www.theatreartlife.com: A few months ago I was lucky enough to work at the Globe Theatre in London. The Globe is a replica of the theatre Shakespeare worked in when he was working in London during the early 1600s. The Globe is made largely of wood and is open to the elements, it has the only thatched roof allowed in London. We’re still a bit cautious after the Great Fire of London in 1666. The Globe had previously been run as a theatrical kind of museum; productions did not utilize tech support or theatrical lighting and sound.
15 comments:
This is outrageous. I totally understand wanting to retain Shakespeare's original vision, but if we were to do that, sound and lighting design would be the least of our problems. It would be much more important to not use elaborate and detailed sets. As noted in the article, Shakespeare made as much use as possible out of what little sound design existed at the time, but he did not do the same with sets. Since the Globe Theater was in the round, it was important to Shakespeare that the audience imagine the sets rather than see them. This was partially for the sake of allowing audience interpretation, but also for the sight line of the audience. Just because an artist did not have certain technology available to them at the time, does not mean they would not have used it if they were living today. Based on evidence presented in the article, Shakespeare would have actually wanted to use this technology.
Banning technology like this seems like something a theater venue with a thatched roof would do. I think there's a lot of value in viewing and creating shows without more modern lighting and sound technology, this is able to give a specific insight into something closer to the original viewing experience of Shakespeare's plays. From a historical perspective and as a sort of "attraction" I value the Globe's opinion in upholding their specific artistic vision. I think that the Globe does have an interesting expectation in that it is a living piece of history, but it is also a modern, working place of theater. This is a open conservation that needs to happen with the Globe administration, but also hopefully taking in audience opinion. The bigger importance seems to be bringing in an audience to really help preserve Shakespeare's works, and if more modern commodities help do this it would make sense to follow the times. It's not a bad thing to include modern lighting and sound, especially since the Globe upholds most of the other physical classical criteria of Shakespeare's plays. The thing is, the world has moved on from the time of Shakespeare. We haven't forgotten him and it's important to keep performing them, but I think with this newer technology Shakespeare himself would feel motivated to incorporate them - anything to help tell the story better.
This article is written by someone who is obviously biased towards the use of technology in the Globe. From my perspective, we should always be trying to put on the best production we can, and the Globe clearly has the money for a sound and lighting rig. That said, the most important thing to the people that run the Globe is their mission, which could conceivably necessitate low-tech or tech-free productions. However, after a little research, I discovered that the mission of the Globe is not about producing historically-accurate Shakespeare, but about producing works inspired by the theater. It’s unlikely that Rice’s productions did not take the surrounding theater into consideration, but it’s possible. I think it’s more likely that the board just didn’t like her vision, and that they want to emphasize the experience of 1600s theatre. Although the author of the article has some insightful things to say, they can’t provide any insider information. If I were on the board, I would have pushed to give the Rice an opportunity to direct within the given constraints.
^Unknown 5:52 pm 11/8/18 is me. Computer blegh.
I was lucky enough to see a production of Twelfth Night at the Globe last summer. This production was set in the 70s with a drag queen performer, vibrant and colorful costumes, and elaborate lighting and sound complete with a disco ball. This show was in no means a traditional Shakespeare show, but it was by far one of the most fun nights I had ever had in a theatre. Standing on the ground, dancing and laughing along with all of the other audience members filling the floor. I do understand where they are coming from in wanting to remove the technology and keep it more traditional, but like the article mentions if they do this why would still have women performances because in Shakespeare’s time they didn’t. The thing I loved most about seeing this show was that I was in the traditional theatre but I was seeing such a nontraditional version of a show that was accessible to me and where I was having fun watching it, which I really do believe is how the audience back then would’ve felt. One of the most important things about Shakespeare’s shows is how timeless they are and how the story holds up today and is accessible to today’s audience, and I do think having the technology helps with that because that is what theatre is today. The joy I felt seeing that show is something I know I will never forget and I do think that if I was seeing a traditional Shakespeare performance in that space I would not have gotten the same reaction, and would not have remembered it as well.
Articles that end with questions to the readers can be throwaways, but in this case, I really was interested in how this article decided to end. Yvonne Gilbert concludes this piece by asking, "The vision of Emma Rice may have been too much too fast for the executive committee but does that mean it was wrong? Doesn’t the direction of theatre revolve around what the audience wants to see? Can a Globe season do both the traditional historical portrayal of Shakespeare’s works as well as modern interpretations utilising technology?" All of these questions really do deserve their own 500-1000 word response. By saying that using modern advancements is inauthentic, how does the Globe intend to address social justice and change as our society advances itself forward? Does it plan to allow only male identifying performers to act as was the custom during Shakespeare's time? Are women somehow inauthentic as much as modern lighting and sound are? If the box office reported robust sales, why was Emma Rice let go? At a certain point, do retellings of the same story deserve to be modernized and utilize new advancements in technology? I really would be interested in the transcripts of the board meeting that decided to remove Rice, and how they decided that was the best for the Globe and its legacy when these days theatre patrons have so many more entertainment options. Theatre is struggling to survive, and the way forward might indeed involve technology.
I think there is an argument to be made for the globe serving as a museum, but if that is the case, they should be committing a lot more to period authentic costuming, scenery, make-up, and performance methods. Honestly, I think the best strategy would be to do a “historically accurate” production or two a year, and then have the rest be more modernized, using modern lighting and sound. I’m sure Shakespeare would’ve used modern lighting and sound equipment if it were available, I doubt anyone is arguing that he wouldn’t, but if they want The Globe to be somewhat frozen in time, I understand why they’d want to avoid overtly modern technology. If their mission to to perform Shakespeare as originally performed, then sure, avoid modern technology, but then really commit to that sense of historical accuracy. Otherwise it seems like an arbitrary rule, and then it is just unnecessary.
I think Emma Rice’s vision for the Globe may have been a bit too much too fast for the old-fashioned style the Globe’s board was used too, but I don’t think it was in any way wrong. Shakespeare used sound effects. Men played women. Audience members peed in the corners of the Globe. If two of these three things have changed over time, why can’t they all? Shakespeare would have definitely used new technology as it came along, especially considering how difficult and unsafe half of what he did was. I understand the Globe wanted to keep up the historical accuracy of the performances, but I think it’s hypocritical to argue they are doing that if they are not doing that with things like gender in casting. They no longer have men play women because this is the twenty-first century and we have evolved a lot in that area. I think that argument in itself is enough to justify the use of a sound system in the Globe. If they want to be historically accurate and “museum-like” it needs to be, in my opinion, accurate EVERYWHERE or allow for a change in more than one area.
I don’t think the question here is what would Shakespeare do, rather, does the Globe want to be a museum or a theater. It is common for theaters to have this technology and since Shakespeare was trying to achieve effects it is likely that he would have used it if it had been around. Another part of the question is what is the most valuable way to remember Shakespeare and his work? Is doing work with modern theaterial technology or doing work the same way Shakespeare would have done better? Each person gets their own opinion and when they design a Shakespeare production. Also,The Globe theater is not the end all be all because the Globe is not the only theater producing Shakespeare. Therefore, different theaters get to make there own decisions and each production gets to make that decision for themselves. They not only choose how to honor the work but also how to best tell the story.
What an interesting article with a tough quandary to contemplate. I honestly am not sure what to think. I don't know many of the facts or how exactly this timeline of events played out, but it seems haste to me to fire Emma Rice after just one year of implementing these changes. I get that the changes she made were 'bigs ones', adding technology to a house that claims to be historical and authentic, but I find myself wondering about the same thing the article leaves us questioning, would shakespeare would have cared? I think the article brings up the good point that Shakespeare was a fan of using technical elements and used the most advanced forms that were possible in that time. If line arrays were available to him would he have said no? I think it comes down to what your real goal is. For some, it is novel enough to sit in a theater identical to the one that shakespeare did, to others the conditions have to be as closely matched as they can but like the article pointed out, the conditions have changed for the better, why can't the technology change too?
Although I’ve sadly never seen a show inside the Globe Theater, I’ve seen it from the outside on a trip to London. From outside, it appears to be an anachronism on the city street, with its historic construction and thatched roof. From reading the article, it seems like the Globe needs to figure out if they want to be a normal, if historic, theater that does Shakespeare shows, or if they want to do essentially historical reenactments to immerse the audience in the historic Shakespeare experience. The decision to remove the modern technology seems to swing it towards the ‘reenactment’ side, which the author of the article seems to feel is unnecessary. The author seems to take the view that Shakespeare was using all the technology available to him, especially in the area of sound, and that he would approve of using modern technology in his theater. I’m not sure if I agree or not. I think the concept of doing shows how Shakespeare did them, using only the technology he had available, is a really interesting one. But if technology has evolved to allow us to create better and more accessible shows, why wouldn’t we want to use it? Ultimately I think the Globe needs to determine what their mission is- to be a theater or to be a museum.
I think the heart of this article lies in the question “Is the Globe a working theatre or a museum that does theatre? Is there room for it to be both?”. I can understand both perspectives on this situation. On the one hand, there’s something powerful about keeping a performance to it’s bare essence, an actor onstage with an audience. It’s super interesting to see how the challenges that arrive from not having sound and lighting support would have been dealt with in the 1600’s (or any period for that matter). But I also understand that there’s a reason that technology exists. And that it’s unlikely Shakespeare would have wanted his works to stagnate in such a way that they don’t incorporate modern tech. I think the truth here lies somewhere in the middle. I don’t see why the Globe can’t be both a tribute to what Shakespeare was and a version of what Shakespeare could be.
There is obviously a middle ground here. I, for one am a Luddite, I enjoy all new things, I want to see new technology everywhere, but I don't want to see it ruining the integrity of historical shows, AND I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT OPERA WITH EMOJIS. I do not think that adding technology to the globe theater is such a bad thing, and to be perfectly honest, it seems like a weak excuse to oust an artistic director which the board may simply not have liked. With the myriad ways technology presents itself these days, adding unobtrusive elements such as light sound reinforcement and just general electric stage light, seems like it would actually help the globe theater in its supposed goal of staying true to the original way Shakespeare plays were invented. Perhaps this artistic director was simply too eager, and should have introduced her changes a little more slowly, however I do not think she will be out of work for long.
It is crazy how much The Globe theater has been through. It is a true piece of history and very special to the theater community. I find it amazing how it was a space for theater all the way back in the 1600s, back when there was no lighting technology, media technology, and sound technology. I am sure they didn't have advancements close to what we have now when it comes to building sets and costumes. Reading this article, it seemed very exciting to have Emma Rice be the new artistic director and attempting to bring in some theater technology to this ancient place. But it is sad to see the theater was uninviting of change and they let her go, continuing to leave the space as is, without the implement of any designs. Bringing the use of technology to further implement these stories in many aspect of design would have been wonderful in my opinion, it is too bad that the theater wants to keep their plays out of the light from this technology.
-Pablo Anton
When faced with this debate, between people who want to see works done closer to original practices and people who want to see “official Shakespeare” performed the full extents and capabilities of the modern era, my instinct is to say “why not both?” After all, the way the Globe presents theatre is already far from how original practices actually are, unless they purposely put on a play in the style. I think there’s value and fun to seeing a show that is limited to what was possible in Shakespeare’s day. I think it can be interesting to see a production that relies on foley and simple lighting that would’ve been available at the time, and I’d love to see a play like that at the Globe, so I can envision that real environment. But I also think the Globe can still put on plays using modern accoutrements, utilizing the unique location of the Globe to take us into the future. Doesn’t performing a range of productions, true to both the past and the present, better uphold the Globe’s mission of bringing Shakespeare to audiences now? There’s no point in trying to preserve something that’s over just for the sake of repeating it. That wouldn’t be very interesting. What’s interesting is seeing how it can grow and change, while still celebrating – or in some places, deconstructing – the past.
Post a Comment