Peter Brook’s1 beginning of the ‘Empty Space’ assumes that a theatre performance consists of three very basic components. According to Brook, performances are dependent on a space in which spectator and actor come together and agree on a place which they call stage. It is in this real space that actors and audience imagine a fictional world. Brook’s quotation, beautifully, encapusulates the simplicity of any theatre performance while it oversimplifies the complicated processes of bringing a play to life in the same breath. The empty space which Brook defines in his work is not realistic. It rather symbolizes his personal need to liberate his artistic talent from the fixed and institutionalized British theatre venues of the 1960’s.
In fact, for the majority of modern theatre performances, it is the theatre building which provides the space for all three basic parts. Although, it is true that no more than an empty space is needed for staging a play, during the last centuries the majority of performances have been sheltered by purpose built theatres. Most theatres provide a stage in the form of a proscenium stage, thrust stage or stage in the round. How a spectator looks at the actors performing on this stage differs, depending on the charcteristics of each theatre venue. A space in the theatre, may it be empty or filled, connects the two most important parts of any theatrical event, the audience and the actors. Space in the theatre is, therefore, crucial for every performance.
The Elizabethan times mark the most influential period for modern theatre. Closely intertwined with the world’s most famous playwright, William Shakespeare, it is in this time that the first modern theatres were erected. Therfore, Shakespeare’s times and works are always closely connected with practices of today’s theatre.
The aim of this study is to research the relationship between the performance space of specific theatres and production of Shakespeare’s Roman plays in Great Britain, in 2006. It will be discovered to what extent performance space can influence production of Shakespeare’s Roman plays. Likewise, it will be examined how different productions make use of performance space. The question of which performance space works best for staging Shakespeare’s Roman plays in 2006 forms the basis of this case study.
Table of Contents
Introduction
1. PERFORMANCE SPACE – A THEORETICAL APPROACH
1. 1. FROM DESCARTES TO LEFEBVRE – PHILIOSOPHY AND SPACE IN THE THEATRE
1. 2. THEATRE SEMIOTICS – MINIMAL UNITS AND THEATRE SPACE
1. 3. TAXONOMY OF SPATIAL FUNCTION IN THE THEATRE
1. 4. TAXONOMY OF PERFORMANCE SPACE
2. SHAKESPEARE’S ROMAN PLAYS PRODUCED IN 2006 – A CASE STUDY
2. 0 METHODOLOGY
2. 1 SWAN THEATRE – ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA produced by Gregory Doran
2. 1.1. SWAN THEATRE – A HISTORY
2. 1.2. SWAN THEATRE - ACTOR/AUDIENCE RELATIONSHIP
2. 1.3. SWAN THEATRE – ‘BARE STAGE’ AND MODERN THEATRE TECHNOLOGY
2. 2 ROYAL SHAKESPEARE THEATRE – JULIUS CAESAR AND TITUS ANDRONICUS produced by Sean Holmes and Yukio Ninagawa
2. 2.1 ROYAL SHAKESPEARE THEATRE – A HISTORY
2. 2.2 ROYAL SHAKESPEARE THEATRE – A DIFFICULT PERFORMANCE SPACE
2. 2.3 ROYAL SHAKESPEARE THEATRE – THEATRE OF SPECTACLE
2. 3 SHAKESPEARE’S GLOBE BANKSIDE, LONDON – CORIOLANUS, ANTHONY AND CLEOPATRA AND TITUS ANDRONICUS produced by Dominic Dromgoole and Lucy Bailey
2. 3.1 SHAKESPEARE’S GOLBE BANKSIDE, LONDON – A HISTORY
2. 3.2 SHAKESPEARE’S GLOBE BANKSIDE, LONDON – ACTOR/AUDIENCE RELATIONSHIP NEWLY DEFINED
2. 3.3 SHAKESPEARE’S GLOBE BANKSIDE, LONDON – STAGE DESIGNERS VS. ‘ORIGINAL PRACTICES’
Conclusion
Research Objectives and Themes
This study investigates the relationship between the performance space of specific theatres and the production of Shakespeare’s Roman plays in Great Britain in 2006. It examines how performance space influences production choices and explores how different stagings utilize these spaces to communicate the plays' themes, focusing on the interplay between physical environment, actor, and audience.
- The impact of theatre architecture (proscenium vs. thrust stage) on performance.
- The historical and theoretical development of "performance space" in theatre studies.
- The relationship between actor and audience in different theatrical venues.
- The use of scenography, technology, and staging to define "place" and "location."
- A comparative case study of productions at the Swan Theatre, Royal Shakespeare Theatre, and Shakespeare’s Globe.
Auszug aus dem Buch
2. 1.2. ACTOR/AUDIENCE RELATIONSHIP
The design of the Swan is significant in as much as it has its own personality. The space is very intimate in its nature. The traditonal separation of audience and actor as in a proscenium theatre does not exist in the Swan. It reconnects the relationship between the actor, stage and audience. One of the features of this personality is the unique experience for audience and actors to see each other. Due to reflection of the light from the golden coloured timber, no matter what kind of lighting is used, the audience will never be in complete darkness. In an interview with Peter Holland, Michael Reardon assumes that “ in a black void you see the play as an individual. In the Swan the audience is a body, rather like a congregation or a dinner party. Whenever you are looking at an actor you are always looking at somebody beyond. There is a pleasing sense of conspiracy “ (1994, 120).
Another defining feature of the theatre is a tradition of productions using the spectators entrances. In Doran’s production of Antony and Cleopatra, actors make use of the audience’s entrances and exits. By using more than just the entrance and exit at the back of the stage Doran’s production unifies the space between audience and actors. Patrick Stewart entered the stage as a youthful and erotic Anthony, coming from the ground level entrance making his way through the audience by the wooden stage extension to the right. Throughout the play Antony entered and exited the scene through the right or left wooden extension. The effect of this was that a number of spectators could have an even closer look at his outward appearance. In the course of the play Antony’s physical condition is getting worse. The theatre critic Benedict Nightingale observes: “ Towards the end he visibly ages and deterioates, his red-and gold armour replaced by sweat-stained vest, his natural smile transformed into a wane scowl “ (21 April 2006). By mixing with the audience being only centimeters away from some of the spectators, it might be easier for the audience to sympathsize with the doomed male main character.
Summary of Chapters
1. PERFORMANCE SPACE – A THEORETICAL APPROACH: This chapter establishes a theoretical framework by discussing philosophical perspectives on space and introducing theatre semiotics and spatial taxonomies.
2. SHAKESPEARE’S ROMAN PLAYS PRODUCED IN 2006 – A CASE STUDY: This chapter provides the methodology and detailed analysis of how the Swan Theatre, Royal Shakespeare Theatre, and Shakespeare’s Globe functioned as performance spaces for specific 2006 productions of Shakespeare’s Roman plays.
Keywords
Shakespeare, Roman Plays, Performance Space, Theatre Architecture, Actor-Audience Relationship, RSC, Swan Theatre, Shakespeare’s Globe, Scenography, Theatre Semiotics, Proscenium Stage, Thrust Stage, Titus Andronicus, Julius Caesar, Antony and Cleopatra
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this research?
The work investigates the critical relationship between theatrical performance spaces and the 2006 productions of Shakespeare’s Roman plays in Britain, focusing on how architecture dictates production possibilities.
What are the central themes discussed?
Central themes include the impact of stage architecture on audience connection, the use of historical vs. modern scenography, and how directors redefine traditional performance spaces to communicate the plays' meanings.
What is the core research objective?
The primary aim is to analyze to what extent performance space influences the staging of Shakespeare’s Roman plays and to determine which types of spaces best suit these specific theatrical works.
Which scientific methodology is applied?
The study utilizes a qualitative case study approach, involving first-hand observation of nine performances across three venues, archival research, and interviews with theatre practitioners like Sean Holmes.
What is treated in the main part of the document?
The main part provides a comparative analysis of three specific venues: the intimate thrust stage of the Swan, the large proscenium arch of the Royal Shakespeare Theatre, and the experimental, historically-informed space of Shakespeare’s Globe.
Which keywords best characterize this study?
Shakespeare, Roman Plays, Performance Space, Theatre Architecture, Actor-Audience Relationship, and Scenography are the key identifiers for this work.
Why was the Royal Shakespeare Theatre (RST) criticized in the study?
The RST was criticized for its massive size and the distance between the proscenium stage and the audience, which created an "impersonal" gap that made it difficult for actors to establish a meaningful, direct connection with the spectators.
What unique staging methods were used at the Globe?
Directors utilized the yard (pit) for playing, installed ramps and metal gantries to extend the stage into the audience, and used the tiring house to redefine the traditional actor-audience relationship.
What was the outcome of the experiment involving Titus Andronicus at the Globe?
The experiment involved elaborate scenography and lighting that were so intense they led to audience members fainting, highlighting the complex boundary between fiction and reality in an immersive, authentic performance space.
- Quote paper
- Philipp Reul (Author), 2006, The Relationship between Performance Space and Production of Shakespeare's Roman Plays, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/73638
