WSJ.com: After a successful run in London, the all-male productions of "Twelfth Night" and "Richard III" by Shakespeare's Globe Theatre are being received with rapturous enthusiasm by New York audiences and critics alike. One or both may well win the Tony award.
2 comments:
I'm sad that the creators of this production claimed to be doing "authentic" Shakespeare but then made casting choices which were against what would have realistically been done. This turns the play from a real piece of theatre to a satire of how Shakespearian plays were originally performed. While these plays are comedies, they're not meant to be farces- the viewer is supposed to genuinely care about the characters, not laugh at their appearance every time they come on stage.
This article makes an interesting point about how authentic the production really is, or at least it says it does, but I'm not really sure if that's the case. The author talks about the casting, and how unauthentic it was. She says states that only 44 years after Shakespeare's death woman were allowed on the stage, and she ponders whether, given the option, Shakespeare would have wanted to cast real women in his plays. Right away, there's a pretty decent hole in her logic. Set aside what the bard wants, because at this point it's a bit too late to change anything about the first production of his plays. When they were performed, women were not allowed on the stage. 44 years later they were, but not then. To someone who's going on and on about authenticity, lets try not to jump ahead a half century. Of course, the author is totally right about the ages of the people playing the female roles, but to have someone who's 12-21 years old is somewhat unrealistic. Working with minors causes complications, and isn't it more important to have a talented actor than one who has a girlish face and a high voice. Besides, they weren't fooling anyone back then, so why try to fool them today. My biggest problem with the article though is how, even though they went on and on about how the production isn't authentic, they didn't even mention the fact that the sets and costumes were completely true to those of the period that these plays were originally performed in, and that they were even constructed using traditional materials and techniques. I found it a bit ridiculous that the author didn't even bother to throw in a "however" paragraph about things other than the casting.
Post a Comment