Rehearsal from Shakespeare to Sheridan, Tiffany
Stern, Oxford, 2000
Tiffany
Stern earns her reputation as a leading light in theatre history with this
book. It contains some of the most interesting scholarship and insight into the
rehearsal practices of early modern English theatre. Her arguments seem
stronger for the time after the interregnum, but of course there is more
evidence and anecdotes for that period. Unlike Shakespeare in Parts, there is little practical information about
how the environment that produced the plays could be reproduced, or simulated –
and indeed (especially in the sections on the 18th century theatres)
there seems to be a stronger argument for a rehearsal period and process more
like the one theatres enjoy today.
What struck
me as most interesting is the extrapolation that can be made between the ways
scripts were brought to stage in the Restoration and after and the way those of
Shakespeare and his contemporaries may have been produced in the Elizabethan
and Jacobean theatres. During the Restoration, there were obviously more hands
involved in changing the script, most notably the theatre Managers and
Prompters – even the literati of higher society were solicited for their advice
by playwrights and the theatre producers. Changes were made after the first
performance, and many times actors made their own improvements. However,
through all this, the playwright’s name stayed intact on the script, despite
the amount of input by others. Some prologues and epilogues brag about the
additions or deletions as well as the names and titles of those who made them.
Many of the texts that we have today are not the texts as they were performed
on stage, but as the playwright intended. Others are the performance texts.
The way that Stern lays out the
history, along with the fact that many producers claimed (correctly or not) at
least some tradition from the earlier stage, it is possible to make the
argument that the plays that we have from Shakespeare underwent the same kind
or similar journey from pen to stage. It is possible that there is no
“Ur-Hamlet” with a ghost shouting “Hamlet, Revenge” like a fish wife as the
apocryphal tale has it. It may have come during the performance of the same
texts that we read today, only it did not survive in print.
This is an
interesting read, but it is not the easiest book to go through unless you have
a great interest in the depth of theatre history. This is not a book to gloss
over, but would be an indispensable resource for any research paper. It is a
great addition to any library, and the bibliography holds a vast of wealth for
further reading.
Easy Guide to Shakespeare, Fall River Press, 2014
This book
is the exact opposite of Rehearsal from
Shakespeare to Sheridan. This is a light book, an easy read, with a little
breadth and even less depth, but this is a fun read. It is great for people to
get an introduction or a quick refresher for certain plays or to the playwright
and some of the stories and theories about him and his work. There are chapters
entitled “Famous Shakespeare Haters,” and it prefaces its chapter about
possible other writers with the advice that “[i]f you see anyone in real life
making these arguments, do not try to argue with them. Back away, slowly.”
How to Teach your Children Shakespeare, by Ken
Ludwig, Crown Publishers, 2013
In this
book, playwright Ken Ludwig goes over how he introduced his children to
Shakespeare, and how he got them to memorize some well-known monologues.
Glossing over the memorization lessons, he has some nice insight into the plays
he introduces. This is the first, and so far only, convincing argument I have
come across that sheds any light on any possible merits of Twelfth Night. I have never found this a particularly interesting
play outside of the Malvolio storyline, neither deep and searching or very
funny. Ludwig’s book is an interesting
read, and if you have children whom you would like to get interested in the
language of the Bard, How to Teach your
Children Shakespeare is a great place to start.
The Quality of Mercy, by Peter Brook, Nick Hern Books
Ltd., 2013
This short
read is a collection of musings by one of the most influential theatre
directors of the twentieth century, and one that I greatly admire. That being
said, this falls short of everything I have read by Brook up until this point.
It is a love letter to Shakespeare, Bardology -not at its worst (that will come
a little farther down in this blog) but that does nothing to further
understanding or appreciation of Shakespeare’s plays. We know that Peter Brook
loves Shakespeare, and that he is very good at directing those plays. His other
books ‘The Empty Space,’ ‘The Shifting Point’ and ‘The Open Door’ are much more
moving, inspirational and important. It hurts to say, but you can give this one
a miss. Its only real value is if you are a lover of Brook, or a lover of
Shakespeare with the need of knowing how much other people love Shakespeare.
Shakespeare the Invention of the Human, by Harold
Bloom, Riverhead Books, 1998
The Bible
of Bardology. The title of this tome says it all. This is a love fest, mostly
between Bloom and his favorite characters: Hamlet and Falstaff. The premise of
the book is that Hamlet and Falstaff are the pinnacle of creation, the greatest
characters ever penned and the first time in the history of English literature
(or to read Bloom, indeed, the history of the universe) that real, complex,
soulful people –human beings- are represented in art. This argument can be made
for Hamlet, but Falstaff?
The only
explanation is that Falstaff is a popular character, and the only way to
explain his popularity to make out that some huge universal Truth lies
somewhere in the character that defines us all as the human race. That is not
the case, but Bloom tries his hardest to make it so. Falstaff is a great
character, but he is far from perfect. His popularity at the time was due to
timely lampooning, Shakespeare’s language, and the actor’s portrayal. Any
insight that Falstaff makes can be found elsewhere in the cannon. Bloom seems
to feel himself as a Falstaffian character and therefore makes much of him.
Some useful
insights peppered throughout this (literally) heavy book are scarred by the
fact that there are unnecessary references throughout to Hamlet and Falstaff.
Even his compliments to other characters are undercut and back-handed like a
jealous high school cheerleader. (One of my favorite drinking games is to read
about a play that has nothing to do with Hamlet or Falstaff and drink every time
one of them is mentioned superfluously. There are few chapters that I can make
it through in one go.)
Unfortunately,
the tone of this book and its unashamedly worshipful view of Shakespeare are
popular conceits that need to be overcome. Because of his place in American
literary society, Bloom’s book is read, and appreciated, and accepted as
popular theory because it lionizes Shakespeare. When researching plays, I do
read it to know what resistance I will face and how best to address it. While
others may not have the unexplainable crush on Falstaff that Bloom does, the
pillar upon which the author sets the plays, the characters and the words is
one that many look up to. The book is one of opinions, and it is from a
literary point of view. There is very little, if any, practical information for
theatre practitioners, in the book –its value is literary, but everyone serious
about Shakespeare’s plays must read this book if for no other reason than to
understand why it is important to approach Shakespeare as a real person and his
plays as things to be out of the hands of academics and put into the hands of
players.
Bloom makes
a case for Shakespeare showing us what it is to be human, but is unable to do
that for Shakespeare himself. More’s the pity.
- Andy Kirtland, Managing Director of The New Renaissance Theatre Company, which produces The Unrehearsed Shakespeare Project
No comments:
Post a Comment