“but It’s Not Shakespeare”: (de)constructing Aspirations Of Authenticity, From Irving To Granville Barker

But It s Not Shakespeare : (De)Constructing Aspirations of Authenticity, from Irving to Granville Barker

Productions of Shakespeare are regularly met with complaint against their perceived authenticity, measured against an idea of an original performance which is impossible to know. Allan Lewis takes this complaint as the title of his 1970 Arts in Society article, But it s not Shakespeare (78). He concludes that such a criticism means that the critic imposes his own interpretation and ignores the possibility of valid new insights (1970:84). What Lewis misses, however, is the fact that any claim for authenticity constructs the claimant s own imagined Shakespeare a critic complaining of a lack of authenticity arguably has just as much original insight about what they believe authenticity to be as the insight which the inauthentic production offers. Similarly, a director attempting to make their own production authentic will always construct another Shakespeare, by virtue of the standards which the director in question measures authenticity by. The problem of authentic Shakespeare is raised but not (in itself) deconstructed in the 2014 special edition of the Shakespeare journal. The edition s articles include Valerie Pye s conception of authenticity as negotiable (2014:414) Don Weingust s assessment of the difficulty in replicating the practices of the theatre of 400 years ago (2014:403) and Terri Bourus and Gary Taylor s employment of the word authenticity only twice, enclosed within quotation marks, without explanation as to why (2014:363, 365). The quotation marks suggest that authenticity is a term generally recognised, but used inaccurately however, this suggestion is not overt. In fact, none of the critics in the 2014 special edition of Shakespeare question the idea of authenticity itself. I intend to do so by placing two Victorian productions of A Midsummer Night s Dream in dialogue, in order to explore how dramatists have consciously or otherwise responded to the fact that every production diverges from an original, authentic Shakespeare. Dream has been chosen because it is a play about tensions of imagination, and I believe that the aspiration for authenticity in performance is one which is implicitly imaginative.

Henry Irving was a pioneer of the tradition of Victorian pictorialism which, according to Anthony Dawson, ruled the stage in the nineteenth century (2010:239). The theatre was a booming business in the 1800s, with actor-managers such as Terry, Macready and Irving being household names , and famous actors touring across Europe and America (Poole, 2004:10). The monetary resource which such fame brought to the industry was palpable in the elaborate set designs of the era, with an attention to detail so great that Charles Kean was recorded as sending his set designers to Venice to make sure their recreation of St Mark s Square was authentic for his production of Merchant of Venice (Dawson, 2010:239). Pictorialism, then, was a popular method by which to stage a perceived authenticity of the intended setting of Shakespeare s plays. However, such extravagance of set heavily impacted the performance itself. Dennis Kennedy points out that detailed sets took noise and time to erect, disrupting the illusion of time and place carefully established by the major scenes , often meaning that the text of the plays themselves often had to be altered so that scenes with similar sets could be run together (1993:29-30239). The 10 to 15 minute wait between scene changes also led to cutting of scri pts to ensure the overall performance time was no longer than necessary Irving cut Lear to 46% of its original scri pt for his performance of it (Poole, 2004:20). Figure 1 gives a sense of the detailed pictorialist sets and the stifling of performance which it led to the stage is deep, with the action entirely separated from the audience, as the performance stops at the level of the proscenium arch. This pictured production of Dream was performed in the Lyceum, a theatre seating over 2000. It is therefore questionable as to how much of the performance could even be heard if it was given from the middle or back of a stage so large. In this sense, as Kennedy notes, Irving s productions ultimately [elevated] the carpenter above the actor and the gasman above the poet, with an authenticity of context (through setting) given priority over authenticity of Shakespeare s written text (1993:32). This prioritising constructs an idea of elaborate, entertaining Shakespeare, which certainly tallies with what we know of the popularity of his plays in his own era however, it loses any authenticity in terms of original conditions of staging, as well as impacting the content of the plays themselves. Growing discontent with these aspects of pictorialism paved the way for the rise of Elizabethanism, with productions such as Poel s moving towards a barer stage.

Like Irving, William Poel was seeking authenticity however he sought it in the reproduction of Shakespeare s original performance conditions rather than in historically accurate reproduction of the eras referenced by Shakespeare s plays. Seen in figure 2, Poel used a stage space similar to that of the Globe a thrust stage with curtains downstage rather than at the proscenium, galleries, and a canopy supported by two on stage pillars. The costumes, too, are Elizabethan in design, seen most clearly in the ruffs, doublets and hose of the men seated upstage. Ironically, by altering the stage away from the proscenium of pictorialism, Poel arguably created an inauthentic visual anyway the audience were confronted with something unfamiliar to theatre of their own era, so the authentic reproduction of Shakespeare s stage space is instantly compromised (Kennedy, 1993:40). Just like Irving, Poel superimposed an elaborate stage space upon the pre-existing stage of the theatre in question in this figure, the Royalty rather than the Lyceum and the scenery was again prioritised over the content of the play.

For Harley Granville Barker, Poel s method was overly archaeological . He judged it as being something too much of the Elizabethan letter, as contrasted with the Elizabethan spirit (Kennedy, 1985:151).[1] Interestingly, though, Granville Barker s remodelled stage for his Savoy productions of Dream was designed to emphasise the actor-audience relationship in an Elizabethan manner , which was a debt owed to Poel (under whose direction Granville Barker had played Richard II when he was younger) (Kennedy, 1993:75). Granville Barker felt it to be wrong that popular directors had given scenery the starring role in theatre a phenomenon clear in pictorialist productions, and which can ultimately be gleaned as I have suggested from Elizabethanist productions. Railing against such staging practices, Granville Barker writes in his Prefaces to Shakespeare, volume 1, that it is possible that the more we are asked to imagine, the easier we find it to do so (Barbour, 1914:524).[2] Figure 3 shows his methods in practice at the Savoy productions of Dream the aesthetic of the set is simplified, clearly in line with contemporary experiments in modernist art as seen in the geometric prints on the flies, the pillars downstage, and even along the proscenium steps. Dawson sees this simplification as creating a stage space which was no longer naturalistic but abstract and self-contained (2010:242). Such self-containment can also be seen in the costumes of this scene, which seem to be used to separate the groups of characters from one another, rather than being part of the characterisation itself. For instance, the two characters at either side of the proscenium arch both wear geometric print, whilst the onstage audience of Theseus guests are marked by their uniform floral head pieces. This speaks to Granville Barker s own understanding of direction buried within Shakespeare s text for instance, in act 1, Oberon speaks of how Puck may identify Demetrius by the Athenian garments he hath on (Dream, 1.1.264).[3] In a break from pictorialism, in which actor managers went to great lengths to ensure historical accuracy of Shakespearean costume, Granville Barker recognised that the costume itself did not need to be Athenian rather, the costumes of the human characters simply need to be markedly different from those of the fairies.

This difference is certainly achieved. As Dawson notes, Granville Barker reimagined the fairies as something strange and otherworldly (2010:241), by clothing them in metallic garments and headpieces far from the naturalistic, pastoral costume which was traditionally used for the fairies of Midsummer. Such sharp contrast between the costume of different character groups makes, as Barbour recognises, all the characters distinctly theatrical, their only reality in the performance itself (1975:525). The significance of the characters to the theatrical reality of the performance can be seen most clearly in Granville Barker s direction of Puck. He initiates a scene change, motioning for the lights to dim and delivering his line whilst raising the ascending curtain he steals props from the mechanics during their rehearsal of Pyramus and Thisbee and he participates in the closing of the play itself, with fairies playing hide and seek until the patches of gold fade from sight amidst the pillars (Barbour, 1975:528). This overt involvement of characters in the mechanism of the play s staging perhaps stems from Granville Barker s insistence that stage space must be able to be swiftly altered, in order to allow for smoother scene changes and therefore a more continuous delivery of Shakespeare s text. Interestingly, then, Granville Barker s commitment to authenticity of text led to his use of deliberately inauthentic stage space. Figure 3 shows that Granville Barker used a raised level upstage, the main stage up to the proscenium, and a forestage in front of that, projecting into the house. This allowed for fast set changes with curtains dropping at various depths, an example of which can be seen from the difference in stage space between figures 3 and 4. The contrast between Puck in figure 4 lounging on stage steps and the rigid posture of the other fairies (who wear metallic headpieces reminiscent of soldiers helmets) speaks to the playfulness of this new method of staging, which Puck is key in operating.

The response to this staging has been varied, and not only by Granville Barker s contemporaries. In 2010, Folacco denounced Barker s methods as literary prejudice and anti-theatrical bias , believing that Barker was wilfully denying the way the play is supposed to be performed (2010:40). Certainly, Harley Granville Barker wanted to invent a new hieroglyphic of scenery (as he wrote at the time in his Prefaces to Shakespeare (Trewin, 1964:56))[4] but, ironically in the face of Folacco s criticism, this was for the very reason that he wanted to perform Shakespeare as he perceived it was supposed to be spoken, without losing the urgency and appeal of texts. This contrasts with the pictorialist cutting and rearrangement of scri pts, showing Granville Barker to be no more or less authentic in his productions than Irving or Poel were in theirs he was simply committed to a different type of perceived authenticity. The idea of authenticity within Shakespeare productions is, then, an unquantifiable construct, and necessarily unattainable. What is achievable, though, are different perceptions of and approaches to Shakespeare specifically, and theatre more widely. Across the performances pictured in the list of figures, this is most traceable in the different uses of stage space itself. Figure 1 shows Irving s separation of action and audience, with the performance stopping at the proscenium figure 2 shows Poel s move toward a closer involvement between actor and audience in his use of the thrust stage, but a continuing separation between onstage audience and the audience in the house and Granville Barker blends the two in figure 3, with Theseus guests sitting at the stage s edge, where the seated audience begins. There is no way of telling which of these staging methods are authentically Shakespeare, and there is arguably no reason in trying to find out, given that authenticity is unattainable. What instead rises from allowing the imaginative differences across pioneering nineteenth century production styles to stand all of which came to being as aspirations of authenticity is a traceable evolution of stage theory in practice.

List of Figures

Figure 1: Jellicoe, John, Macbeth, banquet scene, Lyceum Theatre, February 2, 1889, Sir Henry Irving as Macbeth, Ellen Terry as Lady Macbeth. Online image of engraving (c.1899), [accessed 27/09/2016].

Figure 2: Unknown, Measure for Measure, Act 2 Scene 2, Royalty Theatre, London, 1893. Digital scan of original photograph (1893), [accessed 27/09/2016].

Figure 3: Unknown, In the Palace of Theseus, A MIDSUMMER NIGHT S DREAM . Digital scan of a postcard print of the original painting (1914), [accessed 27/09/2016].

Figure 4: Unknown, Ill Met by Moonlight, digital scan of original photograph (1914), in Kennedy, Dennis, Looking at Shakespeare: a Visual History of Twentieth Century Performance (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1993), p78.

Abbreviations

Dream William Shakespeare, A Midsummer Night s Dream, eds. Richard Proudfoot et al, The Arden Shakespeare Complete Works, (London: Bloomsbury, 2014).

Bibliography

Barbour, C. M., Up against a symbolic painted cloth: "A Midsummer Night`s Dream" at the Savoy, 1914 , Educational Theatre Journal, 27 (1975), 521-528.

Bourus, Terri and Gary Taylor, Measure for Measure(s): performance-testing the adaptation hypothesis , Shakespeare, 10 (2014), 363-401.

Dawson, Anthony, Shakespeare on the Stage in De Grazia, Margreta and Wells, Stanley ed., The New Cambridge Companion to Shakespeare, second edition (Cambridge University Press: New York, 2010), pp.233-252.

Falocco, Joe, Reimagining Shakespeare s Playhouse: Early Modern staging conventions in the twentieth century (D. S. Brewer: Cambridge, 2010).

Kennedy, Dennis, Granville Barker and the Dream of Theatre, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985).

Kennedy, Dennis, Looking at Shakespeare: a Visual History of Twentieth Century Performance, (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1993).

Lewis, Allan, But it`s not Shakespeare , Arts in Society, 7, (1970), 78-84.

Poole, Adrian, Shakespeare and the Victorians (Arden Shakespeare: London, 2004).

Proudfoot, Richard, et al eds., The Arden Shakespeare Complete Works, (London: Bloomsbury, 2014).

Pye, Valerie Clayman, Shakespeare`s Globe: theatre architecture and the performance of authenticity , Shakespeare, 10 (2014), 411-427.

Trewin, J.C., Shakespeare on the English Stage 1900 1964 (Barrie and Rockcliff: London, 1964).

Weingust, Don, Authentic performances or performances of authenticity? Original practices and the repertory schedule , Shakespeare, 10 (2014), 402-410.

[1] Interview with Granville Barker published in the Evening News, 3 December 1912 quoted in Kennedy, 1985.

[2] Quoted in Barbour, 1975.

[3] All Shakespeare quotes taken from Proudfoot et al eds., 2014.

[4] Quoted in Trewin, 1964.