Search results

You are looking at 1 - 10 of 42 items for :

  • "performance history" x
  • Manchester Shakespeare x
  • Refine by access: All content x
Clear All

This book writes a performance history of Antony and Cleopatra from 1606 to 2018. After considering the particular challenges Shakespeare’s script offers any actors, directors or designers who stage it, the book looks in detail at Antony and Cleopatra on the Jacobean stage and then at Dryden’s All for Love (the play that replaced Shakespeare’s from the Restoration to 1849). Fast-forwarding across a number of Victorian adaptations and early twentieth century English productions, it arrives at 1953, when, directed by Glen Byam Shaw at the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre with Peggy Ashcroft as Cleopatra and Michael Redgrave as Antony, the play’s modern performance history begins. Thereafter, chapters offer in-depth analyses of fifteen productions by (among others) the Royal Shakespeare Company, Citizens’ Theatre Glasgow, Northern Broadsides, Berliner Ensemble and Toneelgroep Amsterdam in five countries and three languages. Combining close readings of theatre records – promptbooks, stage managers’ reports, costume bibles, reviews – with deep historical contextualisation, it sees how, and what, this play has meant each time it has brought its thoughts on power, race, masculinity, regime change, exoticism, love, dotage and delinquency into alignment with a new present. It ends seeing Shakespeare’s black Cleopatra restored to the English stage. Tragedy, comedy, history, farce: this book demonstrates that in performance Antony and Cleopatra is all four.

Abstract only
Gwilym Jones

. Pericles , too, is a divided play, and in Chapter 8 , I show that its ‘lasting storm’ is a performance aesthetic that bridges the divisions and allows us to think more carefully about them. This, then, is a book that uses the discourses of performance history and ecocritisim to argue that Shakespeare’s storms have so far been misread or ignored. The storms represent changing theatrical and technical

in Shakespeare’s storms
Abstract only

To look at the performance history of Titus Andronicus is to confront some provocative questions such as why has this play posed severe problems for generations of readers, critics, editors, actors, directors, and playgoers. The book examines twelve major theatrical productions and one film, on the play, that appeared in the years 1989-2009. It begins with Edward Ravenscroft's version that superseded Shakespeare's script. Peter Brook chose to stylise or formalise many moments, and Deborah Warner's production worked with no cutting of the script. Every staging of Titus elicits comments about the daunting nature of the script. The book presents Irving Wardle's reactions on Trevor Nunn's 1972 rendition, and Stanley Wells's review of the Swan production. The densest concentration of such problems and anomalies, as perceived by today's directors, critics, and editors, comes in the final scene. The productions that opened in 1989, directed by Jeannette Lambermont, Daniel Mesguich, and Michael Maggio, cut and rearranged the text liberally, often in an attempt to avoid the laughter. During the period 1989-99, three major European directors, Peter Stein, Silviu Purcarete, and Gregory Doran, focused their attention on the ways in which the play can be made to comment on specific contemporary affairs. Julie Taymor's venture in 1994 combined stylization with the 'visceral reality' as a means to keep spectators off balance and continuously sensitive to the shocking brutality of the play's events. The book ends by discussing the efforts of Yukio Ninagaw, Bill Alexander, Gale Edwards, Richard Rose, and Lucy Bailey.

Abstract only
Michael D. Friedman and Alan Dessen

Titus Andronicus uncut has come true. According to my research, all twelve major stage productions (and one feature film) produced between 1989 and 2009 have included cuts and/or transpositions, many of them extensive. Although Warner’s production achieved wide popular and critical acclaim, it has not had nearly the level of influence on subsequent stage and film versions as its success might have foretold. Rather, it typifies only one of four active lines of descent in the performance history of Titus Andronicus

in Titus Andronicus
Abstract only
The Problem
Michael D. Friedman and Alan Dessen

directors (with a few notable exceptions – most significantly, Deborah Warner in her 1987–88 Royal Shakespeare Company rendition) have resorted to substantial cuts and other alterations. To look closely at the performance history of Titus between 1955 and 1988 is therefore to confront some provocative questions. My goal in this book is to raise and address those questions. First and most obvious is: why has this particular play posed such severe problems for generations of readers, critics, editors, actors, directors, and

in Titus Andronicus
Double Ariel in the Royal Shakespeare Company’s The Tempest (2017)
Anchuli Felicia King

’, 21 Ariel's textual origins have been variously attributed to esoteric magic, Jacobean witchcraft beliefs, Jewish and Christian demonology, and elemental symbology. 22 His slippery textual status is clearly reflected in the play's performance history, with his casting and characterisation fluctuating widely given a period's aesthetic and ideological preoccupations. In several instances, directors have even cast multiple actors in the role, from a bifurcated ‘boy’ and ‘girl’ Ariel in the

in Shakespeare and the supernatural
Abstract only
Nicoleta Cinpoeş

performance history of the play – amateur, professional and radio – see my website The Jacobethans . 11 Part V of this book is indicative of the renewed interest in Thomas Kyd and his work after 2000. The increased number of single-author volumes and extended critical articles on Kyd and The Spanish Tragedy signals the clear shift from

in Doing Kyd
Julius Caesar before the Second World War
Andrew James Hartley

, whose story should be considered dominant. In short, a productive way of considering the play’s performance history is by asking whose play it has been perceived to be. In the twentieth century the title character has occasionally loomed over productions like the colossal statues often relied upon to keep his memory alive in the latter half of the show, and there is some reason – albeit speculative – to

in Julius Caesar
Abstract only
Global Caesars
Andrew James Hartley

clearly marked by European Fascism and then in the postcolonial cultures of India and South Africa. Given the many variables which govern a play’s performance history in places with widely differing cultures and histories, it seems unreasonable to expect consistent patterns to emerge; but in the case of Caesar, some tentative observations might be made. First, the play’s political valences, though they

in Julius Caesar
Abstract only
Josette Bushell-Mingo’s Cleopatra, Royal Exchange, Manchester, 2005; Tarell Alvin McCraney’s ‘radical edit’, Royal Shakespeare Company, The Public and GableStage, 2013
Carol Chillington Rutter

layers of performance history in which it is cloaked’? ‘If Shakespeare really is our contemporary’, why are ‘so many revivals so timid and reverential?’  17 A year later, McCraney de-pickled Antony and Cleopatra. Neither timid nor reverential, yet mightily respectful of the senior playwright who stood behind it (and withal, ‘play-full’), McCraney's ‘radical edit’ aligned much more closely with Thomas Ostermeir's Hamlet (2008) and Katie Mitchell's Ophelias Zimmer (2015) than with either Gregory Doran's Antony and

in Antony and Cleopatra