At Last, A Play To Audit: Stratford's Cymbeline

Lately, theatre at Stratford has been focused more on the visuals and the concept rather than the rich text and characterization. This isn't a bad thing; there is always going to be a place for spectacle. But Shakespeare's audiences went to audit a play, not see one. Antoni Cimolino understands this succinctly, and makes the words the star of the show in Cymbeline.

Staged on the Tom Patterson's extreme thrust stage, Cymbeline is at first blush an extremely problematic play. With a twist-riddled story that feels an awful lot like Snow White, Cymbeline is often perceived as one of the weaker entries in Shakespeare's canon. Be that as it may, it has some thrilling passages of text. When delivered by a cast as strong as the one at Stratford is, this play is a fantastic experience.

Stratford's Much Ado About Nothing

One of the biggest problems I have with theatrical productions in general, but especially productions of Shakespeare, is the tendency of creatives to give their show a totally arbitrary setting and aesthetic. At best, this can be an amusing showcase of the creativity of the designers. At worst, the new setting can undermine the text and feel totally appropriative. I tend to feel uncomfortable with 'reimagined' settings no matter how unobstrusive they are, which is why I feel at a loss to describe my feelings about the Festival Theatre's production of Much Ado About Nothing. Light and engaging, with an appealing cast, Much Ado nonetheless has a troubling attitude towards its setting and the setting's culture.

Empty Vessels Make the Loudest Sound: Henry V at Stratford

Aside from his frenetic comedies of the past few years, I have not been a fan of Des McAnuff's directorial work at Stratford. As such, perhaps I was already a little biased when I went to see this season's flagship production of Henry V. But, as predicted, this interpretation held all the hallmarks of Mr McAnuff serving the needs of the lowest common denominator rather than the text.

Stratford 2013

2013 marks the year that Stratford alum and former financial director Antoni Cimolino takes the artistic reins for the Festival. Hurray! No more McAnuff. Maybe there'll be watchable tragedies at the Festival now!

Here's the season:

Female Hamlets, East and West

Another repost. I just like this bit that I wrote.

The keys to the kingdom have finally been given to the women. At the Stratford Shakespeare Festival, Seana McKenna prepares for her turn as the titular role in the Festival's upcoming production of Richard III. At the Royal Shakespeare Company, Kathryn Hunter plays Cleopatra, having just finished King Lear, not as the King this time but as the Fool. Meanwhile, Helen Mirren has wrapped up filming The Tempest, her Prospera hot on the heels of Christopher Plummer's Prospero.

Hardly a new phenomenon (the first two Hamlets on film, Sarah Bernhardt and Asta Nielsen, were both female), Shakespeare's greatest tragic roles have become fame for women as well as men. There's yet to be a mainstream female Romeo outside of opera (Bellini's Il Montecchi e Capuletti comes to mind), but the convention of the 'trousers role' has finally transcended its reputation as a novelty act and has gained prestige. An inversion of the Shakespearean practice of male players, gender-neutral casting does not seem so unnatural to the actresses who benefit from it.

R3: A Play-World Female Richard? Why This Could Work

When I left off a couple of weeks ago, I had grown from talking about the casting decision of a female Richard and started thinking too hard about the play-world implications. Then my brain stopped, and I had to think for a very long time.

Today's post will not be about the effect a female Richard has on an audience. Instead, I'm going to talk about the amount of awareness that people sharing Richard's stage have of such a casting. The difference is that this post is not specific to the actor of Richard's gender; the concepts I wish to present are the same if there is a woman playing Gloucester as a woman or a man playing Gloucester as a woman. I hope this differentiation is pronounced.

Why am I delving into some rather impractical theory regarding the play-world?

Because it's my blog dammit.

R3: Casting Richard As A Woman

In September I was fortunate enough to see this season's production of Richard III at the Stratford Shakespeare Festival. It was a wonderful experience, and the conclusion of a full year's obsession for me. I have been enthusiastically theorizing and thinking about the play since the announcement last year that it would be put on. This installment of R3 is in part a review and in part a contemplation on gender in Richard III.

Richard is a much-beloved character among actors. He is a multi-layered role (or, as Miles Potter says, all layers and nothing else) open to an incredible amount of interpretation and experimentation. He transcends his own historical context, and actor merely portraying his life, not living it. This quality of duplicity and falseness even to his own character makes him a blank slate, ideal for any actor.

R3: 'Transforming Tradition' Interview And Transcript

Happy belated Hallowe'en! Here's a special treat:

This is a video interview concerning the Stratford Shakespeare Festival's production of Richard III from their 2011 season. It features director Miles Potter, lead actress Seana McKenna, and designer Peter Hartwell.

For convenience and study purposes I have made a transcript of the video, which I have been given permission to publish to this blog. No permission has been extended for reproduction. I would like to thank with all my heart Mr Aaron Kropf, the Festival's social and online media coordinator, without whose help this would not be possible.

Without further ado, the transcript:

A Very Staunch Stratfordian Am I...

And I know all this Shakespeare authorship stuff must be getting very tiring, what with the movie all about it by Roland Emmerich coming out this weekend and the mild media deluge that it's prompted. I say 'mild' because the authorship debates have been very popular to debate long before Mr Emmerich decided to make Anonymous, and will likely continue until we find a draft of Hamlet in Shakespeare or the 17th Earl of Oxford or Christopher Marlowe or Francis Bacon or Elizabeth I's own hand.

I decided that this was as good a time as any to state what I believe regarding this topic. From the title, you may have gathered that I am of the not too uncommon belief that if Shakespeare's name was on the plays, then it was Shakespeare who wrote them. My rationale for this belief is, I think, reasonable, despite the scant evidence for either side of this debate.

I know William Shakespeare was referenced and commented upon by several of his contemporaries, such as Ben Jonson, who wrote of Shakespeare as a rival and a colleague. I know that Jonson referred to Shakespeare as the 'Sweet Swan of Avon', implying that this was indeed a man who was born in the town that he references.

I know William Shakespeare did not receive the education that his contemporaries received. I know also that his contemporaries' plays are nowhere near the quality of his, implying that a university education is not a replacement for true inspiration.

I know William Shakespeare was alive for the premieres of all 38 plays accredited to him, which is more than can be said for Christopher Marlowe, Elizabeth I, or Edward de Vere, other candidates for authorship.

I know William Shakespeare was born of a glover rather than nobility, and given the Shakespearean canon's lack of accuracy in its depictions of court life, this is not surprising in the least.

These are all very bland observations, I know, and most of these observations may be strictly circumstantial. Given how cagey records were at the time, and how little we know about anyone who wasn't a royal or a soldier of some repute, it's hard to make a reliable case for anyone's identity. But to my knowledge there aren't thriving communities of anti-Marlovians or counter-Jonsonians, though if there are I'd love to come to a social of yours.

I won't go out of my way to attack anti-Stratfordians. We are all entitled to our own beliefs and these particular theories are held in high esteem by several people who I admire and who do great things for the Shakespearean canon, Bill or nil. I discuss these manners only in a forum of cordial debate, because when people of a certain scholarly fixation start to have screaming matches, the only things that result are bruised egos and unintentional hilarity.

I enjoy reading articles about the authorship debate. Often there are several points and analyses that are of great interest to me, and they have come a long way to convince me that Shakespeare probably cowrote several of his plays. I also love some of the more off-the-wall theories; the ones that favour Marlovian authorship with a side of Bacon and a long history of identity theft are particularly dear to me.

And in my bland little world of 'William Shakespeare was born on April 23rd in Stratford-Upon-Avon...' such vibrancy and variety is most welcome.

R3: Year Of The King, By Antony Sher

I've finished reading this excellent book, and am seriously considering renewing it. It is truly compulsory reading for anyone interested in Shakespeare, acting, and Richard III. Antony Sher outlines in great detail the choices he made regarding the role's physicality and Richard's mentality.

Particularly interesting is his thorough research of disability and how that affected his performance. He makes the wry observation that other cripples and hunchbacks in literature, Quasimodo and Smike for instance, are played as good-hearted angels with capacities that are superhuman given their condition. Though the play's Richard has several traits considered unlikely for someone of his infirmity (one of Mr Sher's biggest problems with the role was how to consolidate someone of Richard's fighting ability with his physical disability), Mr Sher's interpretation was thoroughly unsympathetic.

Mr Sher also developed the concept of of psychopathy; he references several serial killers and literature on them. In the last few weeks of rehearsal he read a true-crime novel about the Yorkshire Ripper and took a lot of inspiration from it, to the point of other cast members becoming uneasy with his obsession with the killer.

The most distincitive aspect about Mr Sher's Richard was his use of crutches in the role, making him appear as this great huddled mass on four spindly legs. His inspiration for the use of crutches was partly inspired by the image of a 'bottled spider' which is one of the odder insults Margaret hurls at Richard. The crutches, which first make an appearance in the book before the role of Richard is even considered. greatly increase the physicality of Mr Sher's performance while at the same time making a more feasible and safe way to act the disability.

There were several other good things about the bokos, invaluable details about Richard and the acting process aside. There were several charming anecdotes about the Royal Shakespeare Company typical of what is ultimately a show-biz diary; his thoughts on the other projects he was working on at the time, most notably Tartuffe. Also, unexpected but not unwelcome, there were meditations about South Africa, Mr Sher's home land, which at the time was still ascribed to apartheid.

There's something of interest in this book for everyone. I recommend it highly.

R3: The King

Well, this is the first installment of the Richard Notebooks, as I call them in my head, and R3, as this serial will be called and tagged as. I've decided I'm going to focus on one particular aspect of the play in each post, lest I start getting lost in analysis and analysis of analysis.

I will be updating on Fridays, and when I'm feeling particularly industrious, Mondays. I have very little else to do on these days.

First, I have been fortunate enough to get my little hands on The Year of the King, a book by the great actor Antony Sher about his preparations for playing Richard the Third. You can expect weekly installments and thoughts as I progress through it.

I've also transcribed a video interview with Peter Hartwell, Miles Potter, and Seana McKenna, respectively the designer, director, and lead in Stratford's latest incarnation of the play. I may or may not be publishing that publicly. I want to ask permission from the Festival before I do that.

I want to talk about Kevin Spacey's latest foray into the role, the planned Mandarin production that will be featuring in the Globe's wonderfully insane staging of a complete and multilingual Shakespearean canon in 2012, and Two Roses For Richard III, an acrobatic Brazilian staging of the play from Companhia Bufomecanica which will be featured elsewhere in the Shakespearean deluge of the Cultural Olympiad.

There's more, but I'm scared my own brain will explode from the sheer immensity of this project I'm undertaking.

Stay tuned!

So, About That Richard III Review...

It is not forthcoming.

When I say that, of course, I do not mean that I have run out of things to say halfway through writing, or that the review is all there, in my head, and not liable to come out any time soon due to its Pallish stubbornness. I mean simply that I started to write three days ago, and have filled a notebook with the references, production notes, articles, films, historical miscellaniae, concepts, actors, and actresses that have contributed to one of the most lavishly created worlds of Shakespeare.

Richard III has consumed me totally, and is not liable to let me go.

As such, I think it completely unfair to start writing a review of the final performance of the 2011 Stratford production of R3 starring the amazing Seana McKenna and directed by the thoughtful and subtle Miles Potter. What would result would be an article about Richard III, not about the production I saw four weeks ago.

So, I will do what I've already been doing; I will continue to write about Richard III. Hopefully you, my non-existent readers who do not click on ads, will be able to get some concept of what it was like for me to see it at Stratford as a result.

Yes, this will be a big project that hopefully bears more fruit than the Lord of the Rings reading challenge or the four-parter about sci-fi in the performing arts. I'm enthusiastic.

As an endorsement of the work that was done at Stratford regarding this play, however, I would like to say that I was completely inspired, and that I hope thought-provoking theatre of that caliber comes to the Festival more often.

Stratford Trip: Titus Andronicus

Titus Andronicus is one of Shakespeare's more controversial works; written while his style was under the goretastic Christopher Marlowe's influence, it's a very bloody, very flawed play. In the authorship debates, Titus Andronicus is one of the first plays to be offered candidacy for a non-Shakespeare playwright.

Briefly, the play concerns two families; the Andronici, who have suffered great losses in the wars against the Goths, and the royal family of the Goths, now captured and in Rome's possession. The patriarch of the Andronici, Titus Andronicus, sacrifices one of the Goth Queen Tamora's sons. Somehow, Tamora is put in a position of power over the Andronici, and uses her new untouchability to wreak havoc on the once-glorious family.

Andronicus then retaliates, and so on until everyone is dead. In essence, this is a revenge tragedy. I love it, and was very excited to see it at the Tom Patterson stage, my very favourite stage at the Stratford Festival.

New Involvement!

So university is treating me well, non-existent readers. I very much enjoy the new freedoms and challenges that I have, and I'm looking forward to the next few years. Something particularly wonderful about my university is that there are a LOT of drama companies and so countless opportunities to get involved. I have managed to get myself entangled in two projects.

One of them is a staged reading of a play that was put on specifically so first-years could have involvement in the drama community. It is called The Masque of Mr Punch, a little-known one-acter by Canadian playwright Robertson Davies. It's a satire of the theatre community in Toronto as well as a pastiche of the classic Punch and Judy puppet shows, which are rooted in the commedia dell'arte tradition. I play Harlequin, my favourite archetype of all time. It's going to be a one-night-only performance, and rehearsals are super-interesting.

The other project I'm involved with is a production of As You Like It. I'm doing props, which is a totally new experience for me. I hope to be useful and to have a splendid time.

Another great thing that's happening is that my drama course is largely theoretical. I love the amount of analysis I get to do. Right now I'm working on a production analysis of Jonathan Larson's RENT, and my drama lab is studying Bone Cage by Catherine Banks. I really feel involved and informed in this vibrant community.

Next week I will be watching a production of I, Claudia, which I don't know that much about save for the fact that puppets figure greatly. Hopefully I'll bring back a review of that, as well as the rest of the shows I saw at Stratford! I'll hopefully also have a review of The Phantom of the Opera, which I saw via cinema broadcast last week.

Stratford Trip: Twelfth Night

I saw four plays at the Stratford Shakespeare Festival in Canada, so this will be a four-parter.

The album, which everyone should have.

I saw Twelfth Night on the Friday matinee of the week we came. It was my first time attending Stratford in September, and I hadn't anticipated that the bulk of the audience migth be high school students. Though I can't rightfully say how my own viewing experience was changed by the fact that in attendance were 700 (!) enthusiastic young people who were all familiar with the play, I can certainly say that was an interesting difference from the older, more sedate audience to which I am accustomed.

Massachusetts Theatre

While I was in Massachusetts, I had the good fortune to see two theatrical productions, which were both of a very high calibre. Given that Massachusetts is the birthplace of summer stock theatre, perhaps I shouldn't have been so surprised by how excellent both pieces were.

The first show I saw was The Sound Of Music starring Sarah Pfisterer and Patrick Cassidy. This was a production put on by the Reagle Music Theatre, which is an impressive and long-standing company that takes up permanent status in a high school auditorium in Waltham. Hardly a place that I'd go searching for top-notch theatre, even if the high school auditorium was a fantastic facility. But, the show had been recommended, so we came for the 2:00 matinee on August 13.

It was a positively gorgeous and incredible production. For one thing, it wasn't so saccharine that my teeth started to rot, so already it was doing better than the original cast album with Mary Martin.

Branagh's Hamlet, And Why It Sucks

Kenneth Branagh has always been a bit of a cipher to me, at least in terms of his work. Some of his movies are awesome, like Henry V, Much Ado About Nothing, and Thor. Others are too far out in Cloudcuckooland for me to even begin to comprehend, like As You Like It and Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. His acting is much the same; I love him in Wallander, Henry V, and Harry Potter, but loathe him in Wild Wild West and Othello. He is a polarizing figure, mostly because there is no such thing as a mediocre movie with him; he is either outrageously bad or outrageously good.

His Hamlet (1996) appears to be an amalgam of the man. There are parts I like, and then there are parts I hate. The difference between him and the film is that the parts I hate in the film outweigh what I don't by a good bit.

Full Day

Finished my Classic Civ. exam without too much ado. It was pretty easy, though I definitely struck out on the government section. What can you do.

After that, I went downtown to attend the Tartuffe reading, but not before purchasing volume two of Sandman. More on that tomorrow, when I actually read and retain what's in it.

It was great to see so many people who I'd enjoyed working with before but wasn't able to keep in touch with at the reading. It's so hard to find people passionate about drama who aren't totally obnoxious, but this group is consistently mature and amazing. I look forward to working with them. It was also a thrill to get the RHYMING TRANSLATION once and for all. I can't stop reading it. It's almost as amazing as Sandman.

However, none of these things were quite as exciting as when I arrived and was informed that I now had dual roles. Rather than just playing the Officer, I have been bequeathed the role of M. Loyal. This is great because the actions of M. Loyal are immediately undone by the Officer, not three pages afterward. Best dual casting ever.

When I came home, I checked my e-mail and found a link to this website, which fully announces Shakespeare's Globe's plan to make a multi-lingual multi-cultural Shakespeare fest to coincide with the London Olympics. They plan to do the entirety of Shakespeare's canon, but in all different languages with all different theatre companies. This is brill, totally brill. I'm saving up to get to London as of today.

Lord of the Rings is doing as well as I could expect. I finished chapter two. What happened in a nutshell:

• Years pass, Frodo is well-preserved and eccentric as Bilbo. Presumably the latter is genetic, and the former is the influence of the Ring.
• Gandalf returns after a long absence to inform Frodo that the Ring is evil and should be destroyed immediately. Frodo wonders why Gandalf never comes on a social call.
• Destroying the Ring necessitates that Frodo leave the Shire. He is not pleased, until he is reminded, none-too-gently, that not destroying the Ring means that the Shire will likely be enslaved by the Dark Powers... in a roundabout way.
• To everyone's surprise, Frodo decides to leave, when it is revealed that his gardener Sam Gamgee has been eavesdropping on the entire conversation. The gardener becomes the third of their party. He is inordinately pleased about this.

Characters Introduced:

• Sam Gamgee- Frodo's gardener, who obviously has a bit more tolerance for adventure and eccentricity than other Hobbits.
• Gollum- Mentioned at great length by Gandalf. We learn of how the Ring corrupted him, and the whole sad story of his life.
• Saruman- Again, mentioned by Gandalf. A wizard of great power whose pride grows with his knowledge. Dangerous.

This chapter clipped along nicely. I don't understand why the book is so big, when action is set so quickly. I imagine most of the book's bulk will be due to Tolkien's long idyllic descriptions of people walking...