Stage | guardian.co.uk: Shakespeare's Globe will take the Wars of the Roses to the battlefields on which they were fought as part of its new season, which also brings Roger Allam back to the theatre where he won an Olivier award two years ago.
Shakespeare's Henry VI trilogy shows Britain's escalating civil war following the loss of its French territories during the Hundred Years War, portraying a rudderless country in which fathers and sons find themselves on opposing sides, and depicting the rise of the most notorious Plantagenet ruler of all, Richard of Gloucester, who became Richard III.
6 comments:
I really like the idea of preforming on a battle like they did for the Henry VI trilogy. A play can be powerful in just the implications of the words and the actions but when you are standing on the results of some of those actions I imagine it amplifies that emotion and struggle a thousand fold. You would literary be standing on the graves of those who lost their lives due to the characters of the play. I also think that because of this it has the perfect mix between showing everything and hiding the details and leaving some to the imagination of the audience. I would love to see this done with move plays even american plays because I think it would be a awesome experience.
I think that this is an amazing idea. Its one thing when you can experience the show itself at a regular theatre but staging it where the battle actually took place should be a completely different experience. Just standing on the soil where someone years ago probably died, should make an audience member feel some kind of way. I think it is a level of respect for the fallen and the space that will make this play memorable and remarkable.
Shakespeare being such an iconic and familiar genre that any high school graduate is typically familiar with atleast a handful of his tragedies and histories. With his entire section of history plays that take place in Britain's own country side its nice to see them taking advantage of it. I personally would love to see scotland take the same advantage with Macbeth but then raises the issue of how far some people would have to travel to get to the sites to see the shows.
I love this idea. What struck me most in this article was the quote about the British being obsessed with their own history, and I'm equal parts excited and incredibly jealous that they taking advantage of that history to stage these plays in their actual settings. It's so easy when seeing a play to separate yourself from the action onstage, and so much of it depends on suspension of belief. Yes, this stage is only 40 feet wide but the audience has to imagine that it is a vast huge open battlefield. Actually being in that vast huge open battlefield lends a whole new and exciting aspect to watching theatre, because there is less suspension of belief required and so the audience may be able to become more invested and more involved in the story and the characters.
We now have the single most historically accurate prop ever (Richard III's bones), so... 2015 season?
I really like this idea of performing theatre on a battlefield. It's new and different. I find these strange yet very relevant settings set productions apart from one another. We see this at the Bregenz Festival in Austria, where the opera is aquatic and sits on a floating stage. This catches my eye more than a seasonal production at the Met in NYC. Similarly, this reenactment-style of theatre sets itself apart from other Shakespearean plays. Shakespeare did not stress too much about sets, but I think because the battlefield is so natural to the play, it would seem simple and relaxing to the eye. Because the battlefields are so big, it would also seem as if the audience is surrounded by the battle and somehow include the audience in the production.
Post a Comment