SHAKESPEARE AND THE MODERN STAGE

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 166, 31 July 1937, Page 11

SHAKESPEARE AND THE MODERN STAGE

How the draina' of SBakespeare had been affected by structure of tlxe Eli- | JEabethan theatre was explained by Professor W. A. Sewell, in an address to a drama school in Nevir Plyxnouth. Professor Sewell is to be adjudicator pt the forthcoixing Hawke's Bay Drama League festival. • Tho EJizabetban tlxeatre, he said, Was open to the skies and tho stage jutted out -into the space where the groundlings stood and watched. It was, therefore, almost ^surrounded l»y specfeatbrs and acting had to be, as it Were, three-dimensioual. The- audience was eomposed mainly of groundlings, a rough and vulgar Bssembly who stood in tho pit. The best: seats were. either on the stage or close outside it. A theatre of this- type demanded a ■pecial sort of play, and Sbakespeare's Work could never be fully appreciated in any other setting.'It lost power and Eignificance. Shakespeare wag not in any sense • re^ist, said Professor Sewell.' Hxs commentators had ■ tried ■ to ;build up irom his plays a lconception of natural human beings. -But this-. treatment was just as „ stupid as if they-.knocked on a wall and e^pected it to - live. No ©ttBj scientist or. doctor, could "" justify tho psychology , of the;clianae of heart that occurTed.in' Othello, iix the bare apace of 30 min'tites ;on"! the , stage. - his simple and unsuspiqious innocence was conveirted -into jealous mani'a:" He 'was a creation-of thq?'tbeatfe,V,an abstract figure -;as ,divofoed from' real,life-vas any; s'cjdpture v was.^.Hi' real lffe ••• hbi Wasdmjkwsible, .but in the theatre an -entirdy -'difecrent' thxug/ ' Crux of Quectlon. - The -crux'-of .the", whole" question • was that' iixnq wjas . something special in Elizabethan drama. It was measured not by the clbck .'but by the pulse. The passing of tiine was reeorded not by .the coixtxt of days hui , by "the way in which they were filled. ' If Othello Were viewed from .a- standpoxnt of-.ex-actitude in tiiue and'piace all- sorts" pf troubles arose.- There was -nothing con•istent * or reconcilable' in - that study and ihe chronology. of evehts was impofisible. To paraphrase Kipling, Kbakespeare filled "the unforgiving lnir nute with 60 seeonds' worth of -pqetry • done. , He coiild'. pack a. .life-time. ,o£; emotion and experience into "an hoxir and an hour into. a minute. His tioae was xneasured by the control of, it. . . . . . The poet managed by. a distillation of language totsboWwbat migbt.hap-* pen in* the hearts of men. ' If Othello's jealousy wfere > such that «. it» cqtfld btf xnade . more iniense . by .-the poet, •• tbb WUxBence would xiot,question«its truth. It Was by trying' to "reconeile Sb'afje-' apeare's charaeters with 'life that one Was caught .ih.a' morass 'of; psych'ologfica! distresS. ' - Tbougb ;Hanilet miglit be' summed np as a man -with an - inferiority oomplex and poor.- tonsils ; in To.ve. with iio mother, he could not be justified. Hamlet wa3 extraordinarily "good melodrama and should be treated- as sufch. The majority of . Sbakespeare's eritics had been damaging because they attempted to treat bis creatious as human beings. Having no scenery .and iew- proper- • ties, ShakespearO had to place his .plays by . his , text. Tbis . neCessity ,he turned to tbe greatest and most artis-

Itio use. Jn his words he could present the place, tbe surroundings, the weather, tlxe* very inood of ihe play xn terms of tbe play itself. In "The Merchant of Venice" he changed the stage from a place of wrangling and money-grabbing in Venico to one instinct with romancq and beauty merely by interpolating the beautiful moonlight scene between Lorenzo and Jessica. Bareness of Stage. Tbe best example of the barexiess of the stage was seen in Iviug Lear. Lainb said Lear was a? tott'ering old man with a walking-stick, in dangex of- catching cold. In Shakeapeare's "theatre he was not. The play'of u^.xeal lightning., the bauging of tins to represent thunder, the whole artificiality of the setting in later theatres made Lear almost a tawdry £hing. By words alone Shakespearc had created something infinitely better than scenery could. He-preseuted the lightning and tbe tbuuder, the wind ■ and the rain arid had .made them live. It was not- poSsible to- lxelieve the imito'tions when ohe heard;Shakespeax-e, ;'yet ; one could • not utterly believe Shakespearc in' presence of the irnit atibxxs . The. great But bage could walk forward. on' the stage" "and absolutely "teriify the audience by. his voice alone. There , was the identification of the two experiences, tbe,.tempest iii'xiature -and the tempest in Lear!s inihd. G'hrotigh -that identification1' both ' ga'ined -a : new ? eignificahcq, - . ..« " ■ . ' •.ShakeSpeai'el know The - art of visiblo mCtaphpr. v ' -ia- -"Antbony and Cleopatra," - said Professor Sewell", there was presented a great opportunity for a modern cinema director. Wxth -the gorgeousnesssof tbe . Ofiental splendoixr could be built up-a fxhe 'film of the lavishly spectacular.' type : yet Shakespeare took' that subject and"- on the bare stage » made of Cleopatra, a living traic, noble mirxx, eternalfy extpressive of the perre'ct oqurtesan - she was. He did it simply py woi'ds-. ' ■ ^ There vwere no parts eo splendidly; ' gfenero'us to actors as-those of Shakespeafe." He knew the art-.of . acting ,and gave it . oppbrtunity. • No 'actor; eVen to Cbarlie Cbaplin, had not desired to.play Hamlet. The secret lay in-the fact that ail'Shakespeare's characters were exaggerated and theatrical, and all his trgedies .first-rate melodrama. The -first entrance pf, l|;wpIeV,w.ns R sfrqke,- of niaSterly" gehfus.VOh4i saw the 'prince.sitjting with. i'is'.iieal cujiped in his bands," while i-buxid him were the 'noise and colour of the "corrupt DanjSh'i coqrt. ' As : he sat silent and i watcliing the attention of-thp audiehbo was. "drawn". jbo him-irresistibly.- .When the queen' stsked him wliy he had'th'is seeming sorrow upon him he spoke for tlie'fifst time. "Seems, madam? It •is." Into the theatre*. was thrust! suddenly ithe' seriousness of real -life. and real feeling. • .-..There xvas nothing in Shakespearethat was not .theatrical in that sense, "said Professor Sewell. Even the 'charao ters* themselves were actors, dramatisiug their emotions. In a way they enjoyed their misery or they could not talk of it as they did. In estimatittg the people of Shakespeare' s crea:tion -this. habit. of . dramatising, this ingredient which was the spirit of theat ricality,' had to • be taken into aCcoixnt. r ' . ...