www.telegraph.co.uk: The director of Shakespeare’s Globe theatre has announced she is to leave the role after less than a year, following a row over “experimentation” in light and sound.
Emma Rice has announced she is to leave the theatre after being criticised for using microphones, neon, and light rigging as part of her sets in the replica Elizabethan theatre.
6 comments:
If there is something for theatre patrons to criticize, then criticize they will, and as such it's no big surprise that Emma Rice is under such fire for her choices at the Globe. People go to shows at the Globe to see the truest-to-form adaptations of Shakespeare as are feasible in the modern day, so using technology that violates this realism leading to outrage isn't much of a surprise. The fact that she only made it a year as director of the theatre also shows how rigid the public's perception of the Globe is, and how quickly people will leap to it's defense if they feel it threatened. Midsummer, a show that my high school used intense rigging systems to fly people on, is something that can envelop an audience with much more ease if there are technical elements that assist creating the world, and, based on pictures, the production was successful in that regard. However, since people want one very specific, very niche variety of theatre from the Globe, the production was vilified and people began to call Rice's decision-making into question, to the extent that she didn't feel compelled to work there. Going back to shared lighting is sure to bring a new slew of challenges, but at least they are challenges the theatre has faced for centuries.
I really don’t see the point in theater if we’re not evolving and changing in accordance with technology, society and the world around us. What’s the merit in performing Shakespeare’s plays exactly as they would have been performed hundreds of years ago? What’s the point in ignoring the years and years of history and advancements that have taken place over that time to bring us to a more interesting and more enlightened production? And what do they even mean by saying that her lighting and sound design choices were too “experimental”? From the pictures, it just looks like she is using the design elements in ways comparable to those of other modern productions. Are they also going to get rid of all of the scenic designs, because Shakespeare’s original productions were known for their bare stages? If we aren’t looking critically as theater artists at how we can make our performances better and evolve our art to be culturally relevant to the audience of today, what is theater even for? I’m glad Rice had the courage and ability to take such a strong stand on this issue by leaving, but it’s sad that she had to do it in the first place. I hope that the theater of the future won’t be quite so limited to what we think older, more “traditional” audience will and won’t be happy with.
I feel like this is a battle that theater will fight for a long time in the years to come, because it's the classic war between tradition and moving forward. Obviously the Globe has an illustrious history and traditions that are extremely significant to theatrical convention as a whole. However, I believe if theater doesn't move forward and try to meet the needs of its audiences, it isn't doing its job for the community. I understand wanting to preserve the original theatrical conventions of Shakespearean theater solely for historical purposes, but I feel like that is best suited for a historical organization whose sole purpose is to present authentic historical theater experiences. The Globe is not a museum or a historical organization, it's a theater, and I still believe that part of the purpose of theater is to push forward and provide experiences that will enrich an audience-- and if that means having to use more modern technical elements, then so be it. It sounds like the majority of people who saw the show would argue that the modern elements did just that. I argue that, even if the theater is hundreds of years old, using modern technology doesn't inherently detract from the authenticity of the show itself. Shakespearean theater is much more complex than a bunch of outdated conventions.
I have mixed feeling over the decision to eliminate modern lights and sounds. Though I understand why people want the Shakespeare at the Globe Theater to be more accurate to the period, but I have to wonder if they are also eliminating modern tools when making the costumes and set. Can the costume shop still use sewing machines? Can the carpenters still use power tools? Or do the rules about not using modern equipment only apply to lights and sound because the audience knows about the high tech tools? And as an extension, do they have female actors because in Shakespeare's time women were not allowed to act of the stage. However, I can see why the Globe theater would want to appease people by seeming to stay true to Shakespeare era. However, one of the things that I enjoy about Shakespeare is how his work is still relevant and interesting despite how much time has changed. For me, seeing the show take place in modern times cements the idea that his work is still relevant. Nevertheless, I hope the Globe theater is happy with their decision to use less modern technology for the lighting and sound design of their shows.
Honestly, I did not expect to agree with this article, but after thinking about it I really think that there isn't a place for tech like that in this theatre. So much of modern theatre is supersaturated with tech like this, and while it definitely has its place, it can become very very overdone and really take away from a show. And so much of modern Shakespeare is so heavily adapted and put into different time periods and genres, I think that the Globe should remain a place where Shakespeare is performed as it originally was intended to be--without frills and special effects. That is to say I am not against modern sound and light in shows--they definitely add to a show where used right and are really really fantastic. But for something that is supposed to be old fashioned I think that there's no place for neon or sound reinforcement, as it just takes away from the experience. I think Shakespeare can and should be adapted like that, but not at the Globe.
I am sad to read about the controversy over the use of modern theatrical equipment at the Globe. I am angered that the traditional views of the board are not able to agree with someone or even support that they presumably hired. I understand that the Globe theater is special, and probably one of the most historically rich theater spaces we still have a world today, but denying it the chance to evolve with the theater community is nonsensical. Theater is not being presented like it was back in Shakespeare's time. We have incredible technology to enhance the work of all that our actors are doing onstage. Why not use what is new and inventive in an old space? The dichotomy is what makes things interesting.
By not allowing directors and technicians to innovate in a space that for so many years served a birthplace for innovation for the theater, the board is acting in a hypocritical way. Though the space holds many traditions I feel the limits being placed on the technical aspects of producing a show are unnecessary and pleasing an audience that no longer exists.
Post a Comment