Set of The Taming of the Shrew |
I'd never been interested in seeing TTotS before due to its misogynistic nature (the wonderful 10 Things I Hate About You notwithstanding), but having recently made the momentous decision to see all of Shakespeare's plays, to the Globe I hied. I thought there was a decent chance that this production would be subversive, given Artistic Director Emma Rice's comment that she wanted it to be a version 'for the 21st century'.
Talking of Emma Rice...much as I would like to be supportive of her as new Artistic Director, I admit I'm not happy about some of the changes she's introduced at the Globe. Lights galore, speakers, amplification and, possibly most shockingly, fewer productions with Elizabethan/Jacobean costumes and music...
Is this the end of the world as we know it?
Is this the end of the world as we know it?
I'm hardly a traditionalist. I've seen and enjoyed plenty of modern/other era adaptations of the plays of Shakespeare and his contemporaries. But isn't the Globe meant to be THE ONE place where you can see these plays performed with more or less the same appearance and feel that they would've had in Shakespeare's day? Isn't that the Globe's whole raison d'être? Other theatres very rarely put on Shakespeare's plays in Elizabethan/Jacobean garb, and one doesn't get many opportunities to hear music from that time, either. If the Globe no longer does this, it just becomes another modern theatre - putting on great plays, sure - but plays that would be equally suited to the National Theatre or anywhere else. I don't understand why Rice would choose to discard the features that make the Globe unique. She might as well encourage members of the public to fire paintballs at the Globe's white exterior walls in order to make it more colorful and friendly and less like a scary, stuffy old theatre.
One innovation of hers with which I do agree, however, is her introduction of gender-balanced casts. This innovation is obviously as unElizabethan as a prominent lighting rig, true. But, unsurprisingly, I favour the balancing of Globe authenticity with modern ideals of equality and diversity. There's nothing that contravenes such ideals in dressing up in Elizabethan garb (especially if women can play men's parts and vice versa) and playing music from that time. Plus, if a character is played well, it's easy to forget the sex of the actor playing him/her. Equality arguments aside, women playing men and vice versa is arguably a less visually obvious departure from Elizabethan ways of doing things than a prominent lighting rig.
Lights, speakers...unauthentically Shakespearean action! |
OK, enough about the New Globe Regime. This production of The Taming of the Shrew was set in Ireland in 1916, at the time of the Easter Rising. So...the costumes reflected that era, the music was played by an Irish band, the cast was Irish (or did very convincing accents) and there was the occasional Gaelic phrase thrown in. Katherine (Aoife Duffin) was such a force of nature in the first half it was impossible to imagine her becoming downtrodden. Her face was incredibly mobile and capable of admirable feats of gurning. The first half was extremely funny, involving slow motion wedding slapstick amongst other things. I hadn't expected it to be that funny. My favourite plot line was that involving Vincentio (Louis Dempsey) and his servant, Tranio (Imogen Doel), who pretends to be Vincentio while the real Vincentio pretends to be a teacher in order to get close to and woo Bianca (Genevieve Hulme-Beaman), Katherine's petulant younger sister. Tranio was both very cute and very funny, clearly delighted at assuming the role of master and full of amusing mannerisms.
The second half was predictably depressing as, following her marriage to Petruchio (Edward MacLiam), Katherine immediately became downtrodden; a shadow of her former self. I have to say, I'm impressed at Shakespeare's having created such a believable, cleverly emotionally abusive character at a time when the concept of 'emotional abuse' can't have been well-developed. It seemed pretty clear to me that Katherine went along with Petruchio's demands in this production purely because she knew that unless she did so she would get no food or rest. So...I suppose that's more subversive than Katherine having a complete personality change and genuinely growing to believe that women should be men's doormats. However, even with this interpretation, her final lengthy speech extolling female subordination was a bit much. I would've preferred it if the guests at the party at the end were revealed to be humouring Petruchio, having recognised him for the abuser that he is, and for the police to come and take him away during Katherine's final speech.
There was a lot of spitting in this production. I don't mean ordinary actorly spitting; I mean deliberate spitting as part of the play.
Next: Titus Andronicus
No comments:
Post a Comment