Re-thinking Don Jon

When Mr Hughes watched our run through of the play he gave us all individual notes of what we need to work on. He told me to take my hands away from my back, to lighten the performance, to slow it down and to listen more to the other characters. We also saw our costumes on Friday, and this has given me a more vivid visual image of my character. 

I have decided to change the characterisation up a bit by making Don Jon less solemn and more exited by the evil he is going to try and cause. I also want to have a stronger relationship with Borachio and Conrade, therefore I am going to act similarly to the way a school boy would act when egging his friends on to get up to mischief. The reason behind this is so that the performance doesn’t feel to dark and is more enjoyable to watch for the audience.

I want to act as if I find more of what I say funny and that I am making a mockery of people. For example, when delivering the line ‘I had rather be a canker in a hedge than a rose in his grace’ I will say this as if I am making fun of how little I respect my brother, rather than saying this with pure anger and hatred. Therefore I will try and have more fun with my evilness rather than taking my character too seriously.

I am also going to change the way I act with the others. I am now going to attempt to talk with more of a sleazy charm, which will make other character suspicious of me and make them feel uneasy.

Finally, by changing my posture I will open up my performance to the audience. I will take my hands away from my back and use them more to communicate what I am trying to say with the audience and the other characters. This should draw the audience in more to what I am trying to say. 

Don Jon's Diary

Dear Diary, 

I am angry at the world because life is not fair for me. It's not fair for me as just because of who my father chose to have sex with, I am deemed as different.

I hate Claudio with a passion. This is because my brother has taken him under his wing. I hate my brother as throughout my whole life, although I am the first born child, he has acted as if he is better than me and encouraged everybody else to act in that same way. If they are all going to treat me like a villain, why shouldn't I act like one. 

I hate the world, the world is cruel, nobody ever treats me nicely, although I have riches and have power that is not enough. I do not have respect,  since I'm a bastard people see me as 'different', well I will show them how different I really am. If people want to treat me badly I will treat them badly. If Claudio wants to act as if he is somehow better than me just because my brother is fond of him, then I will make it my duty to cause him pain.

 

This is what the set is going to look like;

This is what my costume is going to look like.

WEEK 5 - SHAKESPEARE TODAY

Recently I've seen two productions of Shakespeare plays. The first one I saw was a production of 'As you like it' at the Globe Theatre. I also saw a production of Richard II, Henry IV (part 1 & 2) and Henry V all at the Barbican Theatre.

The performance of 'As you like it' at the Globe Theatre was probably more true to the performances in Shakespeare's time than the performances at the Barbican. This was mainly because it was performed in the reconstruction of the same theatre. Two significant differences between the plays were that the performance at the Globe was in the open air and the actors interacted with the audience whereas at the Barbican the performance was on a conventional proscenium stage and the audience felt quite distanced from the actors.

However, even the production I saw at The Globe would have been an extremely different experience to watch than a production in Shakespeare’s time. There are several reasons for this.

Firstly, the performance I watched was in the evening and used artificial lighting. However in Shakespeare’s time the performances would always take place in the afternoon as there were no adequate forms of artificial lighting and so if the performance was too early, it would be too bright and if the performance was too late it would be too dark.

Secondly, in both of the performances, which I saw, the audience were well behaved and quite quiet. Whereas in Shakespeare’s time the audience were more unruly and if they didn’t enjoy a performance they would make there feeling known, by doing things such as throwing food at the actors or damaging the theatre. Also, fortunately the audience nowadays are much more sanitary and make sure that they have a shower at least a day before going to the theatre and use the public toilets. This is because in Shakespeare’s time the audience would smell extremely bad and the groundlings would go to the side of the area to relieve themselves.

Another major difference between the performances nowadays and the performances in Shakespeare’s time was that in Shakespeare’s time there were no women actors and young boys would play the female roles, which is quite strange considering that the country was run by a female.

Actors in Shakespearean times probably wouldn’t have been as prepared for the role as the actors nowadays. This is partly because they didn’t have as much times to rehearse as they do nowadays. Also, they got a scroll with only their own lines and their cues on them, this was because of the high cost of ink and paper.

However, very often the actors would go on tour with the same company for a number of years and so the chemistry between the actors would’ve probably been better then nowadays as actors usually only work together for one or two plays. Also, Shakespeare would’ve created the different characters with a certain actor in mind, for example the role of Dogberry was written with William Kemp in mind. Obviously these actors are no longer able to perform and so occasionally the actors may not fit the role as well which makes the casting experience much more important and in the power of the director. Also, actors these days would be more respected whereas in Shakespeare’s time actors were seen as a danger to a peaceful society and not of as high a status as they are nowadays.

Another thing, which I noticed when watching the plays at the Barbican, was that the fight scenes were not as realistic as I would imagine the fight scenes in Shakespeare’s time to be. This is because, in Shakespeare’s time to be an actor you had know how to sword fight and it was the weapon of choice at the time and so the actors would be more familiar to it.

Nowadays the performances may not highlight certain things that would’ve been relevant at the time. For example, there may have been certain political references that nowadays, we wouldn’t be aware of.

In Shakespeare’s time the productions would’ve been aimed towards most people and would have a wide target audience. This is because, in Shakespeare time, you did not have to be educated to understand was being said and so many people could enjoy it. However, nowadays, Shakespeare production are targeted to a more educated audience because generally more educated people would want to go to a Shakespeare performance, which is a shame.

Nowadays the acting is much less melodramatic, because of influences from theatre practitioners such as Stanislavski. This means that occasionally it is harder to hear the actors nowadays because they often think less about their voice projection. However, in Shakespeare’s time the performances were probably less realistic but would involve the audience more and therefore the audience would find it easier to understand the dialogue.

Finally, nowadays some of the words used by Shakespeare may not be relevant as so they often are interpreted in different ways. For example, in some performances the word ‘sword’ would be used but the actor would be holding a gun. Therefore because of the language Shakespeare’s plays have to be studied in order to be fully understood whereas in Shakespeare’s times the plays would have been understood by everyone straight away.

WEEK 4 - Playhouses and Actors

QUESTION: What were the theatres or ‘playhouses’ of Shakespeare’s time like and how were plays staged in them?

In Shakespeare’s time there were outdoor playhouses and indoor playhouses. They were both very different and so they attracted different audiences. The first playhouse was built in 1567 by John Brayne and many more playhouses opened between the 1570s and the 1620s. Therefore the public must have enjoyed going to them, as it was a major form of entertainment.

Many of the playhouses were built outside of the city walls and therefore south of the Thames. They did this in order to avoid interference by the officials who ran the City of London. This is because they thought that the playhouses were noisy and disruptive and that criminals were attracted towards them. The south bank was outside of the city walls and there were already many forms of entertainment available here, for example bear baiting arenas. There were also brothels and taverns (which inspired Shakespeare when creating the character of Falstaff), in which people could buy food and drink, therefore people often travelled to the South Bank for entertainment.

                                               

  A picture of the Rose Theatre playhouse

All outdoor playhouses had:

• a central yard that was open to the sky;

• a raised stage sticking out into the yard;

• a roof over the stage, which was called ‘the heavens’, although the first Rose theatre (1587-92) may not have had one;

• a tiring house behind the stage with a backstage area, where actors dressed and waited to come on. Above this were lords’ rooms, rooms for storage, and a room level with ‘the heavens’ to work the special effects from;

• galleried seating all around the yard, on several levels, which was roofed.

Most playhouses had a brick base with timber-framed walls. The gaps between the timbers were filled with sticks, hair and plaster. The roofs were made from

thatch or tile.

(information taken from http://www.shakespearesglobe.com/uploads/files/2015/04/playhouses.pdf)

Businessmen often sponsored and supported the building of the playhouses. They did this because they realised the increase of the popularity of playhouses and of the touring acting companies. These businessmen often had a lot of money and so this would be a very good investment, which could help them to increase their overall wealth. What the businessmen did was they bought some land and built a playhouse on top of it, and then rented it out to acting companies for a number of years. The company then paid the businessman half of the takings.

QUESTION: Who were the actors of Shakespeare’s plays and how did the experience of being an actor differ from the experience today?

In Shakespeare's times actors usually started off their careers as young boys. They often chose to join a company as an apprentice in which they would not be paid but would learn the craft and be taught by more experienced actors within a theatre company. In Shakespearean times actors needed to be able to sing and dance, be able to move around physically and sword fight et cetera as well as being able to remember their lines well.

Elsewhere in Europe many women would act on stage, however in Shakespearean England this would never happen. Therefore acting was a profession, which was only available to boys and men. Women were not able to perform in public theatres in England until 1660. Therefore in Shakespearean times young boys, whose voices had not yet broken, would play the female roles instead of women and occasionally men would play the parts of the older women.

During Shakespeare's lifetime what an actor went through on a daily basis changed drastically. When Shakespeare was young actors toured with theatre companies. This involved travelling around the country to perform in different cities, towns and in private venues for example Inns and the homes of rich people. However, towards the end of Shakespeare's life there were many different permanent theatres in London in which actors could perform regularly, which would draw in much larger audiences than before.

However, even though theatres were a very popular pass time, actors were not thought of very highly and they had quite a bad reputation. They were seen as reckless, disorderly people who put the dream of having a peaceful society at risk.

Shakespeare started out his career as an actor. Some people say that he played the part of the Ghost in Hamlet.

Most theatre companies had a shareholder system in operation. The shareholders of the company earned more than the actors and the hired men. Shakespeare was a shareholder of the King's Men, and the Chamberlain's Men, which meant that he shared both the expenses and the profits. How much the actors made would also depend on the location in which the show was playing. For example, a theatre company would make more money in London than in the country and so they could pay the actors higher wages. And example of this was that in 1597 the actor William Kendall was paid 10 shillings a week in London but only five shillings in the country.

Usually actors would perform in the afternoon, this was because they needed natural light in order to be seen and if they performed too early, it would be too bright and if they performed too late, it would be too dark. Therefore, generally actors would spend the morning rehearsing and then perform in the afternoon, and so they did not have much time for rehearsals. They would have to be used to learning several different scripts at one time.

The most famous Elizabethan actors were; Richard Burbage, Edward Alleyn, Robert Armin William Kemp and Nathan Field. Obviously there were many more actors than this but these were some of the most famous ones.

A self-portrait of Richard Burbage

There were only a few copies of each play and so the actor would only have their own part to learn. They were given a script with their cues and their lines.

Certain actors were known to specialise. These actors would often have parts written especially with them in mind. An example of this was that William Shakespeare wrote the part of Dogberry, especially for William Kemp because of the fact that he was very good at physical comedy.

A drawing of William Kemp

Therefore, as you can see, the life of an actor in Shakespearean times was extremely different from the life of an actor nowadays. Firstly, they were not seen as a celebrity and instead they were frowned upon. Secondly, an actor would have to learn several parts at one time and they wouldn't get a long time to rehearse, lastly they would not be able to read the whole script and so they would probably not  have known what the play was about and they would only be able to react at the time to their cue. I would conclude that the life of an actor nowadays is probably a lot more enjoyable than the life of an actor in Shakespearean times.