The Globe Theatre and Staging:
We recently went to see a production of the play at The Globe theatre in London. Which is a beautiful venue that somehow seems to give off a larger sense of scale than most theatres I've been to. It's definitely a place with some interesting history.
- It's most unique feature for me that I've never seen is that you can stand by the stage in an area called "The Yard" or "The Standing Area" which is the cheapest section. Nowadays it costs about £5 although back then was around a penny It was for the poorer people during Elizabethan times to go to the theatre even though they both literally and figuratively looked down on by the upper class who could afford seats. They were given names such as "Groundlings" and "Stinkards" with the area even being referred to as "The Pit" at the worst of times which was usually in the summer when they would smell the worst.
- The overall design of the theatre has been compared to a roman Colosseum due to it being an open air theatre and being completely round although the difference is that the seating areas and the stage are covered by the partial roof with only "The Pit" being the open area so if it rained they would be the ones to get wet for the most part.
- They are three tiers of seat that get more expensive depending on where you sit although the most expensive place to sit would be the area above and behind the stage. That's the area when gentlemen of the time could afford to sit. Although today that area is devoted to the band playing the backing music so as far as I'm aware that area is now off limits or at least in the newer recreation of the globe.
- The theatre itself has no roof and I wondered why but then a couple issues were brought up as to why. First being that obviously lighting equipment didn't exist in 1598 or so when it was constructed. The only solution other than to have an open roof and natural lighting was to use many, many candles although that probably wouldn't be as good and would be a major fire hazard especially since the whole theatre is made of wood. I thought why didn't they use a glass roof but that idea became obvious as to why not since it would be extremely hot in the theatre and during summer "The Pit" would smell even worse and probably cause more of an uproar seeing how uncontrollable the crowds could be at times.
- This is a feature that could apply to a lot of theatres back then especially open air ones with a Colosseum like design and it definitely applies to this one, this theatre has no curtain. This means that scene changes were more limited since they couldn't block off the set to make it smoother and they couldn't dim the stage due to using natural lighting. My guess is that this put greater importance on the acting of the piece to more imply the location, for example the woods in "A Mid-summer Nights Dream" They wouldn't have had tree props back then or at least nothing major and they did not have it at the performance we saw so if they wanted to present a sense of scale to the woods or just give an impression of the location they would have to add more layers to their acting with a few subtleties. Also due to this it means that the actual dialogue has to imply it as well such as Lysander saying "You faint with wandering in the wood" and "How slowly me thinks this old moon wanes." and other various times they mention their location and time out loud. The moon itself is mentioned a lot. This was necessary at the time although could be argued isn't anymore for a normal theatre due to artificial lighting but at the new globe it's still needed since the lighting can't change. If it wasn't for these additions there probably would have been nothing to imply that at all.
- Another feature of the theatre is the use of trap doors both on the floor and on the ceiling for them to either enter or exit the stage, for example in the production we saw Puck and Titania come down from the ceiling on wires as if they were coming down from the heavens. Another thing would be for the evil characters to come up through the trap door on the stage itself although this was not utilised in the one we saw, that was more used to release some fake smoke onto the stage. Also they had sides of the stage designated to whether you were good or evil as well. Due to fairies (especially Puck) being a part of 16th century English folk lore and were usually portrayed as mischievous and somewhat devilish at points, it didn't make sense considering that Puck came down from the ceiling like in the one we saw but it does when you consider that he is not an evil being he just has elements and a background that links to devils and goblins. Also it was discussed about people coming on from certain sides and since I didn't know about this while watching I didn't notice but I did remember that people came from seemingly all directions including the front of the stage so I think this maybe an idea that's faded over time. My guess is that it was originally to help distinguish the hero and villain more quickly for the audience interactions. For example, if they came on from the left they would get booed and if from the right they may get an applause or something along these lines.
When we took a tour of the globe we were told that in terms of staging they would take precautions so that (because of the pillars) you could see at least one actor if there was more than one on stage although I believe this was more to accommodate the guests who payed for seats since there are areas of the pit when sometimes both actors are covered by the pillar. This means that there could be some large gaps between the actors to at moments when the didn't have to be in contact with each other and if they had to be it would be in an area where they could be seen the most and that would probably have been further towards the front or or side of the stage. I was unfortunate and got that bad spot which meant sometimes I couldn't see them although when observing the theatre it did seem obvious that due to the distance away from the stage all the seating area guests could see at least one, I think I was just too close and in a bad spot.
Social and Historical Context:
There a few examples of things that would have greater significance during the Elizabethan era rather than now and an example is when my character Lysander says "You have her father's love Demetrius, let me have Hermia's. Do you marry him." This is something I feel would have been said as a genuine insult but now is probably more played for laughs as if it's to more play to an insecurity rather than a harsh statement or accusation. Seeing as it was illegal (Punishable by death) to engage in any homosexual activity back then such an accusation was more serious. Since homosexuality is widely accepted nowadays it would make sense to change and make the intention of the line different. It also makes sense that there is a same sex couple in the newer version.
I must admit there were a couple things that I really didn't like about the version we saw and that was the inclusion of some pointless modern elements although I'm mainly talking about the addition of the characters "Dabbing" at points which is a rubbish contemporary dance move and including a song by Beyonce which just seemed too out of place. That's my personal preference since it seemed to have a pandering attitude although everyone else seemed to enjoy it so I'm probably in the minority on that. As far as I'm aware there were no elements of the original script that were designed to pander to the lowest common denominator of the time or at least not in a comedic sense. There were elements such as puck and the names of the Athenians to help imply their character and status but that's not really pandering, it's just using pieces of information more known and relatable to the time to establish aspects of certain characters, not a random out of place joke thrown in for no reason.
There were a few modern updates I did like however and they were the addition of the same sex couple/homosexual characters and the change to what seemed to be an Indian look rather than a Greek one. Helena is now called Helenus and is a man. This made me think of how it would've been performed back when it was first shown since it would have been men being romantically involved but in this version they are both actually male characters it's not one playing a woman. Back then it would've been controversial and seen as an endorsement of homosexuality. Although saying that there were some people back then who worried about that and either thought that woman should play them or the male and female characters should be romantically involved as little as possible. Due to that information I think they may have also been against it as an encouragement of transvestism. The reason I think it works today is since homosexuality is overall very accepted but people can still feel uncomfortable about it, for example a friend coming out and then being romantically interested in them. So having a gay character can add an extra layer to the uncomfortableness of Lysanders change to liking Helenus more jarring for Hermia and since all comedy is based on misery in some way that makes it funnier in my opinion, that extra layer of confusion and bafflement adds to the effect. So it helps with the comedy but when thinking about it is actually showing of how society has become more accepting over time of various peoples choices so that's a decision I see as quite an optimistic one. Although there have been some objections to the idea of same sex couples being introduced into Shakespeare, for example a version of this play adapted by Russell T. Davis had a kiss between two women and there was immediate objection by some people and I feel this backs up what I said about Elizabethan audiences objecting to this and I feel they would have been harsher. While I've heard no objection to the change in stage version I will say I stand by the change for the men due to the added comedic effect but I have not seen the other version yet but from what I've read there's nothing along those lines to justify it so some are calling gratuitous and unnecessary where as I just view it as harmless.
The other change was going with a sort of Indian look and I had a good idea of why they went with it. It's because India is often associated with arranged marriage in pop culture with it being portrayed in TV shows and films such as "The Simpsons" and "Sense8". I wondered if it was actually true, if it still happens and from the sources I found, it does, it's one of the countries that practices it the most. But even before confirming it still happens I still thought it did or at least associated arranged marriage with countries like India and from what I can tell most people do so updating to India instead of Greece made perfect sense on that thematic level. I wondered if it was something made up for the play (As in the idea of Athenian arranged marriage) but according to an article I found it was actually a custom for fathers to be sure their daughters would marry and they would decide who it would be to. Theseus does say "In wanting your father's voice, the other must be held the worthier" meaning she has no say and it's her fathers final decision. I assume that ancient Greece was more well known for it's arranged marriage policies during that era or at least more so than India so it was easier to portray at the time.
The theatrical experience was different to how it is now in a few ways both as an actor and as an audience member.
The audience members seemed to have very different attitudes at the time for example the richer people such as ambassadors and high ranking officials liked to go to the theatre but some motivation for going was for them to get noticed and have attention paid to them, they would dress up as best as they could in order to feel superior or important in some way. Nowadays people wouldn't go to the theatre to do this they'd just use social media or something along those lines so that means that intention has shifted away from the medium. The crowds were not quiet when they went to see the plays, they would react to most things on stage loudly so they could be heard. They'd cheer the hero and boo the villain and overall be very vocal about their opinion of what was happening. They were even likely to throw furniture and even food at the stage if they didn't like the production. One reason that probably made this worse was that the plays had to take place during the day due to the natural lighting required so this means they could all see each other where as in most theatres nowadays the lights go out and people are generally too dark to see, even in your peripheral vision. Even I found it a little jarring to be able to see everyone. Also the original globe did not have any toilets so that meant people had to go outside the theatre for that although some people would just do it in the pit. It was also problematic because the plays had not interval and were expected to go on (In Shakespeare's case) for around 3 to 4 hours which almost definitely tested their patience and made them louder. So as an audience member back then the people there usually wanted more than just to watch a play, people were far too loud meaning the actors sometimes couldn't be heard and the place wasn't very pleasant due to the groundlings behaviour. Now it's very different, there is a greater degree of etiquette when going to the theatre and I think the fact that places like that, even the modern globe, provide adequate facilities and overall people just find it far ruder to disrupt the illusion. If someone talks or even whispers they're usually told to shut up these days which I think is a massive step up from how things used to be. I can't think of any time recently where the audience would throw stuff or boo someone off stage. The only example I could think of is a comedian getting booed and harassed for being needlessly offensive but other than that I think being an audience member is quite different and in my opinion probably far better than it was.
As an actor there are definitely a couple differences for performing in that theatre or theatre in general. One is the rehearsal process is overall easier since actors now are given the full script instead of just there own lines on one roll of paper, which by the way is where the term "Role" for an actor came from. This method was done to stop people stealing the entire script and selling it off to someone else as their own work and since copyright and publishing laws are a lot safer and easier to keep track of now there is no need to do that and I think that that method (As well as one called "Cue acting" which is where someone literally whispers your lines to you from backstage to save time on rehearsals and out do competition with more plays) certainly made things harder and probably resulted in productions seeming rougher, unrehearsed and poorly paced although that's just my guess since there's no article I've found to back that up but to me that just seems likely considering the amount of rushed productions. Also that etiquette I mentioned earlier makes it easier for the actors to keep focus and not be distracted since the audience is more content to be quiet and respectful. Although there are obviously a few exceptions as well as modern problems such as people not turning their phones off or filming the performance which is extremely annoying and can take you out of the illusion for both the audience and actor. There is also not as much controversy surrounding actors portraying their characters anymore. For example during the Elizabethan era you were allowed to portray any character of any status but if the that status was higher than your own in reality, it was against the law to wear that costume outside the theatre so if I played Theseus and wore his costume outside back then I would have been arrested since I'm technically impersonating a higher power. Nowadays that's not the case so it means if you're assigned a high ranking character it's a less tense affair and overall probably more fun today to do so since you could just walk out in public with the costume considering you don't damage it.
And of course a massive feature that we have performing today compared to back then is that women can now perform in plays with no moral or legal issues. When the play was a written it was around 60 years before the first woman appeared on stage officially which was Margaret Hughes in 1660 in an adaptation of "Othello". It used to be that men had to play women and those men would often have to stick to playing women throughout their careers with some of them allegedly being castrated to keep their voices sounding as feminine as possible. We have a mixture of genders and even in most recent adaptations of the play some roles such as puck are gender neutral so they can be played by either. Our production has extra characters Sparks and Gaffer who as far as I'm aware do not have a defined gender so they're played by both since we have two casts.
Another difference is that the costumes of the time of the original globe had to follow regular public dress code which meant the entire body was covered meaning that the characters were not sexualised especially seeing as they were all played by men. That contrasts a lot now because some of the costumes at the production we saw were quite revealing and some of the behaviour was of a not so subtle sexual nature. I'm actually somewhat glad that this element probably didn't exist back then because that would have made the audience even more unbearable. It's only because of how much more prevalent sex is in the media and entertainment now that this doesn't seem to bother people as much, it's as if we've become desensitised to it so to add it in would give the same impact as back then.
Themes:
We discussed the themes of the play and were asked to talk about them:
- In a similar theme to the play "Romeo & Juliet" the play covers the theme of love/young love and naivety. I'm of the opinion that if you judge "Romeo and Juliet" as a pure love story then it's fairly bland as you don't really have much reason to care about why they love each other but if you look at it from the perspective of young love rather than true love it gets more interesting since it gives more reason and understanding heir relationship due to their naive attitude towards how they feel, they just say they're in love and don't really seem to actually share any chemistry but have a big reaction to discovering love and that's what I also get from this play when considering the relationships between say, Lysander and Hermia. They only seem to talk about how they love each other and should be together and that's it. The fact they're being unfairly torn apart is only making them think that more and rebel. Helena's Attraction to Demetrius also doesn't seem to have any real reason either other than a basic crush which would make perfect sense considering the theme. Depending on who you ask since it's still in debate about which play was written first, it's possible that elements of the love story and the play "Pyramus and Thisbe" were used to create "Romeo an Juliet" which I think makes sense considering the young love theme and their similar circumstances of lovers being torn apart by a higher power.
- The theme of feminism was often brought up and the examples given during the discussion were all to do with the women characters defiance of any orders given to them such as Hermia refusing to marry who she's told to. The acts of defiance were sighted as the evidence of the theme although I'm not sure I agree with that because I think it's presented in the text and the situation itself about unfair it is, for example Theseus at the beginning says to her, "Your father should be as a god" "In this kind wanting your father's voice, the other must be held the worthier." which means that her decision means nothing in comparison to her fathers. The degree of unfairness shown in the opening is what presents the theme of inequality and then the further rebelliousness leads to the arc of letting them love who they want being set into motion so I'm overall not sure if there is anything to do with feminism or empowering woman in that regard. However there is definitely one example in my opinion and it's actually to do with the mechanicals and Flute's role as Thisby. That is a deliberate mocking of the practice that men had to lay the woman characters. It fits perfectly in the play since it's quite a surreal comedy but in my opinion it's actually quite a brave thing to play up considering the time period. Women were very repressed back then and considering controversies nowadays that seem unworthy of being criticised such as gay marriage or some people boycotting films because of the fact they have a female led cast, I think it would have got a mixed reaction to hear someone criticise the status quo. That scene meant a lot more back then than it does now, now it would just be viewed as some silly light comedy but back then that had a far greater meaning and was in my opinion a great satire of such a backwards practice.
- Dreams. The title of the play itself implies that not all the events in the play take place in reality. Shakespeare himself was interested in how dreams function as in that they make unrealistic events seem logical and there's no real sense of time and reason to anything. This is represented through many people such as Hermia mentioning dreaming throughout the production and the overall atmosphere of the play being very surreal, especially in the fairy world. It's use of magic mystical elements and opposites to things in the real world such as Oberon and Titania being the opposites to Theseus and Hippolyta help to imply this. The mixture of these elements and most of implied dream moments being in a forest which is a surreal enough location already creates an uncertain atmosphere to be honest. In the sense that you can't tell whether what is happening is really magic or if it's all a fantasy although the very ending of the play has puck saying "If we shadows have offended, Think but this, and all is mended. That you have but slumbered here while these visions did appear. And this weak and idle theme, no more yielding but a dream". This directly implies that the entire play was a dream and I think that that does make perfect sense as I can't make sense of it to be partially dreams and partially reality but the whole thing being fantasy makes all the surreal and mystical side oddly make sense.
All research website links:
http://www.sparknotes.com/shakespeare/msnd/themes.html
http://www.bl.uk/treasures/shakespeare/midsummer.html
http://www.shakespearesglobe.com/uploads/files/2014/01/audiences.pdf
https://www.skyminds.net/background-of-a-midsummer-nights-dream/
http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/midsummer-nights-dream-published
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3618284/Outrage-BBC-s-PC-adaptation-Midsummer-Night-s-Dream-airs.html
http://www.stagebeauty.net/th-women.html
https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/m/a-midsummer-nights-dream/about-a-midsummer-nights-dream
http://www.nosweatshakespeare.com/resources/shakespeares-theatres/shakespeare-globe-facts/
http://www.bardstage.org/globe-theatre-architecture.htm
http://www.shakespearesglobe.com/your-visit/box-office/globe-theatre-seating-plan-ticket-prices
http://www.shakespeare-online.com/plays/midsummer/mdshistory.html
http://www.bardstage.org/globe-theatre-actors.htm
http://www.shakespeare-online.com/theatre/globe.html
http://www.bardstage.org/globe-theatre-stage.htm
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/wilde/wildelawpage.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yj2ToKRLN3E
https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/m/a-midsummer-nights-dream/critical-essays/moon-imagery
http://www.shakespearesglobe.com/uploads/files/2014/01/costumes_cosmetics.pdf
