BLACKFRIARS CONFERENCE 2013 — KEYNOTE RUSS MCDONALD

Cross-posted from the American Shakespeare Center's blog

Hello, I’m Charlene V. Smith and I’ll be live blogging Russ McDonald’s keynote: Shakespeare and the History of the Bookish.

McDonald opens by admitting a kind of fatigue evident in his title, using the work “bookish,” and confesses that today he is taking on the role of “Mr. Fussy” and complaining about both bibliography and performance, at the risk of offending everyone in this room.

1. Doubting the Text

Recent books and articles have over-filled the hole found in Shakespeare studies twenty years ago: the book trade and the culture of early modern print. In this section of his paper, McDonald questions the supremacy this topic currently has in Shakespeare studies. McDonald wishes to cast a skeptical eye on some of this scholarship and some of its “dubious orthodoxy.” Though scholars have paid much attention to the book, they have paid little attention to the text. McDonald confesses to being irritated for two decades by the well-known and frequently cited essay, The Materiality of the Shakespearean Text by de Grazia and Stallybrass. The arguments in this essay have achieved and maintain importance in our field, shattering textual certainties. In their essay, de Grazia and Stallybrass argue that “word,” “work,” “character,” and “author” are vexed terms. McDonald points out that these words are changeable and complex, but not incomprehensible. He warns that we must not allow the history of the book to erase the text itself.

2. Cutting the Text

McDonald next objects to the despotism of modern directors; in particular, the way they cut the text. Recent productions of  A Midsummer Night’s Dream  have lacked wonder and a sense of transfiguration, partially caused by the excising of some of McDonald’s favorite speeches. Next McDonald points to the lack of Queen Margaret in Mark Rylance’s current production of Richard III, running in New York. In 2012, the BBC announced the production of The Hollow Crown. While initially excited by the idea and the line up of actors and directors, McDonald views the resulting TV movies as acts of vandalism. McDonald feels the cutting was too ideological, such as the lack of references in Richard II to the king’s guilt in in the Duke of Gloucester’s murder. McDonald feels the most damaged play in this series was Henry IV, part 2. This long and leisurely work of 3300 lines was reduced to 1 hour and 52 minutes. A colleague of McDonald’s pointed out, “It’s a pity the BBC didn’t make this series for the people who would watch it, instead making it for those who won’t watch it anyway.”

3. Reading the Text

McDonald asserts the importance of reading the text in order to experience scenes which you wouldn’t see on the stage. Directors frequently cut scenes that do not advance the plot. If they seem to have no function, McDonald points out, they must have a function. Shakespeare had a reason for including these scenes, which often add to the texture of the play. McDonald then discusses 4.3 of Coriolanus, a frequently cut scene between a Roman and a Volsce, two characters we haven’t seen before and won’t see again. McDonald argues that the scene is thematically rich, especially in fire and heat imagery. McDonald also looks at 3.1 of The Winter’s Tale, a scene, again, with two characters we haven’t seen before: Cleomenes and Dion. According to McDonald, this scene sets up the possibility of magic and establishes the oracle of Apollo as something special. The two characters feel diminished, “I was nothing,” in the wake of their experience, an idea that stands in direct contrast to Leontes’ hubris. These lost scenes give depth, layers, and texture to a play.

Coda

McDonald ends by arguing for disciplinary balance: an awareness of what others in the field are doing. He promotes the value of pluralism: page and stage, book and text. McDonald praises George Walton Williams, the honoree of this conference, for always maintaining this balance in his teaching.

BLACKFRIARS CONFERENCE 2013 — COLLOQUY SESSION I: STAGING CHOICES

 Cross-posted from the American Shakespeare Center's blog

Greetings: Charlene V. Smith here, live blogging from the Tyson Center, Colloquy Session I: Staging Choices, which runs from 2:30pm to 3:45pm. Jemma Levy is the chair for this session and the presenters are Matthew Carter, Annette Drew-Bear, Andrew Harvey, Donald Hedrick, Claire Huber, Claire Kimball, and Angelina LaBarre.

This colloquy is about staging choices; Levy points out that the papers are eclectic, dealing with choices from a number of different angles.

Carter’s paper is about the use of weapons as indicators of characters in Romeo and Juliet, specifically looking at outsiderness and ethnicity. His argument is that since modern audience will no longer recognize the ethnicity attached to stage combat and weaponry, we need to identify these differences in other ways, possibly through costume. Levy asks how using costume to indicate ethnicity is different from what already happens through costume design. Carter suggests that costume designers may need to look more into combat and weapon based visual signifiers. Spanish style fighting was cut-centric instead of stab-centric, for example. Another example: Capulet calls for his long sword, implying an older style of fighting, which an early modern audience would have recognized as inappropriate for the fight. The participants discuss what information an audience may or may not recognize through modern or early modern weapons. Carter says he is convinced that a modern audience is more finely tuned to costume design than weaponry technology.

LaBarre’s paper explores the question of stage management in the early modern theatre through her experience as a member of MBC’s MFA in Shakespeare and Performance 2012-2013 company, Roving Shakespeare. She investigates different terms that were present during the early modern era that may have been equivalent to a modern day stage manager and the responsibilities of these positions. For example, medieval prompters would be placed in the center-front of the stage and would prompt not only lines, but also movements with the use of a guiding stick. Later the stage manager domain shifts to backstage due to greater spectacle and increased technology. Levy points out even today a stage manager’s duties can vary greatly from production to production and director to director, musing that the shifts in terms and definitions historically continue for that position to this day. Hedrick asks about how the hierarchy of these positions have shifted over time. LaBarre points out that the high status of the book keeper in the early modern theatre stems partially from the fact that the book keeper had access to the play’s full text.

Drew-Bear wrote on the staging of evil in Lust’s Dominion (possibly written by Thomas Dekker). Drew-Bear refers to the character of the machiavellian Moor (Eleazar) as a playwright, and LaBarre, connecting to her paper, suggests that he might actually be more of a book keeper. Drew-Bear’s paper explores the metatheatricality of Eleazar and his text. Lust’s Dominion has a play-within in which Eleazar sets up the staging and tells the actors what to do in a pseudo-rehearsal. Drew-Bear points out that Eleazar is quite self-conscious in his use of theatrical terms. Levy asks whether there is an implication that Eleazar is performing the role of villain, as opposed to actually being a villain. Drew-Bear thinks it is more accurate that Eleazar is revealing in the role of villain as opposed to suggesting that he is, at heart, someone else.

Kimball’s paper argues that we should re-embrace The Bloody Banquet as a prime example of Jacobean revenge drama and identifies elements in the play that would be appealing to a modern audience. Kimball is fascinated by the fact that this play contains so many theatrical elements and yet modern companies are unfamiliar or uninterested in this play. She loves both the gore and violence, but also the number of staging repetitions that are set up in the play. For example, the play contains a pre-banquet in addition to the titular banquet. Kimball says part of the viability of the play can be found in the title. An audience is expecting to see a bloody banquet, an expectation which is frustrated by the inclusion of a first banquet that isn’t the bloody one. Carter asks how Kimball would recommend situating this play to make it marketable. Kimball suggests linking it with other violent or Jacobean pieces such as Titus Andronicus or The Duchess of Malfi. (As possibly the only person in this room other than Kimball to have read this play, I heartily support her recommendation to stage it!)

Harvey’s paper is on Julius Caesar, arguing that Brutus exemplifies Aristotle’s definition of the Noble Man and is the moral center of the play. With that line of thought, Caesar’s ghost cannot be a manifestation of Brutus’ guilty conscience. Levy asks what journey this leaves the actor playing Brutus and Harvey says he sees the character as static and as one that doesn’t have a journey. As a staging choice, Harvey suggests having Caesar’s ghost come from the trap, indicating to an audience that he is a malevolent spirit.

Hedrick’s paper looks at Henry V’s wooing scene with Katherine as part of a larger work on the arousal of monarchs in history plays. Hendrick questions how arousal might be played. He provides a scale of options: 1. Do nothing physically, using only the language of love. 2. A la Laurence Olivier, saddle up close to your acting partner. 3. Monty Python approach, with a wink wink, nudge nudge to the audience or let the other actors react to or point out the arousal. 4. the Lysistrata method. Hendrick points out that James was against the use of codpieces in costumes. He asks how we point out the possible subversiveness / comic effect of an aroused monarch for a modern audience? LaBarre suggests that both comedy and violence lives in all these choices. Levy asks at what point would an audience member be removed from the play and miss moments as they process a large prosthetic or a naked appendage. Carter points out that the Princess in Henry V is body-centric while learning English, which might suggest something about how she would react to a possible erection.

Male Warriors with Female Bodies

Cross posted from Rogue Shakespeare's blog. Co-written with Kelly Elliott and Cyndi Kimmel.

Besides being men, these characters are also members of a military unit, which additionally affects both physicality and psychology. Not only are there a lot of stereotypes in our culture regarding the ways in which men in the military behave, the military experience is one so far removed from our own, it is rather easy to fall into these stereotypes as a shortcut for understanding. We each had to conduct our own research into what it meant for each of our characters to be a fighter. Our director shared a TED talk with us from filmmaker Deborah Scranton, where she discusses her documentary The War Tapes. While the clips revealed the visuals the soldiers encounter in a war zone, the commentary drove home the complicated controversy soldiers often find themselves navigating. Where does one find morality in war? Is the good soldiers can do overshadowed by the more appealing sensationalism of horrid conditions, such as those practiced at Abu Ghraib? Can any amount of good make up for or balance issues of murder, torture, and sexual assault? Malcolm tests Macduff’s loyalty and morality by claiming that he will be a worse tyrant than Macbeth. Macduff has to decide how far he is willing to go to stop Macbeth. When stopping evil, how much evil is permissible in return?

Continue reading at: http://actorscholar.com/content/male-warriors-female-bodies#sthash.YV70ajDA.dpuf

A Company of Rogues

Cross posted from Rogue Shakespeare's blog. Co-written with Melissa Huggins.

One of the most important decisions we had to make during our May term classes was what to name our MFA company. This single decision was the one that took the longest. How do we sum up who we are and the kind of theatre we are making in a short, easy-to-remember name? This discussion went on for days (even weeks) until finally being decided in an exciting pressure-cooker burst of energy. At a single moment, we all seemed to feel we had talked enough and we were just going to call it and be done: Rogue Shakespeare.

Up until that point, we had been through a whole host of possibilities. Though I think most of us are pretty happy with our final choice, many of us still look back fondly on some of the previous possibilities.

Continue reading at: http://actorscholar.com/content/company-rogues#sthash.7fviu22m.dpuf

Internship at Oregon Shakespeare Festival

Cross-posted from Rogue Shakespeare's Blog:

I have just returned from spending two weeks in beautiful Ashland, Oregon, where I interned in the Oregon Shakespeare Festival’s literary office. I was surrounded by mountains, delicious chocolate, and not a spot of rain. The Oregon Shakespeare Festival is an incredible place to visit and to intern. The company has grown from a temporary summer Shakespeare festival, performing for an audience of 500, to the largest professional regional repertory theatres in the United States. Today OSF performs 11 plays on three stages over a eight-month season. In 2012, their total attendance was nearly 400,000. While I was there, nine shows were running, and a tenth held its first preview. I saw Shakespeare: A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Cymbeline, The Taming of the Shrew, and King Lear. I saw modern classics: My Fair Lady and A Streetcar Named Desire. And I saw new works: The Heart of Robin Hood, The Unfortunates, The Liquid Plain, and The Tenth Muse, these latter three works receiving their world premiers at OSF. 

While I was in Ashland, I visited with Scott Kaiser, Director of Company Development. Scott is the author of two wonderful books, Mastering Shakespeare and Shakespeare’s Wordcraft. I was fortunate to first meet him in 2011 at the Blackfriars Conference in Staunton. Scott was in the artistic staff that had just finished up casting the 2014-2015 season. I asked him how the company handled casting people in multiple roles over three stages, and he said while it used to involve paper, pencils, and a lot of erasing, over the years OSF has internally developed their own computer software that makes the process easier. The dates for all eleven productions are fed into the software, and then they can tell the computer that they’ve cast a certain person in one show and the computer can then tell them the other plays for which that person would be available. It’s still an extremely complicated process, because not only to they have to cast all the roles, but they also have to cast understudies. And with such a long season, these understudies are likely to perform. I saw at least seven understudies in the two weeks I as there, and all performed well. 

During my stay, the literary office, under the direction of Lue Douthit, was already preparing for next year’s season, which starts rehearsals in January. Dramaturgs were preparing scripts for directors to be able to start developing their cuts and visions, and scheduling initial meetings with directors and designers. Using Adobe InDesign, I helped put together what OSF calls a “side-by-side” for The Two Gentlemen of Verona. This script displayed the texts of the 1623 Folio alongside a modern edited edition, and the performance scripts from the last two productions at OSF. 

Having studied the script, and also having worked on this play previously in my career, I was able to sit down with Lue one day to assist in the examination of what she called “play math.” We looked at the structure of Two Gents, asking questions like: Where do the scenes take place? Is there a pattern to interior and exterior or public versus private? What are the patterns? The first half of the play bounces between Verona and Milan. But in the second half, Verona disappears as a location, and instead the action moves between Milan and the forest. Lue told me she has a theory that somewhere between 58-63% of the way through a Shakespeare play is where the major action occurs, and around where the intermission should take place. By counting up the lines we discovered that what happens at this point in Two Gents is the banishment of Valentine from Milan. The pattern of the play is clear: Valentine and Proteus are separated. Proteus follows. Proteus is thus separated from Julia. Julia follows. Valentine and Proteus are reunited, only to be separated again by Valentine’s banishment. That also separates Valentine and Silvia. Silvia follows. Proteus follows. Julia follows. Everyone is reunited in the forest. 

Structurally, the play sets up Proteus and Valentine as the primary relationship. They are the first two characters we meet, and the first thing that happens is we see them physically separated. Once they are physically reunited, they are then emotionally separated due to Proteus’ betrayal. Therefore theirs is there final reconciliation towards which the play is leading. The previous two productions at OSF had fascinatingly changed the order of events in the final scene so that the final moments the audience sees, and the final reconciliation, is that between Proteus and Julia. All choices are legitimate, but this one clearly changes the structural DNA of the play, for good or bad. Perhaps these directors were attempting to make the end more palatable or more romantic, and as a result the final line of these productions went to Julia. Again, a fascinating shift, considering the play as it stands makes silent women of both Silvia and Julia in its final scene. 

The result of working on these projects is that I now have some new tools for analyzing Shakespeare's texts. I look forward to applying these ideas and questions to the five plays Rogue Shakespeare is producing this year. Thanks for having me OSF, I had a wonderful time!

See more at: http://actorscholar.com/content/internship-oregon-shakespeare-festival#sthash.knEe8i1y.dpuf