that is, you have a cool couple million or so to spare. And, additionally, new items are coming to light fairly regularly, each one often changing or challenging the contemporary view of that elusive figure, William Shakespeare.

An interesting study of how the remaining first folios have changed hands and increased in value over time may be seen by following the path of those belonging to one Dr. Rosenbach. Rosenbach, an American antique book collector, purchased two in 1922, one for £8,600, the highest amount for a first folio ever paid up to that time. Previously, the same folio had sold in 1864 to a British baroness for £716. Rosenbach later sold his entire collection, which by then totaled 73 folios and quartos, to a Swiss banker for over one million dollars, as this Time article from 1952, entitled “Goodbye, Shakespeare,” explains. On an interesting side note: in the past, Rosenbach had purchased yet another first folio for Harry Widener, an American businessman who then inconveniently perished in the Titanic disaster. Widener’s private collection was subsequently donated to Harvard, where it, folio included, became available to the public. You may still see it there today.

New York Times headline from 1922

Almost sixty years later, folios are still floating around out there, continuing to grow in value. In 2006, a first folio sold at Sotheby’s in London for £2.8 million. As recently as December 2010, another one went up for auction, again at Sotheby’s. This copy sold for £1.5 million. Both sold to private collectors.

A Sotheby's employee handles a copy of Shakespeare's complete first folio

One form of Shakespearean material culture which continues to shake up the scholarly world whenever it emerges from private ownership is portraiture. The current exhibition at The Morgan Library and Museum in New York City, entitled “The Changing Face of William Shakespeare,” focuses on this very subject. The exhibit includes a portrait which, in 2009, was revealed to the world as a candidate for the only likeness for which Shakespeare may have sat in his lifetime. Believed to have been painted in 1610, when Shakespeare was 46, the image had hung for centuries in a house in Ireland belonging to the Cobbe family, and it wasn’t until its owner happened to spy a similar work at the National Portrait Gallery in Britain that a connection was made. Naturally, much controversy has arisen over the authenticity of the portrait. The subject’s elaborate dress and youthful appearance led many scholars to believe it was not Shakespeare but a gentleman by the name of Sir Thomas Overbury. The two sides of the argument are laid out in these two articles:

The New York Times VS. The London Times

The Cobbe portrait – the true face of Shakespeare?

So, is this dashing figure indeed Shakespeare? What new portraits might come to light down the road? Are there yet more unknown folios waiting to be discovered, tucked away in crowded bookshelves or hidden in the bottoms of boxes? Next to Shakespeare’s long lost, super secret diary? Well, maybe that’s wishful thinking. Then again, maybe I need to go home and clean out my basement…

Natalie A.

PS. For a more in-depth exploration of the first folio and its history, the Folger Shakespeare Library, in Washington, DC (which also owns about a third of those still in existence), provides an interactive online copy for your perusing pleasure.

How 3 Henry VI is like the Star Wars Prequels

2011-02-25T11:38:00.002-05:00

In both the movies and the Henry VI plays an incompetent ruler is the source of the central conflict. Chancellor Valorum in episode 1 and King Henry VI in all three plays. Chancellor Palpatine rises to power just like the Yorkists. First he declares the current ruler incompetent in Episode one, making himself chancellor. In Part I, the whole court already sees Henry as incompetent because he is too young to rule. This allows the Duke of Gloucester and Cardinal Beufort to take control of the kingdom.

In Episode II, the Chancellor creates a galactic emergency as an excuse to create a huge army, then he corrupts a powerful warrior to get on his side, and then, when he has all the power in the universe, he declares himself Emperor and uses the military and his Sith lord to destroy the Republic. The Yorkists operate in much the same way. In Henry the Sixth, Part II, Richard Duke of York is proclaimed protector of the Realm. Similarly in Part II, the rebellion of Jack Cade is similar to the Separatist movement that allows Chancellor Palpatine to create an uprising as an excuse to create a vast army to defeat them.

In Part III, York uses his army, along with his powerful sons to conquer the kingdom. Richard, Duke of Gloucester, like Darth Vader, is wholly committed to evil and will stop at nothing to destroy the Lancastrians. When the Duke of York dies, all three of York’s sons become consumed with desire for revenge and vow to conquer the kingdom to revenge their father. Richard, like Vader, is also deformed from his sheer hate. Although Shakespeare dramatizes Richard as being born with deformity, the Elizabethans viewed deformity as a sign of evil from birth.

In both the plays and the movies, the ambitions of individual people raise an evil empire, seeking power and revenge. Just as the Sith wished to revenge their exile from the Jedi council, the Yorkists wish to revenge the deposing of King Richard II a generation earlier. In addition Richard Duke of York’s seeks revenge for the Lancastrians proclaiming his father a traitor.

And like the Star Wars prequels, the worst atrocity of The Wars Of the Roses is the slaughter of children. When Clifford kills York’s 10 year old son Rutland, and when the Yorkists kill Prince Edward, it is clear that both sides have gone to the Dark Side.

The great communist writer Jan Kott described this play as a dramatization of people who manipulate the Great Machine of history, and either thrive with its help, or become ground up in it. Over the course of the evening, the audience sees the rise and fall of two noble houses, as well as a series of civil conflicts that cover England in blood. Begun this Rose War has.

--Paul Rycik, dramaturgy intern for3 Henry VI

Intern Adventures in the World of Henry the Sixth Part Three

2011-02-17T15:53:00.009-05:00

Before I begin my inaugural blog post, I have decided to introduce myself to the world of American Shakespeare Center Intern Blog readers. The new voice contributing to this blog belongs to the most recent intern of the ASC Education Department, Kimberly Lenz. I have only just begun working with the ASC Education Department as the Academic Resources intern but I am very happy to be able to share my thoughts, discoveries and work with all of you. In addition to my work here with the Education Department, I am also a graduate student with the Shakespeare and Performance MLitt/MFA program at Mary Baldwin College. I am currently in my first year with the program and look forward to a longstanding educational and working relationship with the community. I am originally from Long Island, New York were I received a Bachelor of Arts in English and NYS Certification to teach English to grades 7-12. I will be working primarily on sections of the ASC study guides during my first few months here. My first venture out into the blog world was inspired by the fates. After weeks of working a wide range of tasks, I was given simultaneous assignments related to Henry VI, Part Three by my Shakespeare Pedagogy class with Dr. Ralph Alan Cohen in the Masters Program and by the Education Department with the ASC. As a result, I have proudly spent the past ten days completely immersed in the world of Henry VI, Part Three. I’m sure for those of you out there who have worked on, in or around Shakespeare this is not the most impressive feat but this is actually a stark contrast to the fast-paced world of my first year as a graduate student in Shakespeare and Performance. I rarely get a chance to dive deep into a play nowadays and I relish any opportunity to really get involved with a text that I’m not performing.

I feel the need to preface my adventures with the note that I love this play. I read it for the first time this past fall as a part of my Gateway Shakespeare class. It was a play that would not be a part of our class sessions but was in the course reading. So, at the end of my first semester, my reading group sat down one cold winter evening to read a relatively obscure (to us) history play. Our expectations were tentatively optimistic as we had spent the past few months seeing Henry IV, Part Two at the Blackfriars Playhouse and had come to love history plays in general for it. We read through the play in about two hours, and once we had finished, I was completely elated. I talked about the play at length and went home spouting newfound dreams of some day playing Queen Margaret in my own fantasy performance of Henry VI, Part Three. Any woman who is willing to get her hands dirty (or bloody) to defend her husband’s crown and her son’s position is pretty amazing in my book. Needless to say, I was rather excited to have the opportunity to work in depth with this text and especially to create a few things that could help students realize the greatness in there, too.

Before the Winter Teacher Seminar began on February 4th, I was given the assignment to put together a few of the sections of an abbreviated study guide a teacher had requested from the Academic Resources branch of the ASC’s Education Department. So amidst my Teacher Seminar weekend I reread the play to find quotes explaining each of the characters for the “Who’s Who” section of the traditionally formatted study guide. I proceeded to engage in a specific type of close reading that I have come to call embedded exposition. I read the play again to myself in search of quotes like: “O tiger’s heart wrapped in a woman’s hide!” (spoken by York in reference to Queen Margaret in 1.4) to help explain each of the characters using only the text. Shakespeare’s original actors could only build their characters based upon what was said within the text, and through recognizing these moments we can learn how the original actors learned about their characters. For example, in the first act, Margaret’s husband, King Henry VI, introduces her first entrance by saying he will “steal away” to avoid her anger. Through this first entrance we as readers can sense her power even without an actress performing the lines with venom in her voice and blood on her hands. The text expands upon Margaret’s character more when she later taunts York, the attempted usurper, with a rag soaked in his child’s blood, before she stabs him to death and orders his severed head displayed for the town. Upon rereading it I recalled everything about the play that I had loved the first time around and then found so much more. I proceeded to read the entire play in search of embedded exposition and learned a great deal about each of the characters and their relationship. I also created a flowchart to help visually represent how all of these people were related to one another. The flowchart was exciting for multiple reasons, but mostly because it was my first attempt at such a diagram, and it really helped to see who connected to whom in the play. To prove my successful creation and hopefully to explain how those loyal to the House of York relate to one another, here is a section of my flow chart:

My 3 Henry VI week, progressed with an observation of an Actors’ Renaissance Season rehearsal. I sat in the back of the playhouse and watched in awe as a group of actors worked through scenes from cue scripts. The questions the actors asked one another about the text made me realize some of the important approaches to the play, and I was able to use their questions to build lessons. I thought if these were the ways the actors got into an understanding of the play, then they could be the best ways for students to follow suit. After observing the rehearsal and talking with a high school teacher who is working with the play at the moment, I began to put together some lessons that would take the ASC actors’ approach to the text and apply it to how a teacher presents the play. After a few days of reading, rereading and watching rehearsals I put together a few activities for teachers to use when working with this play and presented them to the graduate program’s Shakespeare Pedagogy class and discovered there is so much within this play to teach and pick apart and relish.

For example, the activity below came from the discussion while blocking Act One, scene two of Henry VI, Part Three on the first day of rehearsal. John Harrell (Edward), Benjamin Curns (Richard) and Jeremy West (York) were discussing how to move around the stage to clarify their dialogue and character relationships. Through their discussion, they brought up the element of familial competition within the brothers. After they staged the scene, the movements effectively revealed the sense of competition and dominance within the House of York at the beginning of the play. I created an activity that would emulate that same conversation with students so they could clarify for themselves what kind of family the Yorks are. Below is an effective lesson in exposition based off of the ARS rehearsal process I observed.

A. This activity will require three student speakers and everyone’s participation.

Characters involved in the scene:
York: Richard, Plantagenet, Duke of York, Rival to the throne of Henry VI
Edward, Later Duke of York and King Edward IV: Son and Heir to York
Richard, Duke of Gloucester: Son of Richard Plantagenet, Duke of York
Montague: Marquis of the Divided House of Neville, Loyal to the House of York

Context: At the opening of 1.1 the sons of York compete with feats of brutality through displays of bloody swords and severed heads for the recognition of the father, York. The scene incorporates the court of King Henry with the entrances at line 50, King Henry VI is threatened by York’s forces and agrees to acquiesce to York’s advances with the caveat, “Let me for this my lifetime reign as king.” The scene concludes with reactions and outrage against King Henry’s choice of York as his successor. After the deal has been set, York and his sons withdraw to private contemplation. They rejoin us on stage with the previous scene’s events fresh in their minds.

Focus: The previous scene depicted each of the York sons competing for command of the room and recognition from their father. Read the scene below to see where each of the men uses their words to take command of the situation.

Directions for the class: As you read through the scene place a star next to any line in which one of the men seems to assert his power over the other with their words. Make a note of where each of the men should sit below. Watch how the scene plays out and see if you made the same choices as the actors.

Directions for the actors: There will be enough seats for each of you. As you enter please decide which seat your character deserves and take it (you may discuss this with one another before you sit but if you feel like there is a definite seat you deserve, take it). Where should the father sit? Which son should sit closest? Where should Montague sit? After you have taken your seats begin reading your lines aloud to the class. Try to highlight when you are taking command of the room with your words with assertive vocal choices. The first time you take command, put down the other men or simply assert yourself stand up. Take a step forward every time your character asserts him, chastises or cuts off another character or steals focus from the rest of the group.

Act One. SCENE II. Sandal Castle.
Enter RICHARD, EDWARD, and MONTAGUE
RICHARD
Brother, though I be youngest, give me leave.
EDWARD
No, I can better play the orator.
MONTAGUE
But I have reasons strong and forcible.
Enter YORK
YORK
Why, how now, sons and brother! at a strife?
What is your quarrel? how began it first?
EDWARD
No quarrel, but a slight contention.
YORK
About what?
RICHARD
About that which concerns your grace and us;
The crown of England, father, which is yours.
YORK
Mine boy? not till King Henry be dead.
RICHARD
Your right depends not on his life or death.
EDWARD
Now you are heir, therefore enjoy it now:
By giving the house of Lancaster leave to breathe,
It will outrun you, father, in the end.
YORK
I took an oath that he should quietly reign.
EDWARD
But for a kingdom any oath may be broken:
I would break a thousand oaths to reign one year.
RICHARD
No; God forbid your grace should be forsworn.
YORK
I shall be, if I claim by open war.
RICHARD
I'll prove the contrary, if you'll hear me speak.
YORK
Thou canst not, son; it is impossible.
RICHARD
An oath is of no moment, being not took
Before a true and lawful magistrate,
That hath authority over him that swears:
Henry had none, but did usurp the place;
Then, seeing 'twas he that made you to depose,
Your oath, my lord, is vain and frivolous.
Therefore, to arms! And, father, do but think
How sweet a thing it is to wear a crown;
Within whose circuit is Elysium
And all that poets feign of bliss and joy.
Why do we finger thus? I cannot rest
Until the white rose that I wear be dyed
Even in the lukewarm blood of Henry's heart.
YORK
Richard, enough; I will be king, or die.
Enter a Messenger
But, stay: what news? Why comest thou in such post?
Messenger
The queen with all the northern earls and lords
Intend here to besiege you in your castle:
She is hard by with twenty thousand men;
And therefore fortify your hold, my lord.

During the Teacher Seminar one of the educators in attendance shared he was currently teaching Henry VI, Part Three to his high school class in Alexandria, Virginia. As he revealed his plans for the play and his students reactions I noticed how excited the staff and actors of the American Shakespeare Center were about it. I realized, over that weekend that the love for this play expands throughout our Shakespeare community and everyone wants to teach the next generation to love it just as much.

The above activity would take up about 10-15 minutes of class time but has countless benefits for students interacting with a Shakespeare history play, a few of them are:
1. Students get up on their feet with Shakespeare’s words. The American Shakespeare Center treats every play as if it is a play first and a piece of literature second. Acknowledging the play’s true form helps students grasp the meanings behind the words in their most viable form.
2. Every student is involved in the same choices the American Shakespeare Center actors had to make. These are relevant and practical questions that have accessible answers students can find with the text and their classmates.

I have come to the conclusion that every Shakespeare class should include a few days working with Henry VI, Part Three. I believe it is the best way to introduce students to the idea that history plays are not history lessons, but that they are great plots of the rises and falls of great men and women of England. This play includes the rise of one of the most infamous villains of Shakespeare, Richard, Duke of Gloucester (later King Richard III) and the fall of one of the most compelling female powerhouses in all of Shakespeare, Queen Margaret. Beyond these two characters, this play includes some amazing battles, fascinating court scenes and a glimpse into the England of the War of the Roses. This play is more than just a story of a King -- in fact the King is one of the least compelling characters you get to meet. Instead, Henry VI, Part Three is an intense and exhilarating glimpse into the world of vengeance, violence and the power of will. If you ever need a great Shakespeare read, take a few hours and explore this world. Or better yet, come down to the Blackfriars Playhouse and see the Actors’ Renaissance Season’s production, opening February 24th. I only saw a few hours of rehearsal, and I cannot wait for opening night! I hope the teachers out there consider adding this play, I hope every student gets to read Margaret, and I hope to see all of you at the Blackfriars for this amazing thrill-ride of a play!

(K.A.Lenz)

Actor-Scholar Council 2/11/11

2011-02-16T17:07:00.001-05:00

Last Friday’s Actor-Scholar Council focused on Look About You. Audiences may remember this show from the Bring ‘Em Back Alive two years ago. The play has had a special place in my heart because I formatted and annotated the script for that performance and, I also played a couple of small roles. The version in this year’s ARS is much more heavily cut, thanks to John Harrell, who plays Skink. In addition to John, actors Jeremiah (Prince John), Chris (Redcap), Miriam (Lady Marian Fauconbridge), Tyler (Sir Richard Fauconbridge, Porter), Paul (Henry II, Block), and Greg (Prince Richard) were in attendance.

The council started off with Ralph asking if any actors were confused about plot points. Look About You is a confusing play, one which he says, “takes the conventions of disguise to sublime heights.” To the actors, who work from sides, it almost seems like parts of the play are missing. An example of something they wanted explained is why the purservant laments the loss of a box. Scholars explained that Gloucester drugged the purservant to get the box, which contained a reprieve for the porter that Gloucester wanted to keep out of Prince John’s hands. Veteran actors call it the most confusing production since The Devil Is an Ass. John feels it was very hard to cut, and the initial read-through was illuminating because it made who was talking much clearer than on the page. Tyler ventured that an even bigger problem than the confusion was the “stage business”, and that some plot points happen offstage.

The actors had visions of audiences rolling on the floor with laughter, but they couldn’t tell, because the show is confusing and has so many characters in so many disguises, if they would really love it. There was a bit of a panic after the dress rehearsal, which had a small audience. Many felt concern that audiences wouldn’t retain disguise signifiers (such as capes and fake beards) long enough. Fortunately, audiences received it well, and there is only one time (when Prince John comes on as Gloucester after a long stretch) when it may not work. The actors grow more comfortable with the play as the run progresses; Miriam said that on February 10th, the show’s third performance, she felt that, rather than just actors trying to make their cues, relationships and moments had a chance to develop.

According to John, the original audience would have known a few things that audiences today don’t. They would have accepted that hermits who can tell the future live close to London. Most of them were somewhat familiar with the court of Henry II and the factions among his sons. The actors said that most of their understanding of this came from The Lion in Winter, so they understood about Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine, but had questions about Gloucester. The Robin Hood in this play is very different from the image we have formed based on Errol Flynn, an actor said. This Robin Hood is very young, more than a boy but not yet a man, and so pure and virginal that he can woo Lady Fauconbridge and nobody worries about him doing anything improprietary. Like many other characters, he disguises himself in this play, which leads to a comic moment in which other characters say, “Goodbye, England’s pride” to him while he’s cross-dressing.

One thing we aren’t sure how original audiences reacted to is Redcap’s stutter. No other early modern plays have stutterers, said Dr. Ralph. Chris, who plays Redcap, says that audiences now don’t have the patience to listen to it. They just want him to finish the line or thought and feel sympathy; if he’s taking a line to an audience member and stutters, they always break eye contact. Perhaps the original audience didn’t have our compunctions about laughing at someone with a speech impediment. Chris had to cut back on the stutter because he realized it caused some of the story to get lost. He said it was the hardest thing he ever had to memorize because he memorized it with the stutter, found out he didn’t know the lines without the exact stutters, and had to go back and re-memorize without them. In delivering the last line of the play, Redcap doesn’t stutter, and his success surprises him. Audiences are happy for him, according to the actors.

At one point a sword fight takes place between Gloucester and Richard, who are friends but are in disguise at the time. The actors initially wanted something “stupid and simple” for the fight, but they made it comic. Partway through rehearsals Ben suggested adding some Matrix-style slow-motion moments. Then they included their swords getting stuck together like that scene in the movie Spaceballs. The money moment is when the two reveal their true identities to each other, especially since the audience could easily see through Richard’s disguise (as a random servant) the whole time.

The actors could have put more absurd things into the play if they had had more time. The scenes, being especially complicated, took up more rehearsal time than usual, and with the exception of “Come On Eileen” they had to pick quick and easy songs because they didn’t have time to do music. The drugging of the Purservant is a prime example because, while only 36 lines, the scene took over 90 minutes to work (the actors didn’t tell specifically why). The actors advise people to come and see the show now or in another couple of weeks, by which time they’ll have been able to add more absurd, zany moments. If you’ve already seen the show, you should come see it again. See if you can count how many times variations of the phrase “look about you” are used (there are at least 11). And don’t forget to listen to the podcast of this week’s Actor-Scholar Council, available soon on the ASC website.

Shakespeare in Love

2011-02-14T16:43:00.001-05:00

Whether you love it or loathe it, Valentine’s Day is inescapable when it rolls around every February. And each year we are confronted with endless parades of Hallmark cards, enormous heart-shaped boxes of chocolates, giant bouquets of roses, and a non-stop stream of commercials for sparkly pieces of jewelry. Only through the purchase of one or more of these items, we are told, can a person prove their love and devotion to their significant other. Yet I beg to differ. On this most polarizing of holidays, it might behoove many a befuddled romantic to turn to the Bard when in need of some help. After all, could there be a more perfect combination than Shakespeare and love? Shakespeare has a great deal to say on this subject in almost all its myriad forms: romantic, jealous, unrequited, doomed, puppy, courtly…the list goes on and on. He created many of the most famous romantic pairings in history: Romeo and Juliet, Antony and Cleopatra, Katherine and Petruchio, Othello and Desdemona, Jack and Rose (oops – maybe not). Love shows up in some way in every single one of his plays, not to mention his sonnets, which are overflowing with love of the conventional and unconventional sort. According to www.shakespeareswords.com, the word “love” shows up 1962 times his plays. In short, this was a man who knew what he was talking about. First, however, a brief summary of this celebration of love:

In the beginning…

As with the other holidays I have examined on this blog, to find the origins of Valentine’s Day we must travel back to ancient Rome. This time, the beginning of spring was the cause for celebration among the pagan Romans, in the form of the festival of Lupercalia, a celebration of fertility and birth. And, once again, the early Christian church elected to overlay this holiday with one of their own, leading to a blending of Christian and pagan tradition. At the end of the fifth century A.D., Pope Gelasius declared February 14th to be St. Valentine’s Day. When it comes to the namesake of this holiday, however, the source is a bit of a mystery. At least three different saints by the name of Valentine are recognized by the Catholic Church today, and no one knows which of these, if any, is the patron saint of February 14th. One popular theory is that he was a third century Roman priest who performed secret marriages for young lovers, when it was outlawed for single men required for military service to marry.

Over the centuries, Valentine’s Day continued to grow in prominence and popularity. It was long thought that the first association of St. Valentine’s Day with romantic love dated to Geoffrey Chaucer’s Parlement of Foules (1382), when he wrote, “For this was on seynt Volantynys day/ Whan euery bryd comyth there to chese his make.” It’s more likely, however, that this verse refers to a date not in February but in May, honoring the marriage of King Richard II of England and Anne of Bohemia. The initial idea was planted, though, and many still associate these lines on lovebirds with February 14th. Just eighteen years later, in 1400, a “High Court of Love” was established on Valentine’s Day in Paris. This “court” dealt solely with love contracts, betrayals, and other romantic matters, and the judges were selected by women based on a contest of poetry reading. Shortly afterward, in 1415, the oldest known Valentine was written by Charles, Duke of Orleans, to his wife after he was imprisoned in the Tower of London following the Battle of Agincourt. By Shakespeare’s day, a tradition was firmly in place for celebrating Valentine’s Day as an occasion for expressing hidden or not-so-hidden affection.

A Renaissance Valentine

During the Renaissance, a common Valentine’s Day activity was for men and women to draw names from a bowl in order to find out who their “Valentine” for the day would be, a tradition dating back to the original Roman festivities. They would then wear the name they had drawn pinned on their sleeve (thus the expression, “to wear your heart on your sleeve”). In Shakespeare’s day, gloves, not flowers or jewelry, were the favored Valentine gift. A lady might approach her gentleman of choice and say, “Good-morrow Valentine, I go today;/ To wear for you, what you must pay;/ A pair of gloves next Easter Day.” The selected fellow was then required to send the lady a pair of gloves, and, if she wore them on Easter, he would know his romantic overtures would be further welcomed. If the lady was the superstitious sort, she might pin five bay leaves to her pillow at bedtime on Valentine’s Day in the belief that she would then dream of her future husband.

Of course, I couldn’t write about Valentine’s Day without including some recipes. Try this Stuart era recipe for Knotts and Gumballs – glazed cookies that can be made in the shape of hearts or, if you’re feeling especially ambitious, Celtic love knots. And as for that Valentine staple, chocolate, it was brought back to Europe from the New World by Spanish Conquistadors in the early sixteenth century, and it caught on quick. Yet its original form was as a drink, not as truffles or bon-bons. As a beverage, chocolate became highly fashionable and was originally a drink reserved for the wealthy. We may find a hint of what was to come, though, in this quote by Captain John Wadswroth, from his 1652 treatise Chocolate: or, an Indian Drinke: “And sometimes they make tablets of the Sugar, and the Chocolate together: which they doe onely to please the Pallats, as the Dames of Mexico doe use it; and they are there sold in shops, and are confected and eaten like other sweet-meats.”

Shakespeare + Valentine’s Day

Franco Zeffirelli’s 1968 Romeo and Juliet.

When searching for suitable Shakespearean inspiration on Valentine’s Day, it is probably wise not to turn to his most direct reference to the holiday, spoken by Ophelia in Hamlet:

“Tomorrow is Saint Valentine’s day
All in the morning betime,
And I a maid at your window
To be your Valentine.
Then up he rose and donned his clothes,
And dupped the chamber door;
Let in the maid, that out a maid
Never departed more” (4.5.48-55).

Baz Luhrmann's 1996 Romeo + Juliet.

Given that these lines are sung by a poor girl descending into insanity, they are not the most romantic of sentiments (however close this may be to many a single girl’s state of mind on Valentine’s Day). Luckily, Shakespeare has many more tender things to say on the subject of love. So, why not step away from conventional gifts on Valentine’s Day and return to the power of the word? In Shakespeare we find a compendium of all expressions of love – true, deep sentiments beyond any greeting card limerick. And while you might hesitate “to seek to quench the fire of love with words” (The Two Gentlemen of Verona, 2.7.20), the prudent romantic must also keep in mind that, “The more thou dammest it up, the more it burns” (The Two Gentlemen of Verona, 2.7.24). Therefore, instead, declare proudly,

“Then let me go, and hinder not my course.
I’ll be as patient as a gentle stream,
And make a pastime of each weary step,
Till the last step have brought me to my love;
And there I’ll rest, as after much turmoil,
A blessed soul doth in Elysium” (The Two Gentlement of Verona, 2.7.33-38).

Natalie A.

The World Wide Web of Will Shakespeare

2011-02-04T16:01:00.003-05:00

You could make the argument that the internet is geared toward people who want to save time, or for people with short attention spans. You could also say that this newfangled creation is no place for someone like Shakespeare. And, indeed, while searching for Shakespeare online, you might come across a version of his work that goes something like this, from Book-A-Minute Classics:

“Othello, by William Shakespeare

Iago
Your wife's cheating on you.

Othello
She is? (kills wife) Damn, she wasn't really.

THE END”

Presumably, this account is for those for whom Cliff Notes is too detailed. However, having recently become more aware of the role of digital education in bringing Shakespeare into the 21st century, I decided to follow up this discovery by looking into other ways Shakespeare is infiltrating the internet. Beyond the webinars and podcasts, the online courses and organizational education websites, beyond the multitude of searchable Shakespeare databases, and the hundreds of blogs dedicated to Shakespeare, there’s a lot (and I mean a lot) to uncover. There are online Shakespeare comics; there’s even a Shakespeare a.i. chat-bot (seriously). A person could spend hours chatting with this thing; it’s like a Shakespearean Magic 8 Ball. Needless to say, what I found was surprising, strange, sometimes befuddling, and sometimes exceptionally impressive.

For a fun introduction to this whole idea, check out the feature on the website of the Victoria and Albert Museum called “Inside the Renaissance Home.” This interactive set of pages allows you to investigate “Themes” and “Places,” as well as allowing you to “Explore” different items by moving them around and taking them apart. Many of the home fixtures are strikingly relatable, like a hanging mirror with a removable panel (to make sure your hair looks alright from the back, naturally), a cleverly designed folding chair, and an intricately decorated game-box with the pieces stored inside.

Follow this up with an engaging article on the subject from Edutopia, the educational foundation of that master of digital worlds, George Lucas. I also recommend checking out some of the YouTube videos discussed in the article, as YouTube is a whole other venue for modern Shakespeare lovers of all sorts to bring the Bard into new dimensions. A search for Shakespeare on YouTube yields 6420 results, and the array of music videos, original productions, homages, and parodies available, ranging from professional to questionable quality, is seemingly limitless.

This article, in turn, led me to Second Life, an online virtual world built around the interaction of avatars in simulated environments. Although I’m still undecided on how I actually feel about this whole concept, because, let’s face it, nothing beats seeing Shakespeare live and, well, not while staring at your computer screen, there is in fact an entire Shakespeare company based in Second Life. Known as the Second Life Shakespeare Company, this group uses animation technology to create realistic avatar movement in an entirely virtual theatre. So far, SL Shakespeare has staged full-ensemble, unabridged scenes from Hamlet and Twelfth Night using voiceover acting. Ina Centaur, the Visual Director of the SL Shakespeare Company, on some of the unique benefits, differences, and even similarities of virtual theatre to the real thing:

“SL Stagecraft is reminiscent of traditional stage tech, but rather than being a mere virtual representation of its original counterpart, it also contains components that may not be possible in real life. […] For example, gravity isn’t mandatory on SL; thus, other than for aesthetic reasons, there’s no need for complex systems of pulleys and such for Elizabethan special effects like flying across the stage. Weather and ambient lighting, especially relevant for an outdoor theatre, can also be perfected to a weathermonger’s dream. […] But, limitations with SL’s current avatar system prevent actors from conveying precise facial expressions or even syncing avatar lips to words live. […] And, let’s not forget the serendipity of crashing or power/connectivity loss on the user side—the virtual analog of falling asleep or suffering a heart attack in medias rea.”

Promotional poster for SL Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night

I have to say, though, that the mix of Shakespeare and the digital reaches whole new heights with Atomic Shakespeare. Good luck trying to figure this one out. Atomic Shakespeare claims to be an interaction of original text and audience behavior in order to produce new systems of Shakespeare’s words. I think (I think) it’s an attempt to take the free-thought associations the reader makes while perusing Shakespeare and then map them out in wacky charts. It’s sort of like Shakespeare for the mad scientist. If, for instance, you’ve ever wanted to examine a “molecular view” of the plays, then this is the place for you (this truly resembles a Shakespearean periodic table). The interactive element of this site involves being presented with a randomly generated passage containing certain underlined words, of which you select one. The site then searches for all other passages in Shakespeare’s canon containing that word, and from all of these you then pick another underlined word, and so on and so forth, until you have a collection of eclectic passages connected by these words which jumped out at you. Here’s my own contribution to this mind-bending project - make of it what you will. I can’t say this gave me a new, profound insight into Shakespeare…but it was interesting.

All of the above is but a Shakespearean drop in the ocean of the internet. Anyone with an interest in Shakespeare can share their enthusiasm with the world through this venue; it’s the ultimate equalizer. And these expressions of creativity can take the form of a virtual world or a video or a crazy science experiment. The internet’s a big place. Who knew?

Natalie A.

Actor-Scholar Council 1/21/11

2011-01-28T14:22:00.001-05:00

According to Dr. Ralph, the Actor-Scholar Council has two purposes: one, to give students the opportunity to ask about the Actors' Renaissance Season (ARS) and its rehearsal process, and two, to give actors the opportunity to ask any questions that they have about the shows. Today’s council focused on The Comedy of Errors and, to a lesser extent, The Malcontent. Actors in attendance included Tyler Moss, Sarah Fallon, Jeremiah Davis, Greg Phelps, Chris Johnston, and John Harrell.

We were lucky to have both Dromios and one Antipholus from The Comedy of Errors, allowing us to discuss how the actors played twins. Tyler and Greg (the Dromios) are both experienced clowns and went for a classic clown look. They used a lot of broad gestures, each one mirroring those the other used in other scenes, to get laughs and to establish their relationship. The ARS affords so little rehearsal time that actors who aren’t on stage together seldom get to see each others’ work. Both Dromios, however, even went to see the other’s rehearsals so they could play off what the other did.. While establishing their similarities as twins, the two maintained their individualities. Tyler’s Dromio was more of a clown, while Greg’s was a fool. By happy accident, John was cast as the Antipholus with the clown Dromio, and John claims to love beating on Tyler. This pairing led to a memorable scene in which Antipholus beats Dromio with a rope during Dromio’s monologue.

While the Dromios played up their similarity, the Antipholi played up their difference, relying chiefly on matching costumes to identify them as twins. One moment that struck John came when he realized that one twin is having the best day of his life, while the other is having the worst day. The Dromios had more extensive conversations about their relationship than either the Antipholi or the two sisters, based on what John and Sarah said about these latter pairs.
The council spent a lot of time discussing men playing women. Dr. Menzer wanted to know if there was any ethical consideration of casting plays thus in view of the shortage of female roles. Sarah pointed out that women can play men’s roles. The repertory system seems conducive to this cross-gender casting. Jeremiah pointed out also that men are generally only given small female roles. Tyler, wondering what would happen if men received female leads, mentioned how interesting it would be to have a man play Lady Macbeth, and one participant commented that that would lead to “a lot of pissed off actresses.”

Men playing women often disturbs audiences. Jeremiah, who plays Emelia in The Malcontent, found that men from the audience wouldn’t look him in the eye after the show. The ASC has taught by sufficient examples, one person argued, that it is okay for women to play men, but not the other way around, and a man playing a woman almost always gets a laugh. This rule is less universal in a tragedy, such as the current ASC touring production of Macbeth, in which (at least at one show) nobody laughed when a male Hecate entered. An interesting sidebar came up in the discussion of non-traditional casting: boys playing women in Shakespeare’s day struck audiences as erotic.

Jeremiah plays a theatrical rather than realistic woman in The Malcontent. He has few lines, so voice proved less important that physicality. Some of his decisions resulted from his costume, there being only one dress in our stock that fit him. He uses a fan either to hide or to accentuate his beard. Chris, on the other hand, plays the courtesan in The Comedy of Errors as a geisha, making it clear that he is really a guy, which Antipholus apparently doesn’t realize. At one point he takes off his wig and delivers a speech as a man. The choice proves interesting, and although men have played the courtesan in other productions, the geisha characterization is without precedent.

Tyler asked if the ARS is less stressful than the Summer and Fall seasons, which have a director. Opinions divided over this. Some actors thought it is. Sarah said it’s a different kind of stress. Chris finds it stressful, but enjoys the stress relief of the ARS. The rehearsal process for the ARS is so short, the first show opening after two to three days. If something doesn’t work in the rehearsal process, the actors must quickly change it, leading to stress relief when it turns out right. In comedies, it’s especially obvious when something doesn’t work because it doesn’t get a laugh..

Owing to the minimal rehearsal time, a Shakespeare play must open in the first slot. The ASC does this because the actors already know them and more of their speech is in our vernacular compared to the plays of his contemporaries. Also (scholars argued), Shakespeare was a superior crafter of plays. They also said that Marlowe and Jonson, were more skilled than, say, Massinger, so their plays, like Shakespeare’s, are easier to stage. Although Shakespeare’s characters are three-dimensional, character typing is especially useful, say the actors.

One last question which we addressed at the session was which scenes in The Comedy of Errors took the most time. Act 5 and “the door scene” (with one Dromio inside and the other out) took the most time. The actors blocked both early on in an effort to get group scenes out of the way. In contrast, last year the actors worked their first play in order. This turned out the better method, as this year they had to go back and reblock the two scenes once all the characters were established. These were the main points of last Friday’s productive and informative actor-scholar council, our first of 2011. If you would like to hear the entire session, it will be available as a podcast on the ASC site.

"O this learning, what a thing it is!"

2011-01-20T14:48:00.004-05:00

This past Monday, January 17th, I had the chance to attend another Education event at the ASC. Guest lecturer Ryan Nelson, Digital Manager for Globe Education in London, was in Staunton to talk about some of his recent work. He discussed the importance of creating an interesting and entertaining education website for a place like the Globe Theatre, as well as the multitude of ways he went about coming up with and designing digital resources for teaching and research. “Participation through engagement” is the goal, as Nelson put it. And, as someone new to working in the realm of education, only just discovering the various ways of making the past relevant and, well, as cool to everyone else as it is to me, all of these projects struck me as ridiculously exciting.

The Globe Theatre, London

As part of his talk, Nelson walked through some elements of the Globe Education website. These ranged from the more scholarly to the more entertaining; from the basic to the fantastic, and all of which can be found at http://www.globe-education.org/. On the more scholarly end of things, you can browse through an archive of conference and lecture papers, like those from the 2006 Theatre History Seminar on the use of blood on the stage, where you can learn the history behind the nifty trick, “To cut off ones head, and to laie it in a platter” (always useful). Or you can peruse research bulletins, which act essentially as production diaries for some of the first shows staged at the new Globe and which also include some wonderful detail on the historical research and rehearsal processes of a play, as well as actor interviews (one actor from a 2002 production of The Golden Ass notes: if you’re a man playing a woman, it’s more than just “put on a funny voice and get on with it” – never walk in straight lines or show your thumbs).

On the more purely entertainment end of things, you can “adopt an actor,” which does not, as Nelson was quick to point out, mean that a member of the Globe’s company comes and lives at your house. Instead, it means that students can sign up to access exclusive blogs and podcasts from certain actors during a season. It’s a great way to get a close look at all the behind-the-scenes action of a Shakespearean-era playhouse (for example, Lady Macbeth likes to unwind with a glass of bubbly after a show). Probably my favorite site, however, was that for “Playing Shakespeare.” Although aimed at young people in London schools, it was a shameless blast for me as well. This section is all about interaction, featuring several of the Globe’s recent productions, including Macbeth, Romeo and Juliet, and Much Ado about Nothing. There are audio and video clips, and interactive texts with an automatic, pop-up glossary. You can also alternately view these select scenes as the original script or as the director’s edit. Nelson spoke about his hopes to expand this part of the Education website in particular, ideally to a point where different groups could edit and manipulate play texts for different purposes. He referred to it as creating “a modern prompt book.” This stuck with me, since part of my ASC research has included researching cue scripts and prompt books. Listening to Nelson, I found myself thinking that it is a strange and wonderful thing to compare this idea of a contemporary prompt book, able to be created digitally through instantaneous re-crafting of these centuries-old written words, to the original, carefully copied and compiled prompt books of early modern theatre. They are two so entirely different methods for accomplishing the same purpose, and it is tempting to imagine the original members of the Lord Chamberlain’s Men or the Admiral’s Men loving and thoroughly appreciating this concept.

Also within “Playing Shakespeare” is a “social network” mock-up (otherwise known as that word starts with “face” and ends with “book”), where characters from the plays have their own profiles, complete with “O wall, o sweet, o lovely wall.” Finally, students can post their own opinions on themes and issues of the different plays, where, Nelson joked, the students often discuss the weighty topics more civilly than adults. Browsing through this section of the website myself, it was satisfying to see the high number of posts under each category and to picture these youngsters voluntarily engaging in discussion and getting excited about the ideas presented. And they had some insightful things to say, too. About Much Ado about Nothing, one student stated, “I enjoyed the book even more because the type of things that occur in the play happen a lot in my age group or high school. So many emotions such as love, hate, jealousy, and justice occur at my school so therefore many people can relate.” Another student’s advice is rather more straightforward: “Watch the DVD.”

The main page of the Globe Education website claims to provide “Resources for people passionate about learning and engaging with Shakespeare’s plays.” What jumped out to me in this statement were the words “engaging with.” Before coming to work here, I had never made that unlikely connection between Shakespeare and the internet, and how critical the latter could be in promoting the former. As I continue to plug away at my own project, that oft-mentioned “Rehearsal Tools of the ASC,” I’m discovering that what makes this process so satisfying for me is that I am creating an educational resource for others while, at the same time, learning new things myself on a daily basis. And that’s not just new things about Shakespeare and early modern theatre, but new things about the role of an Education Department in places like this and the Globe. I left this talk feeling enthused and inspired to persevere with my own small contribution to the ASC’s website.

“I am weak with toil, yet strong in appetite” (Cymbeline, 3.7.10).

Natalie A.

P.S. Two other organizations which Nelson referenced as being at the cutting edge of digital education were the Royal Opera House and the Tate Gallery – I leave you to check out these websites for yourself, as the wealth of material to peruse at each is astounding and beyond the scope of this entry.

New Year, Old Shakespeare

2011-01-07T15:38:00.005-05:00

Happy New Year to one and all! Here’s to that renewed spirit and energy which comes with each new January, and which may be inspiring you to proclaim, “The day shall not be up so soon as I / To try the fair adventure of tomorrow” (King John, 5.5.21-22). Of course, with the new year also comes the customary resolutions to be healthier, happier, more productive, more successful, smarter, more well-read, etc. etc. But don’t get overwhelmed by such lists. Instead, why not get started on the latter two of those goals, at least, by learning some more about Shakespeare? And don’t be intimidated! You could start with something light and fun, for instance, like clothes.

I’ve lately been writing about the use of costumes in Shakespeare’s plays. One of the most interesting elements of this process has been the discovery that early modern plays were costumed with early modern clothing; there was little attempt to recreate an elaborate look and feel of the past. Instead, Julius Caesar, Timon of Athens, and King John alike all wore fashionable, 16th century garb. This means that, in the process of researching Elizabethan theatrical costumes, I’ve had to learn a lot about everyday Elizabethan dress. One fun way to get the basics of women’s dress of the time is to have a look at Cecily, the Elizabethan online paper doll at ElizabethanCostume.net, which has a plethora of other interesting info on Renaissance clothing. This is an entertaining way to keep your “farthingales,” “petticoats,” “kirtles,” and “bumrolls,” straight. Try to dress her inaccurately, though, and you’ll get a message like this: “My fitted kirtle looks passing strange when worn over a gathered petticoat; it doth not fit smoothly and evenly over so much petticoat fabric. Remove my petticoat ere dressing me in a kirtle.” This is serious business.

This past summer, I had my own up close and personal experience with early modern clothing, when I volunteered at the Bata Shoe Museum in Toronto, Ontario. Their special exhibition at the time was entitled “On a Pedestal: From Renaissance Chopines to Baroque Heels,” and the stars of the exhibit were several pairs of these wildest of Renaissance shoes. If you think today’s high heels are brutal, imagine wearing a pair of these! They were especially popular in Italy, where women would wear them hidden beneath their gowns to elongate their figures and display their social status. As you might imagine, the women also needed servants to accompany them everywhere they went in order to make sure they didn’t take an embarrassing tumble.

Shakespeare himself provides a testament to just how tall these shoes were in Hamlet, when Hamlet exclaims, “By’r Lady, your ladyship is nearer to heaven than when I saw you last by the altitude of a chopine” (2.2.424-426). In this case, Hamlet is addressing a member of the troupe of players who have come to Elsinore – a boy whose recent growth spurt is, apparently, equivalent to the height of a chopine (a fact which could prove problematic should he be needed to play a “ladyship”).

And while you may think the clothing of Shakespeare limited to crazy footwear and ridiculous ruffs, there are several ways in which he can still be quite fashion forward today. I recently stumbled across a blog entitled Mad Shakespeare, which offers some possible fashionable ensembles inspired by Shakespeare’s works, including Julius Caesar, Twelfth Night, and Othello.

The author of this blog mentioned that she used a site called Polyvore to create these outfits; this piqued my curiosity and inspired me to check out Polyvore myself, where I couldn’t resist creating my own Shakespeare-inspired look.

This one is my visual interpretation of Macbeth, with a distinct nod to the famous lady of that play. It had to, naturally, include some plaid, and I wanted to create a strong, empowered look with the high boots and wide belt. Some fur, in this case on the bag, seemed essential for the wild northern reaches of Scotland. And there was no way I could pass up those knife earrings. So, whether it be through fashion of the 16th or 21st century, the imagery of Shakespeare’s texts may be understood and interpreted in a variety of ways. (I’d love to see some other people’s outfit creations!)

See, you’ve already achieved a New Year’s goal; Shakespeare is a terrific resource for learning all sorts of new things. Now, you should probably make some cookies to celebrate (that whole “healthier” resolution can wait, right?).

Natalie A.

Eat, drink, and be merry!

2010-12-21T13:55:00.003-05:00

“Some say that ever ‘gainst that season comes
Wherein our Saviour’s birth is celebrated,
This bird of dawning singeth all night long,
And then they say no spirit dare stir abroad,
The nights are wholesome, then no planets strike,
No fairy takes, nor witch hath power to charm,
So hallowed, and so gracious, is that time.”

So said Shakespeare about Christmas in Hamlet, 1.1. And, in this quote, we get a perfect snapshot of that combination of Christian and pagan traditions which were and still are so prevalent in the celebration of this holiday. In Shakespeare’s day, celebrating the Saviour’s birth didn’t necessarily mean you were off the hook when it came to the charms of fairies and witches. For, just like Halloween, the celebration of Christmas on December 25th has its origins in pre-Christian festivals. In pagan Britain, the end of December marked the winter solstice, when the longest, darkest days of winter were past. Naturally, this required some partying and feasting. Later, when Christianity arrived on the scene, Easter was, in fact, the primary holiday of the year. It wasn’t until the fourth century that church officials decided to institute a holiday to celebrate the birth of Jesus. The only problem was the Bible does not specify any particular date as Jesus’ birthday. And, while sometime in spring would have made the most sense (given the whole shepherds watching their flocks thing), the end of December was chosen in order to absorb the pagan winter solstice activities. By the end of the sixth century, Christmas had made its way successfully to England, and the rest is history.

This holiday season is connected to winters of centuries ago though one especially unique link: this was the first time that a lunar eclipse has fallen on the winter solstice since 1638. In honor of this extraordinary event, I thought I’d promote some Shakespearean Christmas festivities. So, for those who are tired of the stresses of 21st century holiday shopping or listening to “Grandma Got Run Over by a Reindeer” for the umpteenth time, here are some alternatives.

The Earth’s shadow blankets the moon during this year’s rare lunar eclipse.

Everything you need to know to have a very merry Shakespearean Christmas:

Old Saint Nick and Other Traditions: The original Santa Claus was really a monk named Nicholas, who was born in third century Turkey. Renowned for his kindness and generosity and for giving away all his worldly goods, Nicholas became a very popular saint, particularly during the Renaissance. However, the image of him as a rotund, jolly gift-giver didn’t come along until much later. Instead of mourning the lack of Santa, though, you could appoint a Lord of Misrule for the duration of the holiday. Duties of the Lord of Misrule include presiding over the revelries, handing out gifts, devising entertainments, and calling people silly names. The Yule log was another common tradition of the time. In Elizabethan England, the Christmas season ran for twelve days, from Christmas Eve on December 24th to Epiphany on January 6th. The Yule log was brought into the house on Christmas Eve and was meant to burn throughout all twelve days.

Decorations: Can you have a Christmas tree? Sure, why not. Long before people brought trees into their homes for the holidays, evergreens of all sorts were seen as reminders of the life that would come again in the spring. As a bonus, hanging evergreen boughs over your door was believed to keep away ghosts and evil spirits during the winter. Germans are believed to have chopped down the first Christmas trees in the sixteenth century, and legend has it that Protestant reformer Martin Luther was the first to add lighted candles to the tree, a pre-cursor to our modern Christmas lights. (If you try this, make sure to keep a fire extinguisher handy.) Although in Elizabethan England you would be well ahead of your time, since Christmas trees didn’t make their way there until the German Prince Albert married Queen Victoria in 1840.

Christmas Revels: Favorite activities, which haven’t changed much over the years, included feasting, dancing, game playing, and storytelling. You could play the slightly harrowing game of “snapdragon,” which involves taking turns picking raisins out of a dish of flaming brandy and popping them in your mouth. And then, of course, there’s wassailing. The word “wassail” comes from the Saxon “wachs heil,” meaning “I give you health.” In towns and villages across England, groups would go from house to house singing songs and carrying empty cups which the master of the house was meant to fill with spiced ale, along with providing snacks such as cakes and cheese. If you wish to revive this tradition, some Elizabethan carols you could sing include the ultimate wassailing song, “Here We Come A-Wassailing.” Others which might be familiar to the modern listener are “I Saw Three Ships” (the ships in this traditional English folk song refer to the vessels bearing the supposed skulls of the three wise men to a cathedral in Cologne), “The Twelve Days of Christmas” (legend has it that this song was written for parents to pass on Catholic symbols to their children after Henry VIII supplanted Catholicism with the Church of England), and “The Holly and the Ivy” (both of which commonly festooned Elizabethan houses at Christmastime).

Refreshments: A mouthwatering picture of what graced the Elizabethan Christmastime table may be seen in Thomas Tusser’s 500 Points of Husbandry, published in 1573:

“Good husband and huswife, now chiefly be glad,
Things handsome to have, as they ought to be had.
They both do provide, against Christmas do come,
To welcome their neighbors, good cheer to have some.
Good bread and good drink, a good fire in the hall,
Brawn, pudding, and souse, and good mustard withal.
Beef, mutton, and pork, and good pies of the best,
Pig, veal, goose, and capon, and turkey well drest,
Cheese, apples and nuts, and good carols to hear,
As then in the country is counted good cheer.
What cost to good husband, is any of this?
Good household provision only it is:
Of other the like, I do leave out a many,
That costeth the husband never a penny.”

To try some of these recipes yourself, consult HistoricalFoods, which is quickly becoming one of my favorite websites. They have a recipe for that British Christmas staple, plum pudding, as well as one for authentic wassail.

Merry Christmas,

Natalie A.

PS. For some extra Shakespearean holiday humor, read about why Shakespeare hated Christmas (who knew?). Or check out these hilarious letters to Santa by Shakespearean characters. (Warning: rated PG-13!)

Centuries of Shakespeare

2010-12-09T11:45:00.003-05:00

It is, of course, an oft repeated fact that Shakespeare’s plays have been performed, in some form, continuously since his death. For many years, however, there was a gap in my brain between the days of the man himself and the performance of his works today. My mind glossed over all those intervening centuries. Instead, there were only two Shakespeares: that of the Elizabethan era and that of modern theatre. Recently, I have begun to consider Shakespeare in other decades, and it has opened a whole new window into the past. It is especially fascinating to see how the art of early photography was used to document the theatre, and there is some magic element in seeing antique photographs from productions of these already-historic works. It is, essentially, a double layering of history upon history.

The Cleveland Press, part of the Cleveland State University Library, has an incredible photographic archive of Shakespeare in performance, and browsing through their collection was part of what piqued my curiosity in this heretofore unconsidered facet of Shakespeare. The oldest photograph which the Cleveland Press has is of stage actor Lawrence Barrett as Cassius in an 1870 production of Julius Caesar.

Barrett, looking very Roman as Cassius.

Looking at this photo led me down a new path of investigation, when I read that Barrett starred in this particular show alongside fellow actor Edwin Booth as Brutus. Now, Booth was perhaps the most famous Shakespearean actor of the nineteenth century. One of the biggest stars of his day, he was famous for his Hamlet, Richard III, and Shylock. Unbelievably, a wax cylinder recording of him performing Othello survives. Although the sound quality is poor, it’s spine tingling to hear this voice speaking from over a hundred years in the past, utilizing Shakespeare as the medium to reach across the intervening century.

Edwin Booth as Hamlet.

Edwin not only became famous as a player of Shakespeare but also became infamous as the older brother of John Wilkes Booth. That’s right – that’s the John Wilkes Booth, the assassin of President Abraham Lincoln. In fact, John Wilkes himself had appeared onstage several times before his most famous performance at Ford’s Theatre. Only that previous fall of 1864, he, Edwin, and their brother Junius had acted together in Julius Caesar as Marc Antony, Brutus, and Cassius, respectively. Edwin disowned his brother after the assassination and was himself forced to retire from the public eye for several months. It did not incur any lasting damage to his reputation, however, as he is still lauded and respected today as a master of the theatre.

The brothers Booth: John, Junius, and Edwin in Julius Caesar.

The Cleveland Press collection also contains a photograph of Sarah Bernhardt, possibly the most famous female actress of the nineteenth century.

The glamorous Bernhardt as Cleopatra in Antony and Cleopatra, around 1890.

This compelling picture spurred me on to learn that Bernhardt later made her film debut in 1900 in Le Duel d’Hamlet, a brief two minute reel of Hamlet’s duel with Laertes in which she played the title role. This is believed to be first ever film adaptation of that play, and it is also noted for utilizing the new innovation of playing pre-recorded cylinders of the actor’s voices and sound effects along with the film. The entire film may be seen here, unfortunately without the soundtrack, which has been lost.

Drew strutting his stuff as Petruchio.

Or check out this dapper fellow, John Drew, Jr., another famous nineteenth century Shakespearean specialist. Drew came from a family of actors and is the uncle of John, Ethel, and Lionel Barrymore. This also means that he’s the great-great uncle of Drew Barrymore.

All of the photos in this collection are like breadcrumbs leading down a trail of interesting discoveries, as I realized once I began browsing through them. Each one uncovers all new stories of Shakespeare and the actors who have brought his words to life over the centuries. The costumes are so elaborate and the expressions so vivid that there is an instant connection across time, making the viewer regret not being able to see these theatrical giants in action. It is impossible not to look at a photograph without wanting to find out a little bit more about that actor, to imagine how they were celebrities in their own time and how their work is still influencing performances of Shakespeare today. For it is not just that Shakespeare of the Elizabethan theatre who has informed how his works are produced in the twenty-first century, but rather a series of building blocks of trends and innovations resting on the shoulders of these men and women and those who came before them.

Natalie A.

Shakespeare and...Thanksgiving?

2010-11-23T10:59:00.002-05:00

Ah, Thanksgiving. That time of year for being with family and friends and for cooking ridiculous amounts delicious food…turkey and cranberries and sweet potatoes topped with globs of marshmallows and pumpkin pie! But is it possible to draw a connecting line between today’s epicurean extravaganza and foodie fetes in Shakespeare’s England? Absolutely. While Shakespeare wrote all of his plays well before the Plymouth colonists celebrated their first harvest with the Wampanoag Indians in 1621, giving birth to the Thanksgiving legend, the New World and its foods were no strangers to Elizabethans. And neither was the concept of a harvest festival. English harvest festivals abounded in the latter quarter of the Elizabethan calendar. November 11th marked the feast of St. Martin, and November 30th was the feast of St. Andrew, both denoting the end of the harvest season and the coming on of winter. On these days, Elizabethans would get together and stuff their faces, much as we do today.

In fact, a lot of what we consider traditional American holiday staples originated in England: stuffing the turkey with bread and dried fruit, apple pies, and even gingerbread houses. This is due to the intermingling of ingredients and cooking techniques which took place as Europeans explored the Americas and brought back various new items to their home countries, putting their own unique spins on them. The first turkeys arrived in England in the early sixteenth century by way of Spanish traders from the New World. These birds caught on quickly, being larger than the chicken and tastier than the swan or the peacock. Tomatoes, potatoes, chili peppers, maize, beans, pumpkins, coffee, and chocolate, to name just a few, were some of the other imports. Furthermore, spices such as ginger, cinnamon, and mace had previously arrived in England during the Middle Ages, brought from the east by crusaders.

Indeed, you could say that Shakespeare was living during a pretty gastronomically exciting time. Elizabethans were taking full advantage of the spice trade, comparatively new in the history of the country, and now they also had a plethora of new products flowing in from the New World with which to experiment. While there are definitely plenty of recipes from the time which seem less than appealing to our modern palettes, some don’t sound half bad. Take this recipe for baked quinces (a relative of the pear), for example, from A Book of Cookrye, published in 1591: “Core your Quinces and fair pare them, perboyle them in seething licour, Wine or water, or halfe wine and half water and season them with Sinamon and sugar, and put halfe a dozen Cloves into your Pyes amongst them, and halfe a dozen spoonful of rosewater, put in good of sugar. If you will bake them a slighter waye, you maye put in Muscadell to spare Sugar.” Mmm.

There are many food references in Shakespeare’s plays, often used in a metaphorical sense. Interestingly, the word “corn” appears in several of Shakespeare’s plays. In 2 Henry VI, Duchess Eleanor questions her husband, “Why droops my lord, like over-ripen’d corn” (1.2.1)? Yet, in these cases, Shakespeare was not actually referring to the American corn with which we are familiar. Instead, “corn,” in the early modern context, meant “grain.” In this sense, corn provides a useful metaphor in several scenes for striking down an enemy. A harvest reference appears in 3 Henry VI, when King Edward speaks of cutting down his enemies “like to autumn’s corn” (5.7.3). In Henry VIII, Archbishop Cranmer predicts of the infant Queen Elizabeth that her foes will “shake like a field of beaten corn” (5.5.31). And while there are numerous references to feasting in Shakespeare’s works, along with several feast scenes featured in the plays, when specific foods are mentioned it is usually by “low” or comic characters. The Clown in The Winter’s Tale, for instance, describes his grocery list for a feast as follows: “Let me see: what am I to buy for our sheep-shearing feast? Three pounds of sugar, five pound of currants, rice […]. I must have saffron to color the warden pies; mace; dates […]; nutmegs, seven; a race or two of ginger […]; four pounds of pruins, and as many of raisins o’ th’ sun” (4.3.36-49). Also, there are many more references to wine, beer, and other alcoholic beverages than there are to chewable foods. For a nifty collection of each and every reference to food of all sorts in Shakespeare, from almond to zucchini, take a look at this site.

So, while Shakespeare and his contemporaries might have missed out on the traditional American Thanksgiving – which was only established on its current date in 1941 – and the joys of fifteen pound turkeys, French’s green bean casserole, the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade, and Black Friday, they were certainly familiar with the concept of coming together with those closest to them as the autumn drew to a close, enjoying the fruits of the harvest and celebrating with good food and good cheer. And Shakespeare, as he usually does, has some good advice to offer upon the occasion:

“O Lord that lends me life,
Lend me a heart replete with thankfulness.”
- 2 Henry VI, 1.1.19-20.

Natalie A.

PS. Should you want to try your hand at Renaissance cooking, HistoricalFoods.com offers recipes for “gilded marchpane” – a fantastical marzipan centerpiece favored by the Tudors – and even “buttered beere,” which I’ve been wanting to try since the first time Harry Potter sampled the stuff in Hogsmeade. And, if you wish to expand your horizons to the Stuart period, you can even try “roast wild boar,” “plague-water” (helpful for keeping away that pesky pestilence), and “toast of divers sorts.”

"Marvelous sweet music!"

2010-11-19T13:52:00.003-05:00

In the course of my research, I frequently come across fun/entertaining/goofy items related to my current topic of investigation which, unfortunately, are not quite scholarly enough to incorporate into my educational writing for “Rehearsal Tools of the ASC.” Thus, I am discovering that this blog is the perfect outlet to share these random, bite-size bits and clips of information in a slightly less formal environment. Take, for example, what I have most recently been writing about: music. In searching out all there is to know on Shakespeare and music, I’ve become more and more aware of just how large a role this particular combination still plays in popular culture. A search for “Shakespeare” under the “Music” category on Amazon.com returns 884 results, encompassing everything from compilations of music popular in Shakespeare’s day to the Shakespeare in Love soundtrack; from Baby Einstein: Baby Shakespeare to Are You Shakespearienced? Heck, a person has only to turn on the radio to hear some toe-tapping Shakespeare. (A slightly different ending for Romeo and Juliet perhaps, but who hasn’t always wanted things to work out for those two, anyway?)

If one starts to pay attention, in fact, Shakespeare begins to turn up all over the place in music. Just listen closely to the lyrics in the Disney classic, Beauty and the Beast. In “The Mob Song” the evil Gaston encourages those torch and pitchfork wielding townspeople to “Screw your courage to the sticking place!” This is the same advice which Lady Macbeth offers her husband when he has second thoughts about their plot to kill King Duncan: “We fail? But screw your courage to the sticking place, and we’ll not fail” (Macbeth, 1.7.60-62). There’s an entire song in the hippie musical Hair based on Hamlet’s “What a piece of work is man” monologue (Hamlet, 2.2). And people still walk down the aisle to Mendelssohn’s “Wedding March” from his incidental music for A Midsummer Night’s Dream.

All this is not, however, a new phenomenon. Practically since Shakespeare’s plays were first staged, it seems that people have had a fascination with turning Shakespeare into music and adding music to Shakespeare. Composer Benjamin Britten said, “I feel that everyone ought to set Shakespeare to music in order just to get to know the incredible beauty and intensity of these words." In 1960, Britten himself turned A Midsummer Night’s Dream into an opera, which still enjoys popularity today. A trailer for the English Touring Opera’s Spring 2010 production, featuring Thisbe’s “Asleep, my love?” speech (A Midsummer Night’s Dream, V.i.319) may be seen here.

When it comes to the whole Shakespeare/music trend, though, one of my personal favorites has to be Kenneth Branagh’s movie musical of Love’s Labour’s Lost. Yes, it’s cheesy, and sometimes borders on the bizarre, but it’s also a lot of fun. Set in a 1930’s-inspired Navarre, it features such hits of that decade as Cole Porter’s “I Get a Kick Out of You,” Jerome Kern’s “The Way You Look Tonight,” and Irving Berlin’s “There’s No Business Like Showbusiness” (belted out by the always hilarious Nathan Lane as the clown Costard). Check out the film’s whacky rendition of Irving Berlin’s “Cheek to Cheek,” featuring Kenneth Branagh, Alessandro Nivola, Matthew Lillard, and Adrien Lester as the besotted Berowne, King Ferdinand, Longaville, and Dumaine, respectively, along with the objects of their affection.

Another 30’s-set, yet ever so slightly darker, Shakespeare is Ian McKellen’s Richard III, which plays out in an alternate universe Great Britain controlled by a fascist government. The movie opens cheerily enough, though, with Christopher Marlowe’s poem “The Passionate Shepherd to His Love” set to a swinging big band melody. The romantic, youthful tone of the lyrics provides a stark contrast to the dark, bitter mood Richard soon provides. In addition to Ian McKellen skulking about, keep an eye out also for Maggie Smith, Annette Bening, Jim Broadbent, and Robert Downey, Jr.

This is just a very (very, very) small sampling of some ways in which Shakespeare’s words have inspired a variety of musical outpourings. Some have been masterful…some not so much…and some have been just plain weird. But they have all entertained countless numbers of people – in addition to providing an entertaining diversion for me in the process of sorting through scholarly articles and primary sources. Shakespeare not only brought music to the stage in his day, but has since conquered Broadway and the pop charts, been turned into musical entertainment for the big screen and TV, inspired composers from Tchaikovsky to Stravinsky, and has spoken to almost every generation since his death through the musical medium. Pretty talented for a fellow who’s been dead for almost four hundred years…and who definitely never heard of Taylor Swift.

Natalie A.

A Festival of Theses!

2010-11-09T15:36:00.002-05:00

On Monday, the 8th of November, I had the opportunity to attend the Fall Thesis Project Festival at Blackfriars Playhouse, where graduate students in Mary Baldwin College’s MLITT/MFA program in Shakespeare and Performance presented on their various research topics. A day-long “Thesis Festival” might not, at first, sound like a rollicking good time, but it proved to be a day full of very enjoyable and interesting presentations.

The subjects which were examined covered a broad range, providing a colorful bouquet of Shakespearean topics ready to be admired. There was everything from What to Expect When Staging the Expecting: Pregnancy in Early Modern Drama to Miranda as “Native”: An Exploration of Sexual Politics and Cultural Hegemony in Caribbean and African Postcolonial Adaptations of The Tempest to Rosalind and Cleopatra: The Androgyne in Performance, to name just a few. For a detailed account of each presentation, see the official ASC liveblogs of the event: Session 1, Session 2, and Session 3.

One which was particularly attention-grabbing to me was ‘SBlood, Zounds, and Marry: Oaths as Indicators of Character Change on the Early Modern Stage, presented by David C. Santangelo. While a word like “Zounds!” (a contraction of “God’s wounds”) may seem pretty tame to us today, four hundred years ago such an exclamation would have caused quite a stir in the playhouse. During his talk, Santangelo also examined the ways in which a character’s use of oaths within a play can reveal essential elements of his or her character. As an example he used Iago, whose oaths reveal in turn his crudeness and his cleverness throughout Othello. His exclamation, “By Janus” (1.2.33), for instance, is significant in that Janus is a two-faced god, just as Iago himself is a two-faced character.

Another entertaining presentation was Andrea Kelley’s If the Shrew Fits: Chronology, Misogyny, and Dichotomy in the Taming Plays. Kelley opened her talk with a hilarious YouTube video chronicling the transformation of various film Kates, including Elizabeth Taylor in a 1967 The Taming of the Shrew, Julia Stiles in 10 Things I Hate About You, and Shirley Henderson in a modern re-telling (see it here). She then discussed how different versions of this story are prevalent throughout history, but they don’t necessarily represent realistic marriages of their times, just as modern sitcoms don’t exactly portray accurate husband-wife relationships. Kelley used different texts on marriage from Shakespeare’s day through the middle of the 18th century to illustrate both the more romantic and the slightly harsher views on how to tame a shrew, so to speak. (One offered this endearing advice in oh-so witty rhyme form: “Rub a dub, kill her with a club.” Hmm.)

Of course, these are just two out of eleven; all of the theses were well-presented and engaging, whether they were on a topic I was interested in, only vaguely aware of, or knew absolutely nothing about. There was also X-Treme Casting, about the practice of using as few as five actors to put on a Shakespeare play, and Ford, and Jonson, and Middleton, Oh My!, which featured some hilarious performances by other students in the Mary Baldwin program as a geriatric John Ford and irascible Ben Jonson, among others, and which asked the question: Why do we study Shakespeare more than any of these other playwrights, anyway?

The high level of scholarship which is happening constantly in and around the American Shakespeare Center is something I was completely unaware of until I became an intern in the Education Department, and it is something which I believe the general public is largely unconscious of as well. I have found that, when I inform people that I am working as an intern at the American Shakespeare Center in Staunton, the typical response is, “Oh, you mean at Blackfriars?” The fact is that the Blackfriars Playhouse is a part of a larger, vital vehicle for sharing a love of Shakespeare and early modern theatre and for educating both scholars and the average citizen on this subject. This is something I am becoming more and more aware of as I work here. Unless a person is in-the-know in some way, they could see the Blackfriars Playhouse as simply a theatre. Of course, it is a theatre – and a great one! – but it is also a venue for the sharing of some amazing research, all of which is open and available to a curious public. One would absolutely not have to know a thing about Shakespeare and performance to have a great time at an event like the Fall Thesis Festival. There’s almost always some neat education event happening at Blackfriars. So don’t be intimidated – go check it out!

Natalie A.

“By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes…”

2010-10-29T13:50:00.004-04:00

All this cool weather and the newly emerged, resplendent autumn colors have been putting me in the Halloween spirit lately. And it has also got me thinking: What about Shakespeare and Halloween? What connections are there between the two, and what was this holiday like in Elizabethan England? I was inspired to do a little research and come up with a few notes on witches, warlocks, and William Shakespeare.

First, a (very) brief history lesson: Halloween has its origins in the Celtic harvest festival of Samhain, a time when the ancient Celts believed the boundary between the worlds of the living and the dead blurred, and the dead returned to earth. Later, when Christianity spread to the British Isles, the Catholic Church overlaid many of their holidays onto pagan holidays in order to lessen the gap between religions. One of these holidays was All Saints’ Day, also known as All-Hallows, on November 1st. Thus, October 31st became known as All-Hallows' Eve, which was, in turn, eventually shortened to Halloween. And there you have it. For a more detailed (and humorous) account of this whole, tedious process, visit this blog of another local Staunton historian.

The modern Halloween which we are familiar with, however, did not actually come into existence until the nineteenth century. During Shakespeare’s day, one may see the roots of our contemporary celebrations, yet, at this time, All-Hallows' Eve was still a highly religious-centric holiday. This was a world where ghouls and goblins weren’t the stuff of campfire ghost stories but were, instead, very real and ever-present in daily life. Men and women lived in fear of getting on these malevolent spirits’ bad sides, and they turned to a combination of the Church and old superstitions to protect themselves. Rather than going trick-or-treating, an Elizabethan child might have gone “a-souling,” or traveled door to door asking for “soul cakes” in return for prayers for souls of the dead. Shakespeare even references this practice in The Two Gentlemen of Verona when Speed, page to Valentine, tells his lord that a sure sign of love is that Valentine speaks whiningly, or “puling, like a beggar at Hallowmas” (II.i.25-26). To avoid being recognized by any ghosts who might be out and about, these Elizabethans would have worn masks – a predecessor of today’s costumes. The original jack-o-lanterns were actually turnips (pumpkins being native to the Americas), which were carved and placed in front of the home to ward off evil spirits.

Shakespeare would have been familiar with these traditions, and instances of the supernatural abound in his writing. The most famous probably occur in Macbeth, which was, many believe, written to cater to the interests of England’s reigning monarch, James I (previously James VI of Scotland). James had a particular fascination with witchcraft, even publishing his own book on the subject, the Daemonologie. Witchraft, of course, plays an integral role in the story of Macbeth in the form of the three Weird Sisters. The witches in this play are undeniably present, visible and powerful; they begin the play and set the plot in motion. Yet the whole play is awash in eerie, paranormal vibes. Lady Macbeth summons spirits to possess her, ghosts seat themselves at banquet tables, and ethereal daggers hover in midair. The veil between earth and the realm of the fantastic seems practically non-existent.

Some other particularly famous ghost cameos in Shakespeare include the appearance of the ghost of Hamlet’s father in Hamlet. Like the witches of Macbeth, this ghost “bodes some strange eruption to our state” (I.i.69), in that its appearance sets about a chain of events which alters fate of the kingdom. The ghost of the ex-king, however, is much more economical and somber of speech than the gleefully wicked Weird Sisters. He is a spirit come from the fires of hell, and he manifests in setting which feels far more ordered and Christian than the wild and gothic moors of Scotland. In addition, a multitude of ghosts are present in Richard III. The spirits of his past victims appear in a grisly parade before Richard on the eve of the Battle of Bosworth Field, reminding him of all his evil deeds. This ghostly army promises to fight on the site of Henry, Earl of Richmond (soon to be King Henry VII): “Be cheerful, Richmond, for the wronged souls of butchered princes fight in thy behalf,” intones the ghost of young Prince Edward (V.iii.121-122). Little Edward and his younger brother Richard, the Duke of York, are still said to haunt the Tower of London, scene of their supposed murder by their uncle Richard III. And then, of course, there’s the ghost of Caesar, who shows up to haunt Brutus in Julius Caesar and whose appearance most likely gave birth to the exclamation, “Great Caesar’s ghost!”

These are just a couple of examples; Shakespeare’s plays are packed full of magic, witches and wizards, mischief-making spirits, ghosts, and “murder most foul.” This All-Hallows' Eve, why not get in touch with Shakespeare’s spooky side? On closer inspection, he might be the perfect representative of the Halloween spirit.

Natalie A.

Also, if you want to forgo a more modern Halloween of Twilight costumes and Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups in favor of something more Shakespearean, here’s a nifty recipe for soul cakes from HistoricalFoods.

“And since I am dead, I can take off my head
To recite Shakespearean quotations!”

-Jack, the Pumpkin King
Tim Burton’s The Nightmare Before Christmas

Adventures in Cacozelia

2010-10-21T14:48:00.000-04:00

My work at the ASC continues, and I have moved on in my research to rhetoric – a term at once so broad and yet so focused that figuring out how to approach it has been a daunting task. This little word comes with a legion of ludicrously technical terms, all Greek or Latin in origin, with names like “synathroesmus” (a conglomeration of many words and expressions either with similar meaning or not) or “prozeugma” (a series of clauses in which the verb employed in the first is implied in the others). Some of these tongue-twisting terms (alliteration!) are familiar to us – words like sarcasm, intimation, and irony – but some seem like alien words sent from another planet (simile!). Plus, there are about a million of them, all, clearly, impossible to memorize (hyperbole!). But, after all, nothing ventured, nothing gained (apothegm!); I knew that I’d have to start somewhere. This was a tiny word of epic proportions (oxymoron!).

Still, rather than slog my way through this swamp of advanced concepts (metaphor!), I decided that I preferred the more loose definition of rhetoric simply as the effective and elegant use of language. While Shakespeare’s writing is indeed full of anthimerias (the substitution of one part of speech for another) and onomatopoeias (the use of words to imitate natural sounds), it is his skill in crafting masterful phrases with the English language which sticks most with modern audiences (emphasis!). That is to say (exepegisis!), many of the rhetorical devices which he employs are intuitive. An audience member does not need to be aware of the word “malapropism” to understand that Dogberry, the bumbling constable in Much Ado about Nothing, is a master of them. They simply see the humor in his confusion of “salvation” and “damnation” (III.iii.2), or laugh when he takes it as a compliment to be called “tedious” by the venerable Leonato, and to proclaim, “But truly, for mine own part, if I were as tedious as a king, I could find in my heart to bestow it all of your worship” (III.v.16-17).

By the same token, a person certainly needn’t be familiar with “asteismus” to enjoy Beatrice and Benedick’s competition utilizing this concept in the following exchange, each twisting the other’s words and throwing them back at them (Much Ado about Nothing, I..i..126-137):

BEATRICE I had rather hear my dog bark at a crow than a man swear he loves me.

BENEDICK God keep your ladyship still in that mind, so some gentleman or other shall scape a predestinate scratched face.

BEATRICE Scratching could not make it worse, and ‘twere such a face as yours were.

BENEDICK Well, you are a rare parrot-teacher.

BEATRICE A bird of my tongue is better than a beast of yours.

BENEDICK I would my horse had the speed of your tongue, and so good a continuer.

Without knowing precisely what name to give the rhetorical content, one may still marvel (thaumasmus!) at Shakespeare’s wit in constructing such passages. In my opinion, it is possible to loathe the very idea of English grammar and its study (apodioxis!) and still to get great enjoyment from the way in which Shakespeare plays with words. Thus, while exploring the more intricate points of rhetoric may be fun and interesting, as I’ve discovered, there’s no need to worry about confusing one’s brachylogia and bdelygmia, or prodiorthosis and prosapodosis, to truly love Shakespeare.

Natalie A.

PS. If anyone wishes to become an expert on Classical or Renaissance rhetoric (or just memorize one or two especially crazy terms to impress people with at parties – parenthesis!), I recommend this extensive dictionary of rhetorical terms, the Silva Rhetoricae: http://rhetoric.byu.edu/.

Thoughts of a new intern...

2010-10-05T11:28:00.001-04:00

Greetings! My name is Natalie Anderson, and I am the newest intern in the Education Department here at the American Shakespeare Center. Let’s see…I am a native of Brownsburg, VA (a teeny tiny village about half an hour south of Staunton), and I graduated from Guilford College in Greensboro, NC in May 2009, where I majored in History and minored in Medieval and Early Modern Studies, as well as Anthropology and German Language. I have been obsessed with medieval history and culture since I was in seventh grade (read: geek), and studying the Renaissance has certainly long held allure for me as well. Since graduating, my travels have taken me to some interesting places. I worked as an archaeologist for almost a year at Montpelier, the home of James Madison, and I spent this past summer studying Medieval Latin at the University of Toronto. But, that whole time, I was constantly searching all over the US for some sort of internship where I could indulge my love of all things medieval and Renaissance. Unfortunately, these proved highly elusive. I’d almost given up when it suddenly occurred to me: there is the perfect resource practically in my own backyard. So, here I am, back in the beautiful Shenandoah Valley researching Renaissance theatre – life is pretty good right now.

My internship here in Staunton involves working on a project entitled “Rehearsal Tools of the ASC.” This basically means that I have a list of terms – rhetoric, stage directions, costumes, props, fight choreography, etc. – which I spend my time investigating. My job is to find out as much as I can about what these terms meant in the realm of early modern theatre, and how acting companies of the time dealt with each item. What were their rehearsal schedules like? What did their costumes look like? How did they choreograph fights and dances? The second part of this project entails comparing the original practices to how things are done at the ASC and in Blackfriars today. So far, it’s been a blast. Each simple word, I’m discovering, is like the tiniest of windows which opens up into this immense, fascinating world of the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. Sometimes, of course, the torrent of information opening such a window can unleash is overwhelming. Yet sorting everything out, while challenging, is also exciting. I’ve started with dance and fight choreography, and I often find myself lost in fencing manuals or reading about the types and style of dance popular in the Elizabethan court. I recently spent a day at Mary Baldwin’s Grafton Library, tracking down primary sources and taking advantage of their incredible selection of Shakespeare-related works. Honestly, while it isn’t everybody’s cup of tea, I truly enjoy historical research – losing myself in a different time, bringing words back to life across centuries, the thrill of the hunt – and I’m looking forward to everything that is to come.

In addition, last Thursday I spoke with Colleen Kelly, the ASC’s Director of Training, who provided me with some fascinating insights into Shakespearean theatre and the plethora of ways in which production companies interpret these complex conditions for modern audiences. This made me think: the acts of dancing and fighting, particularly, are signposts of their times. Thus, the way in actors present these elements in the theatre help to set the tone of a play in a major way. After all, a duel with rapier and dagger present a very different image from, say, a shootout or a street-fight with switchblades. Yet Shakespeare’s plays leave themselves open for any of these interpretations. These are the sort of things one gets to mull over as an intern at the ASC. Already I’ve have numerous “Aha!” moments – those electrifying times when, all of a sudden, my brain connects two dots it has never thought to connect before, and I learn something totally new.

The final goal is for my research to appear on the ASC website, in order that it might help students, educators, or simply anybody who is interested in the various topics. Hopefully the end result will be well-made and useful, but, for me, the most fun will be in the creation.

Natalie A.

PEG Lecture 9/17/10

2010-09-23T13:41:00.000-04:00

Today’s class, held in the Masonic building rather than the Blackfriars Playhouse, got the students up on their feet, which I think they enjoyed once they got over their nervousness. Dr. Ralph talked a bit about Taming of the Shrew to start off. Fortunately, all of the kids had seen our production. I didn’t realize that Taming has remained one of Shakespeare’s most popular plays and is today one of his biggest moneymakers. In the current production, Kate and Petruchio are very much in love, and he’s teaching her that, if she makes believe that things are a certain way (eg. the sun is the moon), she can win and have fun with it. The more interesting productions show the two of them in love, says Ralph.
The students broke into groups of two, each group having a few lines from Kate’s final monologue. Then one partner would perform it as a powerless woman and the other would perform it as powerful. I found the powerful portrayals generally more interesting. Many of the powerless ones were quiet and had no sarcasm. Kate would often look over at Petruchio (played by the silent Maxim) to check in with him, make sure he approved of what she said. Ralph said to pretend that if she got it wrong, he would beat the hell out of her afterwards. That definitely helped them seem powerless! Less hyperbolically, she looked to him for protection.
The powerful ones relied a lot on inflection and focus. One of her biggest sources of power was interaction not just with Bianca and the widow, but with women in the audience. She could use her blocking for power: sometimes she would stay still, sometimes she would draw near the audience, and sometimes she would stand behind her husband and look down at him when she was being sarcastic. And when she was out of his sight, he had no power. By the end, her power reached the level of pulling his hair while talking about being weaker and then putting her hand under his foot to push his chair over. I think everyone preferred a non-sexist interpretation of the text.
We ran out of time before we could do a similar exercise with a scene from Othello, the one where Emilia and Desdemona discuss the double standard for fidelity. I hope the other groups get to perform those scenes next week. It should be fascinating.

PEG Lecture 9/10/10

2010-09-23T13:39:00.000-04:00

Today Dr. Ralph and his three assistants examined power in four scenes from II Henry IV. He also told them a little about the play, it’s plot, and Sir John Falstaff. Shakespeare originally called him Oldcastle, but the Oldcastle family demanded that he change it to Falstaff. Censoring art is a great example of power. Here are the four scenes:

Falstaff before the Chief Justice: Gower enters with a message for the justice, and Falstaff keeps trying to involve himself, asking questions. The justice ignores him completely. Ralph pointed out it’s much like high school, when the unpopular kid asks the popular group what’s up and the popular group drifts away without responding. I remember some experiences like that in high school, but it more reminded me of how people in power don’t have to respond to phone calls or letters. Ever tried to talk to a celebrity, or the head of a large company, or a prospective employer? They have the power, and they don’t have to reply when you contact them. Falstaff does keep some measure of power by repeatedly inviting Gower to dinner when the justice is trying to leave, annoying them and making it clear he knows how the justice is taking his power.

Falstaff in conscription mode: Ralph showed how relevant the scene was by telling us about when he was a young man and could have been drafted for Vietnam. I wouldn’t know about drafts—being blind has its perks! Of the six soldiers Falstaff can draft four of, two of them have their own power: money. They bribe Falstaff through Bardolph to pick poor soldiers less fit for the job than them. One tries to gain power through sympathy, but it’s the two pound bribe that carries the weight. There’s never truly an even playing field, explained Ralph.

Falstaff vs. Colaville of the Dale: Ralph had always envisioned this as a comic scene featuring a fight in which the cowardly Falstaff gains the upper hand over the bold rebel. His brilliant assistant, Brent, convinced him that it should be a serious scene. Colaville yields to Falstaff because he has heard so much of Falstaff’s (completely undeserved) valorous reputation. Although they both have swords, a base level of military power, the man with the power of reputation wins over the one with more military power. When Prince John enters, Falstaff tries to increase his power by making a big deal of his prisoner. John has no respect for him and uses his higher power to nullify Falstaff’s, sentencing Colaville to execution. Falstaff does pull out the power of the poet, saying that if John does not acknowledge he captured a noted rebel then he will have a ballad written in which he exceeds John. That was my favorite part. I have made use of that writer’s power before, mainly when I wrote an Aristophanic comedy about my college! Most people find subtle ballads and songs preferable.

We only looked briefly at the banishment of Falstaff. Now Hal is in absolute power and strips Falstaff of his. Powers higher still, however, Hal’s obligation to the kingdom and the law, force him to do so. Ralph notes that after Hal leaves, Falstaff acknowledges a debt for the first time in his life.

The day ended with Sarah assigning groups of students scenes to study from Love’s Labours Lost. I wonder if they’ll be performing those at the end? That play has some hilarious power scenes. Now I’m remembering the great production I saw this summer in the first session of YCTC.

PEG Class 9/3/2010

2010-09-08T11:41:00.001-04:00

After Sarah’s introduction to the history and importance of Blackfriars, she introduced Dr. Ralph as the main lecturer. This year the PEG class studies power in Shakespeare. Ralph talked first about money as power, discussing how Blackfriars cost more than the Globe and how the people in gallant stools and lords chairs had more power, even pushing a nearby actor out of the way if he obscured their view. He then got Sarah, Jeff, and Maxim to perform several scenes, while he explored the power dynamics in each.

Othello tells Desdemona to go to bed. First they performed it out of context, and it looked like they wanted to sleep together—the power of the conjugal debt. Also, Othello has power because he’s the husband giving the wife an order in public. Then they performed two versions of it in the context of Othello having recently struck her and being full of menace. Now power came from fear. After each time, Ralph asked the students what the power was to get them thinking, as opposed to just telling them, a good choice.
Brabantio begs the duke to punish the man who stole his daughter. As a friend of the duke, Brabantio has some power. The duke has the most, and even though he shares it with senators he promises to soak the man with everything in the book. Brabantio fingers Othello, and the senators and then the duke “basically say, ‘bye-bye,’” as Ralph puts it, showing their power over Brabantio. The reason: Othello has the most power because they need him to save the city from the Turks. Despite what he says, Dr. Ralph’s not a bad actor.
The scene from II Henry IV with Falstaff’s mistress, Nell Quickly, and the beadle. On the surface, the beadle has the power because he represents the law. By the end, however, the whore leads him offstage. She feels power because of her pregnancy and because she knows Falstaff, a big buddy of the new-crowned king. She also uses the power of language, very important to Shakespeare, as she insults the beadle. To show the power of insults, everyone got to insult Jeff as a nuthook and a pasty-face. The students sure enjoyed that.

Then, unfortunately, we ran out of time, demonstrating the Power of the Clock. It seemed to me that after each scene they had a good idea of the power dynamics. I wonder what they’ll do next week?

David

Final Reflection

2010-08-20T14:56:00.003-04:00

So, it's my last day here at the ASC, which of course makes me think about the things I've learned during this experience. Obviously there are the tangible things--a long list of primary documents, folders and copies and handouts I've made that will soon be used or recycled, the general fluff left behind from anyone who works in an office.

And, there's the things that I've learned--for one, I have a whole host of new information, facts, and skills at my call. I spent a large amount of my energy last semester designing and thinking about my senior thesis project this spring, and now I have even more ideas and information to tangle with.

But more than that, this experience has allowed me to experience Shakespeare in a way I never have before. As a college, and a few years ago high school, student I primarily experienced Shakespeare as just that--a student. I was handed a text, told to read a certain amount by a certain day, and then come into class to talk about it. I had a teacher standing at the front of the room suggesting ideas and themes to think about. Now, there was nothing wrong with this experience. Nothing at all. My Shakespeare professor at St. Lawrence was wonderful, and my high and middle school teachers some of the best. But I was still a student. Shakespeare was still a task for me, a question to answer, an act to read, a paper to write, a guilt during friday morning class because I was sleepy, hungover, and thinking about the delicious breakfast I could wolf down in just twenty minutes....fifteen minutes....ten minutes.

Aside from being a student, I've interacted with Shakespeare before as an actor. Lucentio tenth grade. Peter Quince twelfth. Viola sophomore year. And these experiences were some of the most rewarding. Discovering a text as a character, peeling through the layers of history to find something whole and human and lovely inside of it, something that could then be brought alive. Of course, being young and knowing less than I do now, I don't think I ever exactly realized what I was doing onstage. Yes, I said the lines because they were in my script. I moved around because my director told me to. But I slipped into the perpetual deep trench of the unknowing actor, in which I pronounced my lines with the the general tone and air of what they meant, but without understanding the language itself. Watch any high school theater production, you will understand this phenomenon. It's almost a dumbshow in this respect, in that they could be saying anything at all with no changes in their performance. The acting is guided by tone and movement rather than language. It's a mark of a professional show and actor that their performance of Shakespeare is guided by the words and the text.

As such, for the first time really ever this summer I was allowed to interact with Shakespeare as I wanted. Sure, I was being told to find articles and primary source documents, but I found joy their pursuit. I clicked on links because I wanted to and pored over documents because I was genuinely interested in what I could learn from them. I hunted through articles and blogs, chatrooms and videos, all for the sake of learning. For the first time, I was able to interact with Shakespeare on my own terms. I didn't have a teacher giving me a text and a deadline, or a director shouting blocking cues. I went through the texts myself, and let them speak to me as they would. I got to learn Shakespeare, on my own and in my own way.

Think about the first time you ever read Shakespeare. Ever looked at or spoke the words, the first time you've interacted with the text. Mine was 8th grade, Mr. Davolio's classroom (see? I can even remember details) reading A Midsummer's Nights Dream. I remember where I was sitting, what the room felt like, the color and the weight of the book in my hands. And I remember thinking "Oh. This is pretty cool". My point is whatever professor or actor you talk to, whatever blogs you follow, whatever nerdy friends you have that you talk about Shakespeare with--they all remember that moment. They can all recall when they first interacted with a given text. Taming of the Shrew tenth grade. Hamlet twelfth. Much Ado sophomore year of college. Titus junior year. These plays are not historical documents, they are living pieces of work. They have history of their own, but they also create a history, a close, personalized, unique history, in the hands of their viewer, their reader, their player and their student. That's the real beauty of Shakespeare, of any play or piece of text--they reflect universal truths and genuine human emotions, but they're also all your own. It is for everyone, and also for you. I'm so grateful to the ASC that I was able to have this experience and learn everything I did. It opened my eyes to a whole new world of thinking about Shakespeare, and I'm sure I'll be back for more.

Carla Ricci

Near the End...

2010-08-19T13:21:00.006-04:00

Today is my second to last day in Staunton, meaning yes, in two short days I will be driving back to cold cruel Massachusetts, with no promises of Shakespearean matinees or historical research to cheer me up. However, in the spirit of making everything of the time I have left down here, this morning we went down to the playhouse to see the dress rehearsal of As You Like It, and my heavens what a show. It's a wonderful play to start, with enough cross-dressing, plot twists, lovers, tyrants, and fools to go around. But in particular, this cast really made it sing (quite literally. there's a lot of singing). Each character was given nuance (as much nuance as you can have for a Shakespeare comedy) and dimension, coming alive with subtle jokes and jabs purely for the entertainment of the audience. Being able to compare this rehearsal to the Ren Run just a few weeks ago was especially interesting. Certain characters went through drastic changes--Jaques for instance, who initially was melancholy almost to the point of parody. The Ren Run was certainly more over the top, and it was clear that the actors were really toying with their characters and seeing how far they could push them before it became downright ridiculous. The rehearsal today was a little more subdued--it felt less frantic, for one, but also more polished and sophisticated. The actors seemed more comfortable in their roles, and the choices they made contributed to the harmony of the play and the audience overall. It was a lovely performance, one in which the actors really invited us as audience members to share in the characters' experiences onstage. On a separate note, it's great to see these guys performing their touring shows--they come to my school on tour every fall, and it was during one of these performances that I was introduced to the ASC and everything it has to offer.

As far as back in the office, it's really astounding the number of sources that Elena and I have managed to put together in our joint time here. So often we hear scholars lamenting on how little we know about Shakespeare's life--and yet all it takes is a little bit of digging to really discover a wealth of information. Not just Shakespeare, but his plays and sonnets, his contemporaries, his players, his time and his (probable) lifestyle. It's wonderful to look through, wonderful to read the theories, contend with the skeptics, and attempt to recover for myself an idea of who this man was in his own time before he became the revered Shakespeare that we hear so much about today.

In addition to my dutiful scholarly research, I've also discovered a number of popular Shakespeare sources online. Bardfilm, a blog I recently discovered is worth a look for any fan of Shakespeare or film. He reviews (obviously) film adaptations of Shakespeare from around the world, but also takes an interesting look at festival performances and includes obscure Shakespeare references in popular films (Beauty and the Beast, who would have known?) In addition, Shakespeare Geek (the name says it all) is simply a wonderful resource for anyone who likes thinking or talking about Shakespeare. So, anyone who is cool. He brings up good discussion topics concerning Shakespeare and the modern world, and the way he and his plays are perceived, thought about, talked about, and performed today. After spending a ponderous few hours (oops) clicking through his posts, I also chanced upon this little gem at a softer world, an online comic.

Love it.

Carla Ricci

A Lovely Day in Staunton Rids One of Friggatriskaidekaphobia

2010-08-13T15:36:00.011-04:00

*Friggatriskaidekaphobia: fear of Friday the 13th. Cool word, yes?

Hello, I’m Natalie. I’m a junior English and Writing & Rhetoric major at James Madison University and education and marketing intern at the American Shakespeare Center (ASC). This is my fifth week working in our office, the Masonic building in the heart of Staunton’s historic “red brick” district. My internship grants me access to the most intriguing parts of Staunton and the ASC. I help to record the ASC’s Youth Company Theatre Camp (YCTC), get to know the city by talking to residents and community organizations, explore the arts culture, and hunt for places of interest to young people.

In previous weeks, I've been working with other interns to document YCTC lectures and performance master classes for ASC’s archives. The YCTC campers were passionate, lively, and engaging. They were serious about their work during workshops for fight choreography, clowning, Elizabethan dancing, and fearless as young performance artists. One day in particular stands out, the music performance master class I videotaped in Stuart Hall. The campers were aggressively attentive during a lesson on Elizabethan music rules and jumped headfirst into composing a traditional song. Chris instructed them to choose each note of the melody. After he confirmed whether the song fit within Elizabethan guidelines, they created a contemporary version. Modern adaptations of Elizabethan songs are key to the authenticity of Blackfriars Playhouse. Shakespeare himself had music of his time performed in between acts of his plays, he explained. In less than an hour, the campers had a fully developed song with parts for violin, flute, recorder and drum, a few verses, a chorus, and harmony.

I was surprised by the joyful reactions elicited by each new suggestion. YCTC’s positive environment easily facilitated natural collaboration amongst the campers. Their quick improvisation indicated the presence of talent, confidence, and feelings of belonging within the YCTC atmosphere. I saw no traces of opposition, nor inadequacy if one did not play an instrument or “couldn’t sing well.” The campers delighted in songwriting and performed the result with camaraderie I pleasured to witness.

Another project I’m working on is a short video illuminating Staunton’s hippest facets, an insider’s guide to Staunton for college students in the Shenandoah area and beyond. Staunton’s downtown is the epitome of charm and eccentricity, the perfect place to lose oneself in exploration. I challenge anyone to spend a few minutes on the street without wandering into a kooky antiques store, thrift shop, art gallery, restaurant venue, or café. I happened upon pretty Japanese screens and vintage record players in Worthington’s Hardware, and watched glassblowing at Sunspots Studios. Marvin, the owner of Frontier Antiques, played piano as I perused funky rugs and found a cool edition of Camus’ The Rebel in stacks of old, peculiar books. As I dissect my pile of pamphlets, I learn of more Staunton has to offer; a 1950’s drive-in called Wright’s Dairy Rite, inexpensive movies at the beautifully restored 1930’s Dixie Theatre, and live music outdoors almost every weeknight of the Summer.

Staunton’s arts culture is thriving, intimate, and welcoming. Art here has a powerful pull; an aesthetic person of any degree cannot help but orbit the storefronts on Beverley Street. Besides its visual appeal as a classic Victorian Main Street, Beverley Street’s windows exhibited a wide range of art—everything from traditional painting to sculpture and experimental photography. The most recent installations were in place as the “Filling the Half-Empty Glass storefront art initiative” by the Staunton Downtown Development Association (SDDA) and volunteers. My favorite was “Shakespeare’s Othello,” a sculpture by Trenley Anderson in an empty space across the street. Even Beverley Street windows that are not galleries or part of the initiative invite passers by to Staunton’s art scene. Large, red paper lips in one window urge blingo players to support the Staunton Augusta Art center, a colorful array of fake heads accost those who pass Staunton’s School of Cosmetology, a photo shop down the street showcases a local photographer’s work exploring grief, and Camera II’s window encourages everyone to blow up personal photos, “Decorate your home with your own art.

Today I will finish storyboarding the video and check out some of the performances, restaurants, cafés, galleries, and stores on my list of prospective youth magnets. It’s not too hot—perfect for meandering and hopefully chancing upon more to share.

The Ultimate Hump Day

2010-08-12T12:16:00.004-04:00

Hey all! My name is Carla Ricci, and I'm an education intern here at the American Shakespeare Center. Although I hail from Wakefield, MA, I spend most of my time at St. Lawrence University in Canton, NY, where I'll be a senior this year. Yesterday was Wednesday, so besides being an ordinary hump day, it also marked the middle of my three weeks down here in Staunton.

Even though its only been a week and a half, I've still learned so much down here. My main project, which I started with Elena and have been working on continuously is finding primary source documents about Shakespeare, his lifestyle and time, his companies, and his theaters. Now, the word research alone is enough to make most people squirm, and combined with the phrase “old english documents”, it can be downright terrifying. However, after just a few hours of research, I found myself being fascinated with the things I was finding. Original text documents, written about Shakespeare or with his signature, as well as reviews of his plays from the period, and accounts from theater-goers and visitors in the time. I even discovered the original text of the play Arcadia, which my school is putting on this fall. Every day in front of the computer, I discover a new piece of information that makes me think about Shakespeare in a whole new way.

In addition to learning about Shakespeare, I've had the wonderful opportunity this week to teach a little bit about Shakespeare. Yesterday and Monday I had the chance to drive down to Natural Bridge Hotel with Christina to present to the Road Scholars. Road Scholar is a program for older adults in which they set up educational vacations around the country. This particular group was down in Natural Bridge all week, taking a variety of classes on everything from Buddhism to Natural Bridge geology to original Shakespearean staging conditions. The workshop was a blast--and even though we did it three different times, each one was different and unique. What we really covered in the class was the way that Shakespeare's language influenced his performance. For example, we did an iambic pentameter exercise in which folks in the audience were each given a syllable of a line of text. They stood or sat depending if their syllable was stressed or unstressed in the line. This way, we got a clear visualization of a line of iambic pentameter, and also realized the inner meaning of the line based on the stressed words. We also got to play around with Shakespearean staging--explaining and demonstrating the benefits of having a thrust stage, universal lighting, and audience interaction. What I loved most of these workshops was that I could really tell these people were interested, and that we were surprising them with information they never knew before. In particular, during questions at the end, a mini-discussion started debating the merits of film versions of Shakespeare with lots of special effects versus the more traditional text-based performances. The Road Scholars were a fantastic audience, and it was great to have the experience of being able to show them all something new.

Carla Ricci

Magic is an As You Like It Ren Run

2010-08-06T14:20:00.001-04:00

Today is my last day at ASC, and I would like to begin this post by saying what a privilege it has been to work here over the last several weeks. I have learned far more from my experiences here than I ever would have expected, and I consider myself lucky to have had this opportunity. Moving on, it’s time for some Shakespeare.

Yesterday at ASC, I went to see the Renaissance Run of the 2010/2011 Restless Ecstasy touring troupe’s production of As You Like It. The Renaissance Run, or Ren Run as it is generally referred to, is essentially the first rehearsal for a play at ASC. First, the actors come together and, having already memorized their lines, create a playable version of the show without the oversight of the director, in less than ten hours. The actors then perform their version for the director and a small audience, and this performance constitutes the Ren Run. The Ren Run has an exciting quality to it in that it is not perfectly polished theatre; the actors can, and do, call for lines with a request of “prithee,” and it seems that anything can happen. In my case, an actor gave me a line to contribute, but realized once I had spoken that it was the wrong line and quickly corrected it.

I was particularly excited to be seeing As You Like It, because the theatre department at my college produced the show this past spring, and I was eager to have a point of comparison. The ability with which the actors handled the text struck me the most; even if using an accent, every actor spoke with a confidence that indicated how well they understood their lines. By contrast, the actors in my school’s production did not always grasp the meaning of what they said, even if they said it perfectly. Since the director chose to place the Forest of Arden in a slum outside of Mexico City, some of their lines were in Spanish, which may have contributed to their confusion. The dialogue seemed so rich when performed by the trained actors at ASC.

Other aspects that intrigued me included the music and the choreography. Given the short period of time in which the actors rehearsed the play, these two elements greatly impressed me. The wrestling match between Orlando and Charles in the first few scenes of the play came off well considering that the actors had only the one rehearsal to stage it, on top of staging the rest of the play. Though the fight lacked a gripping quality at the time, it looked like a great starting point, and I’m sure that with more rehearsal and a little direction, it will have the audience on the edge of their seats.

More than the choreography, I found the music very enthralling. The amount and quality of the songs bespoke of the talent of the actors. In addition to blocking and working the entire play during their one rehearsal, the actors also compiled the music. For someone who is not musically talented, this feat seems unmanageable, but the actors pulled it off as if they had rehearsed their songs for weeks. If there were any slip-ups, I never noticed. This combined with the actors’ comfort with their blocking and the verse made for a delightful experience.

Even though the actors didn’t get every line, I found the Ren Run to be a truly enjoyable piece of theatre. The actors never allowed a dull moment; they kept the audience engaged and entertained throughout. Bearing in mind what I saw at the Ren Run, it strikes me that great theatre does not require any airs and graces, but can be created with the simplest methods. As long as the actors clearly have a good time performing, the audience will have a great time watching them. I would have paid to see yesterday’s performance; I had that great a time. How fortunate, then, that ASC offers an entire season based on the same idea as the Ren Run, where actors own the process and produce plays in a similarly short period of time. I will definitely be coming back for more.

Elizabeth Reams

A Look into the World of Costumes

2010-07-30T15:40:00.002-04:00

Today at the American Shakespeare Center, I had the opportunity to sit down with Jenny McNee, one of the resident costume designers, to discuss the realm of her expertise. Well, I sat, and Jenny worked. While she sewed, Jenny gave me some great insight into how costume design has evolved at ASC. According to Jenny, the process changes from season to season. Costuming generally begins with a discussion with the director, to determine the time period, if there is one, and the world of the play. In the past, Jenny would have begun by sketching different ideas for costumes. Now, however, Jenny begins the process by thinking about necessity: what is needed for the show and how much time there is to put it together. The designers pull many costumes from stock; that is to say, they take them from costumes that ASC already has from previous shows. Often, costumes from different past shows will work together for the present show, in a way that might not have been expected (for instance, they may have similar colors or textures).

When creating the various costumes needed for a show, Jenny considers several important factors. Time plays a major role in this part of the process, because Jenny and the other designers sometimes have only a week to compile all of the costumes for a show. For this reason, costumes are recycled over many seasons, though the designers do sometimes make entirely new costumes – for example, all of the coats being used in the current production of Othello are hand-made, an amazing feat to accomplish in such a short time span. Costumers in my school’s Theatre Department generally have between two and three weeks to realize their designs, so to me one week seems unrealistic, but Jenny and fellow designers make great costumes nevertheless. Other factors that might affect the costume choices include: whether an actor needs to change costumes quickly backstage; whether a costume is an “overdress” or an “underdress”; whether a certain type of fabric needs to be used; whether a costume needs a zipper, boning, or lacing; and whether the costume needs seams in a particular place. Truly, the costume designers have a lot to keep in mind.

Another concern for the costume designers is the period of the show. Not all shows at ASC are staged in the early modern period, so the costume designers must discuss with the director the desired period for a show, and then go on from there. With specific periods, the designers can research the typical dress of that time and use that research to shape their ideas. The easiest period to work with is of course the Elizabethan, because Jenny and the other designers have so many resources to pull from. In some cases, though, the director does not have a set period in mind, and in these instances sketching is the most useful tool. Jenny refers to these shows as “mash-ups,” where textile and color connect the costumes, and they evoke a mood or a place, rather than a certain period of time.

The final stages of the process consist first of going through the pulled costumes with the director to decide which work, and which do not. At times, the designers almost turn to “mind-reading,” as Jenny puts it, to discover exactly what the direct wants, so that they can then fix or create anything the director finds to be missing from the costumes. The designers take an inventory of what each actor needs for his or her character, so that they’re sure to have all the necessary items. At this time, the designers take note of what items need to be bought in order to complete their inventory. In the last week of rehearsals, the designers can see the costumes on the actors, and can decide what works and what needs to be added or changed. The costume designers, according to Jenny, continue to design the little pieces, primarily accessories, up to a show’s preview, and often add items based on what they see at the dress rehearsal. The process feels long and arduous, even if it only lasts just over a week, but based on what appears onstage, it’s one that is extremely worthwhile. I admire Jenny and the other designers for their hard work, which, as I saw this morning, is no exaggeration. My own experience with costuming is limited, but I know enough to understand that creating costumes for an ensemble of actors in one week is a great accomplishment. With this in mind, Jenny and the other designers’ work is even more impressive to me.

Elizabeth Reams

The More You Read...

2010-07-29T15:15:00.006-04:00

It is hard to believe that my second week interning here at the American Shakespeare Center is almost over. The time seems to just be flying by. Last weekend I was able to go to the Blackfriars theatre and see both The Taming of the Shrew and Othello. Both of the shows were wonderful. It is one thing to learn about Shakespeare's original practices in a classroom but you don't really understand them until you are given the chance to experience them first hand. Shakespeare was also meant to be seen and heard. I can read Othello a million times but it wont make me cry like I did seeing it performed. I am very excited to take the things I'm experiencing to my theatre back home.

My week in the office has been spent doing study guide research for As You Like It and bibliographies. I have been gathering and compiling sources for both the tour of the Blackfriars and some of the program information. At first I though the job would be just like being back in school but the source materials I have been exposed to have opened the world of Shakespeare to me even further. In my final semester of school I will have to write a thesis on Shakespeare and I was struggling with topic ideas. I now have a ton of ideas for my topic. It's going to be hard to pick just one.

I am also excited for the opportunity to read a number of dramaturgy thesis projects. Having designed my own dramaturgy major I know these text will be invaluable in helping me better understand of what dramaturgy is and what my personal style and approach to it should be.
Elena Henriksen

New Experiences

2010-07-22T12:00:00.003-04:00

Hello there! My name is Elena Henriksen and I am the newest education intern here at the American Shakespeare Center. I am from and attend college in Iowa. Currenly I am one year away from graduating with a double major in Psycholgoy and Dramaturgy and a double minor in Shakespearian Studies and Humanities.

My first week here at the ASC is quickly coming to an end. Most of the week has been spent on a number of small projects in the office. There were however two highlights this week. I was first given the opportunity to watch co-founder Ralph Cohen teach a lesson on iambic pentameter at YCTC. His enthusiasm for shakespeare was contagious and something you rarely encounter. As i watched the group of teens absorbing his every word, I found myself remembering the first time my college professors had done that for me. It is a wonderful thing that the ASC is providing this opportunity for younger ages. I would have loved the opportunity to see Shakespeare this way before college.

The second highligh of the week was attending the first run of Macbeth. In this first run the actors come together to perform the show with very little rehearsal before hand. I was blown away . The actors were memorized and able to communicate and negotiate with one another not by words but by simply acting together on stage. Seeing a show like this really makes it clear that all the rehearsal time given to shows now is not necessary. I am now extremely excited to see the fianl product and get my next week at the ASC underway.

Elena Henriksen

Bringing Shakespeare to a New Audience

2010-07-16T11:42:00.002-04:00

This week, in my quest to learn all that there is to know about the American Shakespeare Center, I assisted Sarah Enloe, Director of Education at ASC, in a workshop at Clymore Elementary School, teaching basic stage combat to a group of around forty children up to ten years old. The point of this workshop was to educate and excite the children about Shakespeare, showing them that there’s more to his plays than just his recognized verse: there’s action, intrigue, and even death! Though perhaps the kids were mostly excited about the presence of a broadsword, even if they were only allowed to hold it briefly under Sarah’s careful supervision; stage swords aren’t sharp, but they can still hurt.

However, the structure of the workshop ensured that the students got a chance to both practice their newly acquired combat skills, using imaginary swords, and learn a bit about Shakespeare, through the scene in Macbeth when Macbeth fights and kills Young Siward. With Sarah’s guidance, the children explored how the text of the play can give information about the characters, even foretelling what will happen to them later in the story. In the example from Macbeth, Sarah explained how he reveals in the passage that he cannot be killed by just any man, saying, “What’s he/That was not born of a woman? Such a one/Am I to fear, or none” (Act 5.7). His statement foreshadows his own death, since he is killed in the end of the play by Macduff, who was technically not born of a woman because he was born by C-section. With all of this information in mind, the children were able to act out Macbeth and Siward’s fight, combining their new combative techniques with the story of the scene.

As with my experience last week, this week’s adventure provided me with a wonderful opportunity to see younger peoples become enlivened by Shakespeare. Sword or not, the children delighted in their chance to practice an important aspect of the Shakespearean stage, hopefully going forth with the desire to delve even further into the world of Shakespeare. I like to think that a passion was kindled in those young minds, and that in the years to come they will find even more to enjoy in Shakespeare’s work than they did in that hour of swordplay. If there is one thing that I learned from my time with the children, it’s that Shakespeare can hold just as much interest for an eight-year-old as for an eighty-year-old, further proof that his plays can reach out to any age.

Elizabeth Reams

Introduction and Interest in Shakespeare Among Young Actors

2010-07-07T14:43:00.005-04:00

This blog is meant to chronicle the experiences of the American Shakespeare Center's Department of Education interns. As an intern for ASC's Department of Education, it will be my task to explore the different facets of ASC, and to learn how everything here comes together. My name is Elizabeth Reams, and over the next several weeks I will be doing just that, starting with the events of my very first day at ASC.

Yesterday I had the pleasure of observing rehearsals for both ASC’s production of John O’Keefe’s Wild Oats and the Young Company Theatre Camp’s production of Shakespeare’s Love’s Labour’s Lost. Although the two acting companies differed in their level of experience, it struck me that there was no difference in the level of engagement in the text. YCTC actors performed with as much enthusiasm as ASC’s resident company, and if any of the students were not quite as comfortable with the text as the more experienced actors, I never noticed. Both the professional and the student actors brought to their performances a high level of energy, drawing me as an audience member into their world and making me as excited about the play as they were.

I was particularly pleased to see the YCTC actors so involved in Shakespearean performance. To see such young actors be so eager about performing Shakespeare proved to me that Shakespeare’s plays are both accessible and enjoyable for audiences and actors of many different age groups. It is a testament to the enduring quality of his plays that there are groups of young actors still keen to perform them. From what I observed of the YCTC actors’ performances, I am sure that with further study they will grasp the text with as much ease as their professional counterparts. Their level of passion, however, is hardly wanting, and it was a treat to see them perform.

Elizabeth Reams