Question 6 - Your Production

MACBETH

Macbeth - what is it about?

'Macbeth', a tale of bloodshed, deceit, magic and lies, was written in 1603. The play is set in Scotland and follows the rise and fall of a once brave soldier, Macbeth, who resorts to murder to make true a prophecy he has heard, that one day he will be King of Scotland. 

It was Shakespeare's first play since the coronation of the new king, James VI. James had written extensively on the topic of black magic, and specifically, witchcraft, in 'Daemonologie.' . Many argue that Shakespeare therefore wrote this play, in which three 'midnight hags' manipulate Macbeth until his death, to impress him. Or, could one argue that the play is a warning to the King, to not hold too much pride and ambition in his reign?

As a modern reading, I also now see the play as a study of the effects of returning from war. Macbeth, after killing hundreds in a battle, is congratulated and promoted, given no time to address the trauma of seeing and causing the death of others. His perception of what is good and evil is already warped - if he is a soldier, he is expected to have 'chivalrous, giving and brave' qualities, yet to brutally kill others, in a time where swords were the only weapon. How, then, can he see the murders of Duncan, Banquo and all others, as truly evil? In the play, I believe that his hallucinations, fits, paranoia and eventual descent into madness are an expression of the symptoms of PSTD, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. In Shakespeare's time, there was no recognition of 'mental health' or support offered, but in 2017 we can clearly see the reason for his descent.

The 'Three Witches' that lead Macbeth have a strong resemblance to The Fates in Greek Mythology, and since the play's publication, have been a strong influence in literary and artistic culture. 

A quote that I feel sums up the message of the play is, 
 'I am in blood/Stepp'd in so far that, should I wade no more,/Returning were as tedious as go over.'
(Act 3, Scene 4)

This quote is expressing how, after the death of Duncan, there is no turning back, and Macbeth will have to keep wading forward through the metaphorical bloodshed of guilt and damage, until the end.

When was it first performed?

On the 7th of August, in 1606, it is believed that 'Macbeth' was first performed for King James and his brother, at the Great Hall in Hampton Court Palace.

A Contemporary Production 

Rupert Goold's 2007 production of Macbeth first was performed at the Chichester Theatre Festival, and transferred to The West End. This contemporary production was a great success, and was made into a film. Critic for The Guardian, Michael Billington, said, 'Macbeth has lost none of its visceral excitement, political resonance or textual clarity.'

The concept of Goold's adaptation was to set the play in a kitchen, (designed by Anthony Ward) due to the many scenes in the play that include an element of ceremony, such as the banquet scene. Goold said, about the set, that it included 'wipe-clean white tiles, lamps, a clattering lift upstage. Halfway between kitchen and morgue.' In this soulless, white setting, the witches are military nurses, residing in a strange, cold time and place where Lady Macbeth washes blood from her hands in a shining white sink. The play is also politically fuelled, the protagonist a totalitarian tyrant, inspired by Stalin and the Soviet Union.

Lady Macbeth sleepwalks - Rupert Goold film adaptation 

Patrick Stewart and Kate Fleetwood were cast as the protagonists in the play, Fleetwood actually Rupert Goold's wife. The casting of an older Macbeth worked for the context of the play, as he matched the same range as Stalin and was a believable dictator.

In this production, the character that I am playing, Banquo, returns to haunt Macbeth as a chilling, silent, expressionless presence. His strong stance, white shirt and good posture in the video below suggest to me his life as a soldier, the effect it had on his identity.

Banquo's Ghost Haunts Macbeth - Rupert Goold film adaptation

Below are some reflections about my character, Banquo, written during the rehearsal process:

I feel that my character Banquo is coming to life more as we rehearse and I understand his journey to his tragic end. I am understanding just how hard it is to stand by Macbeth and stay silent about the witches’ prophecy, even after Duncan is killed. One could argue that his loyalty is a flaw that leads to his death - had he spoken out about his suspicions earlier, would events have unfolded differently. I think that he holds onto the hope that Macbeth is still good and gracious - as he has known him as a brave and kind friend for so long. As a character, he is almost too kind and too perfect as if Shakespeare crafted him to heighten the wrongs of Macbeth against such a great friend. And Banquo is also clever and cautious from the outset - he warns Macbeth against the ‘instruments of darkness’ in the first Act. I think that this shows that my character is able to think practically instead of get lost in ambition and greed - a trait Macbeth has less of. He, instead, becomes obsessed by the tantalising and torturous words of the witches, thinking of his own gaining of power.

Question 5 - Analyse contemporary Shakespeare productions with reference to live performances you may have seen or clips or footage available online

Analyse contemporary Shakespeare productions with reference to live performances you may have seen or clips or footage available online. 

From a young age, I found the idea of Shakespeare intimidating, fearing I could never understand, and empathise with, characters on stage in situations alien to me. However, as I have matured, and with the rise of modern adaptations, my interest in his plays has grown greatly, and I have learned to appreciate his work. For me, when I see productions, they become less about deconstructing every line, but more about relating to the themes explored, and struggles of characters that are as relevant as ever in this day and age. Shakespeare’s work can be used as a sacred, aged framework from which to build upon, with new ideas, concepts and contexts.

Recently, productions I have enjoyed were 'A Midsummer Night's Dream' at the Young Vic, 'Imogen' (Cymbeline) at The Globe Theatre, 'Julius Caesar' at The Donmar Warehouse, 'Hamlet' at The Almeida and 'Twelfth Night' at The National Theatre. All these productions were contextualised in the current time and brought to life in a different setting, from which I could relate to the characters and therefore understand them as we held common ground. Without this accessibility, were they set in Shakespeare's day, I would have found it hard to relate to the trials and tribulations of noblemen and knights. I also believe in the importance of diverse casts with different genders – using women and men instead of all male casts, as it was in Elizabethan times.

Imogen (at The Globe)

 

‘Imogen’, renamed after Cymbeline, was an especially interesting and powerful production, as it was done in The Globe, the very same in theatre in which Shakespeare's plays were performed in when he was living. It was inspiring to watch a diverse cast with a strong female lead reclaim the stage on which once only males could set afoot on. To watch it quite literally shows the time that has passed since his death, and the changes we have undergone as a society. You can see the contrast of the company's modern set, complete with harnesses, their polyester tracksuits, and black leather jackets, against an age-old theatre towering over them, complete with pillars, gold ornament, marble stairs, and wood detailing.

A major difference from Shakespeare's day was, of course, the change in focus from Cymbeline to Imogen, the play centring around her journey, rather than that of the King. Furthermore, this was captured in a modern London, in a tense and cold neighbourhood charged with the dangers of gang culture and crime. In a video linked below, the cast speak about the staging of the play in this setting, and the parallels that can be drawn. The play, for one, is full of violence and conflict, despite the fact it is a comedy, so is set in a world of violence and conflict that reflects the experiences of the characters. The actress playing the Queen says, ‘it's a really violent setting but I think modern days do sadly reflect that.' This production is more than a comedy, it also explores the holes in today's society - corruption, gang culture, bloodshed. Therefore, one could argue that Shakespeare's words have been powerfully harnessed to make a political statement in some ways, a great use of his classical text. The issues explored are not glamorised, and it is sad that what Shakespeare wrote about in his day can be applied to our world, that this violence still continues on a daily basis.

 The world they created and context of the play was entirely believable, which the set and lighting reflected, the cast wearing outfits that are seen in pop culture, advertising, and in the streets of London each day. The music was also contemporary, giving the scenes more colour, depth and structure, and adding layers of tension and fear into intense scenes. Moreover, the show was also physically brave and bold with contemporary dance and fight sequences we wouldn't have seen in Shakespeare's day, which dramatically communicated the risk, pain and effects of fights, heightening the sequences to reach large audiences. Lastly, the play included someone with cerebral palsy. Awareness of the disabled, diagnosis and help would not have been available in that day and age, let alone inclusion of those with special needs in the arts. I think it was an important and inspiring move of the cast to include him, as it shows that we are progressing forward in society, and that his role on stage is just as vital as every other equally talented actor!

Imogen - Modern London

A Midsummer Night's Dream (at The Young Vic)

In this modern adaptation of the much-loved and well known comedy, there were many differences to how it may have been staged in Shakespeare's day. The characters remained on stage the whole time, the floor completely covered in thick dark soil, in which the character's once white clothes become ruined with the grime of conflict, of confusion, desires and upset. The set design was done by Johannes Schütz, and brings the play to modern day, yet connects the characters to the earth and makes us feel close and connected to nature. The earth is also where our species once spent most of their days as cavemen and settlers, much more aware of the natural world and exposed to the dirt, foliage and animals that we now shelter away from in residential homes. The forest, or the natural world, has always represented a haven for disorder and chaos to manifest; for example, we can see this in the poems of Keats, and in in Grimm's fairytales. 

The back of the set is a mirror, which is painted grey by the actors at the end of the play before the acting group perform their play. Although this choice has a practical function to hide the actors in the play behind the sheet they used, it also held symbolism for me. It was as if the characters, on this wild journey of love, lust and disbelief, had let go of their external egos and been stripped to primal beings. The concealment of the mirror symbolised how they no longer longed to obsess over their outward appearances, as they lay on the stage, hair matted, breathing hard, covered in dirt, and pure.

Set Design Build of a Midsummer Nights Dream - As the link shows, the set was built in a theatre that can be totally changed each time a new production takes place, something unique to the malleable spaces of the Young Vic. The technology, teams and funding we have access to now to be able to do that would not have been available in Shakespeare's time.

The costume was also modern, and helped to reflect the characters and the changes they undergo as the play unravels. For example, some major characters in the play begun in plain, restrictive work suits and heels, and undressed into silk dresses and t shirts as they were exposed to the wildness of the forest. This transition was a great visual way of marking how a character can let go of artifices, masks and costumes that they carry in the outside world. 

The cast also used many everyday products we see in our society today, to illustrate certain moments in the play or as objects, which added an element of comedy but also gave the play a rough and unvarnished quality that reflected the world in which they staged the play, and kept the attention on the acting instead of the audience becoming distracted by dominating, detailed and bright set and props. For example, they used a crumpled Evian water bottle as the potion that causes Titania to fall in love with a donkey. 

The cast were very bold and explorative physically, heightening the feelings of sexual desire and awakening throughout the play but doing so in a form that felt raw and real. No movement was unintentional or only constructed to 'look cool', but felt like it genuinely came from the characters and showed their pains or joys throughout. In the costumes of Shakespeare's day, on a set full of props and with an audience with more conservative views, I can presume that actors would not have been able to be as brave and vulnerable on stage.

Trailer for show - this short trailer for the Young Vic's show helps to give you a glimpse into the dark and experimental show they created.

(sources - The Globe YouTube channel)

Question 4 - Who were the actors of Shakespeare’s plays and how did the experience of being an actor differ from the experience today?

Who were the actors?

In today's world, both men and women dominate the stage and screen. Even though women's roles are lesser than that of men, and are often only support of plots or are archetypal roles, times are changing. More strong female roles are evolving in our culture, represented by different races and ethnicities. However, in the Elizabethan times, women were not allowed to perform on stage. It scares me most to know that this was seen as the normality, as a given, as traditional, conservative and repressive values were so ingrained into culture at the time. Even the very idea of women performing roles for their own gender seemed obscene and outrageous.



Male actors would range in age, companies typically using young boys and senior actors in the same production. An actor was expected to be multi-talented, able to sword fight, sing, dance and quickly learn lines. Most would start their careers in apprenticeships from a young age.

Experience as an actor

Today, casts rehearse intensively together to build a working relationship, and will read and workshop  the whole play before they begin this process. Actors will be in one show at a time, reserving a period of time in the year to commit to one production. In Shakespearean time, this experience was much different.

As actors how have agents, and showcase their past roles online through advertising, actors had to have a license to perform in the Elizabethan times.

In preparation for performance, each actor would be sent his role with his lines, not knowing who the rest of the cast was until they finally rehearsed the scene! They also would not be able to read what happens before or after their scenes, so would enter the room with little understanding of the other significant forces in the play, and the all-important plot. Now, there are whole departments for costume, coaches for the actors' voice and directors to block scenes and work on character development, but in the Elizabethan times, this was different, the process much harsher for the actor. Actors were expected to provide their own costume and song, and to work out entrances and exits, as rehearsal time was only used to work out what wasn't specified in the script.

Performing on an open and popular stage was a daunting prospect, as if the audience disliked your production, you could be hit with harsh criticism, and, literally, fruits and nuts hurled by the groundlings! Touring across the country could also take its toll on the actors, who would travel the country to perform their plays in many different settings and stages, expected to provide for themselves. Furthermore, actors would often juggle many parts and plays at a time, as plays were not consistently performed night after night, different shows on each afternoon.

One similarity that exists today was the wages an actor was paid. If they performed in London, they were paid more than if they toured in the country, but wages were not large.

The profession of acting is now seen by many as a glamorous and exciting lifestyle choice, but in Elizabethan times, this was not so. The Church believed the plays shown to be disruptive, to cut into church services, to encourage carnivalesque behaviour. Actors were therefore seen by many as rowdy, untrustworthy people, and could even be accused of crimes they did not commit.

Question 4 - What were the theatres or ‘playhouses’ of Shakespeare’s time like and how were plays staged in them?

Theatres and playhouses of Shakespeare's time

Open air theatres were built extensively during Shakespearean times, based on the vast amphitheatres of Ancient Rome and Greece. The indoor playhouses, rather, were enclosed, small indoor halls that offered a more intimate experience and housed a lesser audience of 500.

Playhouses
The playhouses housed the wealthier citizens, the nobility, as seats in these closed venues were more expensive. A more powerful and affluent clientele of people were attracted when the luxury and comfort of playhouses became a possibility, therefore these were spaces where the wealthy would not mix with the poor. These theatres allowed plays to be performed all-year round, as a pose to the open air theatres, which were mostly used in summers and were greatly affected by the temperamental weather.

        indoor playhouse                                                            outdoor playhouse

Outdoor Playhouses
The outdoor theatres were much larger and attracted a completely different audience, ranging from the peasants to the nobility, the ground busy with sales of food and disruption. These theatres had a brick base with timber framed walls, the gaps filled with sticks, hair and plaster. The roofs were thatched or tiled, these hanging over the seated areas to provide some shade and shelter. After the tragic burning down of the Globe theatre, the roof was rebuilt with tiles instead of thatched straw, as straw is extremely flammable. Beside the raised stage and yard, there were also the 'lords rooms', a backstage area and storage rooms.


How were plays performed?

Plays were not just performed in one space, but had to be adapted to travel to playhouses, theatres and inns. Costume and music were of great importance to the audience when the plays were performed, visual and auditory delights. Often, the costumes were handed down from real nobles. Plays were sometimes performed in the round, and the action had to often reach a large audience on many sides.

The stages in Elizabethan times had little or no scenery except for objects needed for the plot, so plays were performed with the primary focus on the actor and his attire. The entrances and exits were in full view of the audience, but actors could enter or exit from above and below through trapdoors and from ladders, referred to as 'Heaven' and 'Hell' in performance!

Question 3 - The people attending the theatre

Who were the people attending the theatre?

The theatre was a popular lifeline of Elizabethan England, vital in a time without the technology we now heavily rely on for pleasure.  Theatres could hold 1500 people, but this would increase to 3000 with crowds flooding the surrounding areas.

Despite the strong class divide in Elizabethan times, and the separation between the luxurious lives of the rich and the harsh of the poor, everybody attended the theatre, of all social status. The audiences at the theatre were a communal melting pot of London citizens. Porters, carters and servants spent much of their free time there, alongside nobles and ambassadors. The royals adored the theatre, but casts of actors were sent to perform in their residences.

In the outdoor theatres, the cost of a place among the 'groundlings', standing in the yard, was only 1 penny, hence why the poor could afford to enjoy entertainment. You would be very close to the stage, with access to buying fruits, gingerbread and ale, but the floor was likely of poor quality and there were no toilet facilities. The most expensive seats were 'The Lords Rooms,' where the wealthier nobles would sit, sheltered from wind and rain. It was said that more men attended the theatre than women, and women of high status would hide their identity with a mask.

The atmosphere at theatres was a stark contrast to what we expect today. Both the wealthy and poor were vocal during the performances, cheering heroes and booing villains. Those on the ground often sold livestock, the theatre bustling with potential buyers. The engagement of the audience was a curse as well as a blessing - they could completely disrupt and destroy a play did they not enjoy it. For example, a play that used female characters to play female roles, a French touring group, were hissed at by the outraged audience. Members would throw fruit at the actors or vandalise the seats and walls did they not like the play, stamp on the floor, vocalise their upset, and fights could sometimes break out.

The streets and taverns would become overcrowded after performances, and the Church condemned the disruption that came with the vast number of people attending the theatre, also saying it was a haven for the spreading of disease, and that the actors on stage were irresponsible and immoral people. Furthermore, the showing of plays clashed with the afternoon church services, so many people didn't attend them, the noise from the plays disturbing the churches. Queen Elizabeth kept imposing restrictions on the theatre, such as not allowing players to establish themselves in the city, but these rules were constantly being broken.

It is amazing that the theatre, although a busy and sometimes dangerous place, brought all people together, a rare event where all social classes would indulge in the same ritual, and boo and cheer together.

Question 3 - London in Elizabethan times

What was London like in Elizabethan times?

London was the bustling centre for trade in the Elizabethan times, the River Thames providing a great means of transportation for cargo and goods. Unlike now, the water flowing through the city was smelly, dirty and filthy. London Bridge was bursting with shops where traders could show their wares. Much different to life now, severed heads were displayed along London Bridge, a dark and sinister reminder of what happened to traitors in Elizabethan times, a bleak practice that attracted flies and increased the already high spread of disease.

There were theatres all over the country, and many touring acting troupes, but Shakespeare resided in London for most of his working life. London was a haven for playwrights, where new plays were performed and the population included wealthy traders and manufacturers with the money to go to the theatre. London was also home to royalty and much of the nobility, who grew to love Shakespeare’s plays, and became patrons of the theatres, money needed to keep them going.

London was a large city, the numbers growing with the arrival of migrants from the country and Europe in search of work, due to changes in agriculture. From 1550 to 1600, ‘it is estimated that the city grew from around 50,000 residents to over 200,000’ a huge increase. In these times, the increases in the city lead to the ravage and spreading of disease, at a time when there was little medical advancement and understanding about the link between hygiene and illness. The deadly plague struck the cities in the hot summers, resulting in staggering deaths, and theatres had to be closed in these times.

The homes in Elizabethan London were famous for their black and white half timbered style. Some of the features the homes had are listed below;
-high chimneys, a contrast to the poorly ventilated country homes
-pillared porches
-thatched roofs
leaded windows

The city was overcrowded, dirty and busy. There was no drainage system, and people emptied chamber pots into the streets, which were slimy with refuse. The city had its own cleansers, however - the kites, which were small birds that made their nests from rags in the streets, and scavenged, eating rotting foods. The city was also noisy - as all the inhabitants drank ale, not water, and were constantly tipsy. Drinking was also an important social affair and a huge part of festivities.

Note - the quote used in this piece of writing is from the Globe's page on London.

Question 2 - Shakespeare's Life

Shakespeare's Life

Origins

Shakespeare was baptised on April 23, 1564, but the exact date of his birth is unknown, as he lived over 400 years ago and some of the records have been lost. He lived in Stratford - upon - Avon, a beautiful town outside London with a river running through it.

Family

His parents, John and Mary, had two other children before him, girls, who didn't survive past infancy. After his birth, the parents had two younger sisters and three younger brothers, Shakespeare the eldest child. His father eventually became the town bailiff, and married Mary Arden. It is said that Shakespeare attended the local grammar school, which taught many skills with a heavy emphasis on Latin. 

Relationships

Shakespeare married Anne Hathaway at the age of 18, Anne a woman from a nearby town. She spent the rest of her life in Stratford after the marriage. They had 3 children, Susanna, Judith and Hamnet, who Anne cared for whilst Shakespeare went to London to work as a playwright. Hamnet died at the age of 11, due to . Both Judith and Susanna married, Susanna bearing a daughter. The family subsequently died out, leaving no direct descendants of Shakespeare.

We know little about Shakespeare's romantic life beyond his marriage to Anne, but some have speculated his homosexuality. Some argue that, because Shakespeare's sonnets are autobiographical, they are evidently addressed to a young man. Furthermore, it can be said that Shakespeare was a man that explored such a theme subtly in some of his plays, such as The Merchant of Venice. In this play, there is a strong, loving and suggestively homoerotic relationship between Bassanio and Antonio, two Venetians. Additionally, Shakespeare wrote the play Othello about a man alienated from society due to his skin colour, subject to racism; perhaps this could reflect his own 'alienation' were he a gay man in a time of homophobia. 

The world he lived in 

Shakespeare lived in a world where there was little scientific knowledge and a nation with strong superstitious beliefs that influenced their daily lives. Shakespeare wrote his plays angled at the upper-classes, yet people of all social classes came together to watch them, showing that theatre transcended the strong class divide he lived amongst.

The world he lived in was ravaged with disease, particularly in London where he worked. In 1593 and 1594, theatres were closed due to the plague. In this period, he wrote poetry of an erotic nature, and later published a now famous book of Sonnets in 1609.

He also lived in a patriarchal society dominated by men, where women were owned by their fathers and then their husbands. Despite Shakespeare writing plays that were heavily dominated by great female characters, women were never allowed on stage to play them.

Questions surrounding his work

Shakespeare was not a lecturer, but a questioner, one that clearly was ahead of his time and explored bold themes through theatre. For example, in The Merchant of Venice, the character Portia plays a man in order to play a role in court, something she wouldn't have been able to do were she a woman. Shylock, a Jew, is subject to repeated prejudice and verbal abuse at the hands of the protagonists, who are Christian men, their hypocrisy highlighted as they discriminate against another religion. In Macbeth, Lady Macbeth defies stereotypes of women at the time, a strong and reckless presence. In Othello, Shakespeare asks questions to the audience about racism and slavery. Emilia, Iago's wife, gives a powerful speech in the play about the role of women, and repeatedly refuses to hold her tongue, fighting rebelliously until her death. 


(picture is of Zoe Wanamaker as Emilia in Othello)

She says: 

'Let husbands know

 Their wives have sense like them. They see, and smell,

 And have their palates both for sweet and sour

 As husbands have.'

Eileen Atkins doing Emilia's speech for the 400 yr anniversary of Shakespeare (link)

Despite his exploration of bolder themes, some question his earlier play, The Taming of the Shrew, a play that depicts the gradual 'taming' of a woman, originally outspoken and headstrong, who is reduced to loving her husband (who she's forced to marry). At the time, the submission of the woman would have been widely seen as normal and perhaps even humorous, but I find it difficult to enjoy watching and to grasp as a feminist in 2017. I saw a production of it recently at The Globe, marketed towards children even younger than me. I was surprised that, out of all the plays he's written, they chose one with a storyline that is shocking in this day and age. I felt that the play tried to present too many things at once - the set was a wedding cake, there were dolls on stage, there was music, they used Brechtian techniques. They didn't clearly enough present the play with a feminist retelling, and depicted some glamorised scenes of sexual assault. One minute, there would be laughter at a comedic joke, the next the play plummeted into a dark theme, leaving me conflicted as an audience member. I found it harrowing to watch a black woman be bound to a white, powerful man with a rope, making me think of slavery. To see her being deprived of food, sleep, enjoyment, at his leisure. They injected the play with random bursts into song that felt awkward. Of course, the play was marketed to a younger audience, but I was not satisfied with the outcome.

Overall, I think that Shakespeare's plays offer so much to us in our generation. His words, penned over 400 years ago, still are so powerful and relevant to our lives. His characters are rounded, multi-faceted, and we can perform his plays in modern and old settings, and embrace and challenge what he explores.