Drama in the Eye of the Beholder, Shakespeare, College Term Papers.com


		Data Bases
		• Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism?

		Links
		• Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com

		Free Essays
		• Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers

Search Lots of Essays

Back to Subjects - Shakespeare

Drama in the Eye of the Beholder

Drama in the Eye of the Beholder Performance of plays can take various shapes depending on the director’s perspective of the text, the key element, within the framework of the play. In addition text can be interpreted different ways, regarding directing technique, such as style and action choices, and scenery decisions. These factors contribute to the overall result of the performance containing either conventional elements or having a contemporary twist. Examples of the two perspectives could include costume selection or incorporating bizarre props into the performance. Throughout Shakespeare’s writing career, no play has been transformed more than the historical plays of King Richard. Richard the II and Richard III over the years have been performed either the time-honored way or containing modern elements relating to the style, action, and visual aspects chosen. These revisions to the classic renewed the audience’s sense that art does come in many shapes and forms. Specifically, during the late 19th century, director Frank Benson and Triple Action Theatre have concentrated on the aforementioned modern adaptations regarding structure and costume/scenery of the performance. Richard the II has been a central play to analyze and revise due to the continuous debate of King Richard’s personality. The debate revolves around the difference in King Richard’s public versus private self, whether he was as powerful as he appeared on the throne compared to behind curtains. Margaret Shewring, author of Shakespeare in Performance: Richard the II emphasized this point by saying, “Although it was not until the mid to late nineteenth century that the personality of the King… of the actor playing the King- was allowed to dominate the stage” (63). Many directors and theatre companies delight in this debate for it allows them to take their imagination and rework the play to their liking, or view on the debate. Benson was one of these directors who decided to take Richard the II and structure it to his perspective of the play and King Richard’s personae. Benson liked to play with the idea of imagery and “made use of the full range of performance languages, ensuring that costume, too, contributed to his portrayal” (65). Performance language can also be related to the actual action of the play. Directors like Benson, decided to add little quirks to the characters to give them their unique feel. For instance, the famous scene where King Richard and Bolingbroke interact in the Westminster Hall, “After crowning Bolingbroke, he proceeds to examine himself in the glass and in doing so… ascends the steps to the vacant throne… suddenly remembers himself with a short laugh… (66). This is further evidence of a director putting his own twist on the original version. For in the original King Richard the II, he seems to give up the crown and realize his defeat. This is shown in lines 289- 302 of Act 4.1 where after throwing the mirror down, King Richard says, “For there it is, cracked in a hundred shivers. Mark, silent king, the moral of this sport: How soon my sorrow hath destroyed my face.” This line compared to Benson’s directions seems to contradict the other completely. For with the former version, Benson seems to be saying that King Richard doesn’t believe he has been beaten, reluctantly giving up the crown whereas the latter version suggests that King Richard knew all along and was realized it was his time of dissension. Shewring comments on the interpretation of Benson’ King Richard as “a poet flowering in the face of harsh reality” (68). This proves the point that directors when adapting do just that, interpret the original differently. Along with performance interpretation is the aspect of costume choice, which includes various props, further demonstrating Benson’s viewpoint. Shewring gave her perspective on Benson’s costume choice of King Richard’s extravagant furred lime- green robe as a sign of “the King’s concern with his own splendid self-image…” (66). Another example is that many of the royal men within Benson’s production such as Mowbray and Bolingbroke held colorful family coat of arms and banners. “Mowbray’s surcoat and banner had embroidered on them the white lions rampant while Bolingbroke’s had a swan” (64). This unusual use of animal depiction could convey to the audience that Benson perceives Bolingbroke as a passive character, whereas, others in the past seem to think of him as a bully. As seen, the acting is not the only key element; costume can play an important factor because every good playwright knows that showing is better then telling. In addition, costume correlates with scenery since they are both visuals. The Triple Action Theatre used costume and scenery choices to the maximum when performing Richard the III. Within the theatre’s production of Richard the III, author Ruby Cohn who wrote Modern Shakespeare Offshoots said that the theatre’s performance was “a blend of colorful flamboyance, declamatory speech, and strenuous physical movement” (317). Colorful bursts of costume and unique scene choices were the prominent aspect of this production of Richard the III. The actors of this production were dressed in bright colored tights and their faces painted red, black, and white. These “suggested both clowns and devils” (317), emphasizing the director’s interpretation of the characters, that some are comical and naive whereas others are powerful and dominant. Another aspect the Triple Action Theatre focused on was structure, specifically action. The action choices are evident of the director’s perspective and message wanting to get across to the audience. Another example of a visuial directing choice demonstrating a subliminal message was that “the young prince’s heads were enclosed in large, cardboard diamonds, suggesting a playing-card helplessness” (317), this further proves that interpretations can tell a lot about someone’s perspective of the play. The physical elements came through the dialogue being spoken rapidly and loudly so as make it incomprehensible. Another distinguished feature not typically seen was that “The Richard- Anne courtship is highlighted in pantomimed against a background of mirrors” (317), this element proves that the director thought this subplot within the play was essential and important to show, but only through actions, not necessarily dialogue. In fact, this production of Richard the III used numerous lighting and smoke techniques displaying the director’s mood of the play. The Triple Action Theatre established its unusual structure by showing in the last scene when “in ripple lighting Richard is crowned with an iron ring if spikes, and after the coronation his bare shoulders are covered with… leather pads inset with nails” (318), verifying that Shakespeare doesn’t have to be performed the traditional way. Richard the II and Richard the III have as proven been produced with modern elements during the current time period. All of the above elements such as structure, whether that is action or dialogue, costume and scenery decisions influence the overall impression of the play. These decisions have an impact on the audience; the impact evokes some kind of emotion within the spectators, ranging from shock to sympathy. Depending on the director’s interpretation, many messages can be conveyed about the tragedies. That is the beauty of plays; there is no concrete formula. The plays of Richard the II and Richard the III throughout their stage history have been performed various ways, as the times change, so do the performances. If the future play productions are anything like the ones performed in the past, playgoers are in for a treat. Bibliography: Bibliography: Bevington, David. The Necessary Shakespeare, New York, 2002. Cohn, Ruby. Modern Shakespeare Offshoots, New Jersey, 1976. Shewring, Margaret. Shakespeare in Performance: King Richard the II, New York, 1996.

Word Count: 1232