About a couple of months ago I had the opportunity to enjoy Shakespeare perhaps as close to the way the legendary playwright intended for an audience to view his works and it was truly a powerful experience. It was not in some dark state of the art theatre with comfortable chairs and polite applause nor was it a production that created a new insightful reading of one of the bard’s plays. Instead it was raucous and accessible so that an audience of non-theatre goers could enjoy the genus of the greatest mind in English Literature rather than being left feeling out of place. Of course, perhaps the only place to experience this properly is at the Globe theatre in London but the pop-up Globe that recently spent time in Melbourne gets close. It isn’t that the production is stripped back from the trappings of modernity in lighting, smoke machines and elaborate stage design but rather the fact that the actors are willing to have fun with their performance and engage the crowd.

Part of the experience of the Globe is obviously the setting itself, open to the elements, bench seats and a standing area in front of the stage. As a scholar it’s easy for me to get caught up in the history being recreated but it isn’t really the point. The physical dimensions of the Globe creates a couple of opportunities for the production, firstly the audience are right up close to the actors and secondly that it is easy for the actors to move into the crowd and interact with them, making them part of the production. This obviously fits well for Shakespeare as many of his plays either directly speak to the audience through a prologue or chorus in addition to the use of asides. It’s clear when seeing a production in this space that these stylistic features which are so important to the way Shakespeare constructs meaning are a result of the way theatre was performed at the time. Embracing this is one of the secrets of a memorable performance and something the cast of Henry V led by Chris Huntly – Turner does extremely well. At times they prompt audience participation like echoing Henry’s cries as they storm Harfleur, “God for Harry! England and St George!” while at other moments an actor will point to an individual person that fits what they are saying for comic purposes or even use someone’s heckling for an adlib joke latter in the performance. However, while this adds to the production it isn’t until Henry walks amongst his troops before the battle of Agincourt that the audience feels like part of his army, whether it is shaking hands, patting someone on the back or trying on someone’s hat the groundlings are given a sense of comradery with the actors on stage. It is something that can’t be achieved in a modern theatre with its row of seats, yet it helps encourage those who can’t understand every word to stick with the performance and is the source of a lot of additional humour.

 

Not that most of Shakespeare’s plays need additional humour since they are heavily laden with sexual innuendo and racial stereotyping they just need a director and cast willing to emphasis the right lines for a modern audience. Again, this was done well by the cast of Henry V as they never seemed afraid of the 21^st century PC culture. The first scene between Nim (Stephen Papps) and Pistol (Edward Newborn) is perhaps the best example as it is rife with sexual innuendo that can be hard to pick up if spoken in the necessary fast paced banter or if your reading the play but the actors expertly apply a host of simple gestures, the drawing of swords or point to the “gentlewomen” who live “honestly by the prick of their needles” that makes it clear to everyone what the conversation is about. In another setting this behaviour would likely be toned down just in case it insults anyone or perhaps the scene would be cut completed, this was the case in another version of the play I have seen through the Melbourne Theatre Company however this scene is exactly what Shakespeare is about, entertainment. In a different way the racial stereotyping adds humour to the more serious scenes firstly through the consistent characterisation of the French as arrogant and pretentious snobs that just servers to emphasis what is in Shakespeare’s text. The director, Dr Miles Gregory takes the attitude of the Dauphin and his joke with the tennis balls and continually reinforces it at every opportunity be it using a croissant to taunt the English or just the look on the actors faces as if they have come across a bad smell. This racial stereotyping is not only humorous but key to building the overall dislike of the French as the villains of the Play. Using the stage Gregory is also able to build upon Shakespeare’s own juxtaposition of the over confident French before the battle of Agincourt who are seen toasting their expected victory on the balcony against the starving English troops on the main stage with the groundlings.  The most entertaining instance of racial stereotyping held less meaning with the lines of the Irish Captain MacMorris, played briefly by Michael Mahony in between stints as the hugely entertaining janitor (chorus), almost completely unrecognisable due to the over the top Irish accent and capped off by a Guinness. The emphasis on comedy alongside the drama of the play’s plot was perfectly balanced as they never cheapened the dramatic moments like Bardolph’s execution or the battle itself, but it was key for engaging an audience that include people like my cousin who were losing their Shakespeare virginity and are more at home at the pub or the MCG than a theatre.

 

 

As any English teacher can tell you teaching Shakespeare can be a bit of chore partly because kids don’t understand the language and any production available to show them is either exceedingly complex were the director is presenting their reading of the play or is just poorly done. In both examples kids don’t build their understanding of the play in question and still can’t recognise Shakespeare’s works as entertaining turning them off the bard for years. The problem isn’t the relevance of the plays themselves as the themes and stories are as meaningful today as when they were written but rather our elitist view of Shakespeare as we try to honour his works through relentless study and deconstruction rather than the purpose for which they were intended. Now that doesn’t mean critical analysis of Shakespeare doesn’t have a place as this is the genus of his work, that it has multiple meanings and layers of interpretation, all I’m saying is that their needs to be a balance both in the classroom and on stage. In the classroom this takes the form of embodied learning and allowing students to play around with the text rather than just writing an essay, this is something the Royal Shakespeare Company has been pushing for years. On stage the answer is the need for more productions like the pop-up globe.