Good Evening from the Blackfriars! I am Clare and will be your blogger for Paper Session V of the conference 2013.
Moderator: Michael Hirrel.
Ann Pleiss Morris: Patient Auditor to Gentle Reader: Transforming the Introduction from Playhouse to Printhouse
Annalisa Castaldo: “Your majesty came not like yourself”: Staging and Understanding the Glove Episode of Henry V
Andrew Carlson: Performance as Public Dramaturgy
Steve Urkowitz: Shakespeare Shaping Richard in Versions of Henry VI 2 &3, or “The Bard Licking the Boar”
Ann Jennalie Cook: Life in Shakespeare’s London: A First-Hand Account
Previous to the invention of the printing press, plays were primarily known as plays, and not as books. Therefore, the audience members did not move from “page to stage.” When presses started printing plays, they also printed epistles describing how the reader should react to a play text, and how they should move from stage to page. Some scholars believe that the prologue and epilogue was a means for the actors, playwright and audience to construct theater together. Some actors felt that the publication cut at the artistry, and highly limited the plays. Playwrights and actors were also concerned about the difference between the play and the theatrical experience, and the ways in which the editors could change, cut or misprint the text. Some epistles suggested that audience members think back on the text as they saw it performed. Publishers could easily intend printed plays therefore, to solicit nostalgia and not for a first encounter. Beaumont was particularly concerned that the reader recollect the atmosphere of the playhouse in the plays. Beaumont wrote to Jonson to voice some of his concerns. Introductory epistles also lay out the “correct” reception of a play and teach readers how to read it “properly.” Fletcher does so by laying out the scene and wishes that it could act more as a prologue did. Playwrights concernedly sought to shape the experience of the readers and can help re-envision the movement we undergo from page to stage.
Henry V’s use of the glove to trick Williams, is perhaps the most problematic instance in Henry V. The joke often appears not to work, so Castaldo looked at why Shakespeare kept the scene in his script. Directors often cut the scene because it is problematic. Scholars often overlook the scene as well, especially in political readings of the play (which keep the first Williams encounter, but the not second). Audiences see a discontinuity when a King in full armor plays a practical joke. The moment falls in the middle of a set of clearly solemn moments. Henry also appears to set up for mockery and possible execution one of the soldiers who has just won the battle for him. The fact that the beginning of the scene is inundated with the repetition of the idea of a traitor and impending punishment, offsets the honesty of Williams. The way Henry offers a payment to Williams frames the treatment of other major themes in the play. The ASC touring troupe actors presented the scene first as lighthearted, and then as sinister. Even when presented humorously there is a threat, and even when sinister, there is some humor in the scene. This scene may also remind audiences/readers of Jack Cade. (Time and the ASC bear cut the paper short). Shakespeare wrote his plays knowing how things will be resolved, which is another reason for the strangeness of this moment.
Disparagement in the reading of a text and what some audience members perceive in the text and the performance can be used as dramaturgy. The audience and actor can build a character together. Over-clarifying and tagging particular characters and motives through Shakespearean study leads to the problem of trying to present the “correct interpretation.” Striving for “correctness” is dissatisfying for audiences and actors. Stanslavski methods say actors should “do” not “think” and that actors should not over-think characters but react. Actors must “not think” in order to act and simply try to obtain something from another character, or affect a change in the scene partner. This approach cuts out playing a state of being. However, audience members can think that characters are types and bring qualities of the character to mind rather than what the character does. What audience members experience is neither inherently correct or incorrect, but a version of the story to which the audience can respond with different adjectives. The audience proscribes what the character is rather than the actor trying to do so, the actor acts on an objective. It takes extensive textual work to get to the point where the actor has the objectives he wants to use and is able to use them in continuity with the text. Actors often struggle with directors who give direction based upon a state of being (ex. “you’re being too _____”) rather than helping to shape the objectives. Directors have to shape their direction according to the language of the actor. Using performance as a public dramaturgy is not “the right textual analysis” but a shared process of collaboration to create the art.
Urkowitz began his talk by asking everyone to gather the handout he provided that they might fill it out during the presentation. Theater, like an etching, is a form of visual arts, and there are many different kinds of changes which take place between any two productions of the same thing. (Urkowitz directed our attention to two different preparatory etchings by Rebrant for one of his works). Each of Richard III’s brothers present the blood of their enemies to their father, and Richard presents the head. Each is praised for his work, and Richard addresses the dead head, asking it as if it is dead (much like a child’s joke when a child addresses an inanimate object). Richard appears to take delight in examining his handiwork. This same joke appears in Mucedorus when a character addresses the body of a dead bear and ask if it is dead. Severed head jokes must have been circulating in the theater at the time. Many textual adaptations to revised texts of the Henry plays highlight Richard III in monstrous ways. For more information please contact Urkowitz (the ASC bear took his paper too). There is an anxiety of humor to the plays and movement through degrees of sympathy.
John Stow is a prolific writer, and commenter upon Shakespearean England. He titled himself “gentleman” and was able to comment on the court as well as the town. Even though scholars often turn to certain areas of Stow’s work, the annals provide a better idea of the play-going culture. Scholars often overlook the surveys and Stow’s works with regard to theater. Stow is able to comment on theater in the noble’s houses and he also uses the theater as a locale for many of reports. He is extremely helpful in establishing the area around the theater. Audience members often observed whippings, beatings, hangings, beheading, etc in their culture. Therefore, they had a different visceral response to the violence the actors presented on stage. Things actors presented on stage were able to be directly compared with real life experiences (such as the queen’s garments). The sets of associations are very different for the playgoers then and now. Many of the details of what actors presented in plays can be fleshed out with concurrent similar instances of historical events from the time period in the annals. Stow gives us great accounts of the life he shared with Shakespeare.