So today we finally got a chance to perform in the new theatre, this was a time to get a feeling for the place around us and how much we will have to project our voices in order to be heard. The set was also on stage which gave us a chance to expand from being smaller rehearsal room to a bigger performing space. I forgot that the actual space we are performing in in three sides which means we have to project to all three sides and we need to make sure that we do not neglect any of the sides. Another thing that we had to do is work with the props that we have and to make sure we know when we are bringing them on and where to put them which isn't that difficult but it was nice to work with the guns in the shooting scene. Notes: Ensure that I articulate all my words and don't speak too quickly. Project, project, project! Work out which words need to be emphasised in order for it to make more sense the audience.
What is the play about and when was it first performed?
Love's Labour's Lost was first written in 1595 and was first performed in 1597 at the Inns of Queen Elizabeth I Court. Some of the characters in the play are loosely based of historical figures. It is one of Shakespeare's most early comedies, but his is a very odd comedy as it ends in tragedy with the death of the King Of France.
Contemporary Play Of LLL
Love's Labour's Lost has been done by the Royal Shakespeare Company and has also been performed at the Globe Theatre.
I am going to look at the one that has been done at the Globe Theatre in 2009, below is the trailer for the play that was performed at the Globe.
The trailer from the Globe Theatre's Love's Labour's Lost shows that they have kept the period clothes. And from the way it looks there is not much of a set other than the pillars and the stretched platforms that go into the audience. By having a minimal set there is a lot relying on the word play. The costumes are amazing, really decade appropriate and fit with the extravagance of the characters.
The Princess of France in this version is played by Michelle Terry, from watching the trailer I can see she brought a sense of power with her character which is something I defiantly want to do with my character.
Most women in Shakespeare's plays are either, going to die, witches, pathetic or just plain evil. Women were considered to be the "weaker vessel" and in Love's Labour's Lost the main group of girls are defiantly not dominated by the men, not until the end anyway. Michelle Terry's version of the Princess shows the fire behind her eyes, the sheer passion behind her words are really shown with her physicality and body language. I only wish to have that same fire and passion that she has.
This week we had to continue polishing the dance and to make up a duet or trio dance with the boys we are supposed to be tricking. A lift, a spin and a slide had to be included. As we are supposed be tricking the boys in this scene we made it part of the dance routine. I think I am finally getting to grips with a not so complicated dance just need to work out which way I am spinning!
End Of The Play So the end of the play is extremely random and just doesn't make any sense whatsoever....my father dies and then all our plotting and scheming seems to go down the drain and suddenly we all fall in love with the men....yeah...I really don't understand the end. As it's a Shakespeare play I know as my character I am allowed to be over the top and slightly melodramatic but how do I do that when I found out my father has died. As my character I don't really know how close I was to my father so I decided to show my closeness to my sister instead. I don't want to make the comedy sad at the end so I decided to make my character use the death as an opportunity to warm up the Kings.
After working on the end we did a run from page 40 which wasn't completely terrible but I do need to learn my lines!
Over the last few rehearsals I have been trying to figure out who The Princess is? Is she nice? Is she mean? Does she flirt with you and then stab you in the back? Is she floaty or does she stomp around? And finally after thinking and trying different things out I worked it out! She is, smart! Smart enough to so her wit but clever enough not to over use it. She can get what she wasn't from a click of her fingers - there is an air around her which just stops people to just watch her. Her women, Katherine, Rosaline and Maria are her three close friends that clearly have been through some stuff with her and are just as mischivous as the Princess. Her voice is high and flowy, she takes her time to say all the words and then other times she cuts you off with her wit. Before she sits down, she looks around the room and then decides where to sit or stand. There is true elegance behind this character and there isn't not class with her. Me and Tatenda have a rold split which is even better because we can feed off each other, the looks and the glances accross the room. Almost having a telepathic conversation.
I feel that my character is really genuine, and I want to depict that on stage.
During my time at Secondary School, I performed in the Shakespeare school Festival where I played, Mercutio - Romeo's best friend. And our adaptation was very different to what it would of been in Shakespeare's time. For him they would of performed it in the day time so they would have natural lighting but for us we could do it at any time of day inside with someone doing the lighting for us. The script was downsized so it wouldn't be as long as what it would of been. The characters genders were swapped around in our play and there was a man playing Juliet's nurse, which wouldn't be seen as that different to Shakespeare's time but Myself and another girl were playing male roles, if we were doing the play when it was first published no women would be performing so that is a big difference. The theatre that we performed in was not the Globe, it was inside and a relatively new design. The seats were different and there was no pit for people to stand in and the tech side of things in the theatre were much different to the tech they would of used back in the day.
This play is probably one of the most over used story lines ever! The amount of spin off versions done is ridiculous - some are good like the Baz Lurhman version and some are not so good like 'letters to Juliet'. This story has been done time and time again and is truly beautiful. It's even been made into a musical - 'West Side Story' - Kids know about it through 'Gnomeo and Juliet' which I must say I rather enjoyed! And still by the end of the film I am in tears because no matter how hard you try it is a tragedy.
But let's look at it a little closer....
Juliet is only 13 years old in the play and to some of us we might think it's a bit mental what she does at her age - but times change.
A lot of films forget to mention this fact about Juliet's age...I wonder why?
My three favourite adaptations of this play have to be Gnomeo and Juliet, Baz Lurhman's Romeo and Juliet and West Side Story.
BAZ LUHRMAN uses the same script that Shakespeare wrote and my word don't the actors use it well - to me Shakespeare's writing is hard to understand but I find that when actors know what they are saying and say it perfectly I understand what is happening. Leonardo DiCaprio and Clare Danes did a beautiful job of showing two lovers die through a family feud.
WEST SIDE STORY - one of the best musicals of all time - The story was adapted and set in the 1960's where racism towards emigrants was huge, andadapted the story to suit America in the 1960's. Through song and dance they show the war between two gangs and how it tears apart to people who love each other dearly.
And Finally GNOMEO AND JULIET!
Seriously the amount of inside jokes and detail there is about Shakespeare and Romeo and Juliet is brilliant! I sit there watching the film understanding all the little 'in' jokes that you would only know about if you had done some research on Shakespeare...which I like to think I have done.
The film is set in Stratford with two gardens with different Gnomes fighting. Juliet and Gnomeo (ingenious name) go through the same story as before but because it is a children's film neither one of them die - I mean not even Tibult dies...which is super disappointing.
All these adaptations are incredible and different in their own way - which does show how flexible his writing actually is. Just think, this play was published in 1597 and all these hundreds of years later it is still being used. It is timeless and beautiful.
Comparing to Shakspeare's versions of the plays
Shakespeare's plays back in the 1600's had minimal effects used on stage and the audience would have to be bedazzled by the sword fighting and the poetic words but nowadays we have animations of it which is really a step up and we have different interpretations of what the story is truly about and I do think that a lot of the meaning can be lost over the years.
The actors in Shakespeare's time wouldn't of had much time to rehearse and prepare and just would of had to use their pure skill of acting to use. The boys would also be playing the girls roles which really does differ from what we have today where the girls play the girls parts. There is a lot of rehearsal now required today because the actors need to understand what they are saying
I mean there is still much debate about this line of Romeo and Juliet
"Romeo, Romeo, Where for art thou Romeo?" - For years I used to think that this meant "Romeo, Romeo, Where are you?" But no. Apparently it means "Romeo, Romeo, Why are you called Romeo?" or something along those lines.
There is much more time put into rehearsing and the special effects have really advanced since 1597.
There have been several adaptations of Shakespeare plays - Romeo and Juliet, Taming of the Shrew and Twelfth Night.
Taming of the Shrew
Taming of the Shrew is a classic Shakespeare story where there are two sisters - one pretty, one feisty - one can only marry if the other does. So it is Bianca's mission to find her wretched sister a husband. He turns out to be a massive Arse and abuses Kate into loving him. Turns up to their wedding drunk and dressed as a woman and denies her certain pleasures and eventually she 'falls' in love with him. So both sisters end up happily married - THE END.
There have been many adaptations of this story - "10 things I hate about you" starring Heath Ledger and Julia Stiles was made into a hilarious film showing it in a Teenage environment. Some how they made an olden time chick flick into a modern day chick flick - I guess it shows how timeless Shakespeare's stories are. They however did not use Shakespearean language but did reference the play a few times. I have put a link to the whole film that is on youtube - the quality isn't that good but it is an opportunity to watch a slightly funny film with great Actors in it.
The BBC also did a modern adaptation of it - The woman playing Kate is truly terrifying and chilled me to the core. They really do show the contrast in the sisters. Shirley Henderson and Rufus Sewell are a hilarious duo which made very good abusive characters. I do think that film adaptations of Taming of the Shrew really do contrast to what might of been depicted on stage. The films have really dusted off the idea of domestic abuse that might be brought up in the play - and by transforming it into modern language and having american teenagers playing the parts we really do loose the rawness of the message. I think that modern language does loose some of the comedy and insults along the way - For example -
'Think'st thou though her father be very rich, any man is so very a fool to be married to hell?' They are literally referring Kate to Hell! Insulting and derailing this woman who has a hating for anyone who shows her empathy or kindness. The american film '10 things I hate about you' does loose those insults that can't be said in any other way than the Shakespeare way.
Warm Up Rehearsals began with people everyone finding out what animal their character is, I found that the Princess Character was a Gazel. Tall and bouncy but quick. She has a certain elegance to her manor as well. As we merged our character and animal together increasing the percentage of animal in our physicality I really felt the elegance of my character emerge. Once fully being my character I found that it really contrasted with the boys characters. All the boys, Berwone, Longeville, Dumaine and The Kings were all, to my understanding, dogs. They are the predators, sniffing around all the women and the weaker characters. However I found that the girls, Katherine, Rosaline and Maria were all quite delicate but strong animals such as my self and Tatenda. When transforming back to my character I found that I did keep elements of the animal in my step, I had a little glide. Rehearsing In today's rehearsal we rehearsed the dance scene, and yet again I must say I am finding the dance a struggle. But hopefully with practice I will get better. I worked out my objective for this scene which is to be sly and manipulative but to also have and edge of innocence to my name. This is one of my favourite scenes so far as it is just a big micky take on the boys and who can resist annoying a group of cocky arses (talking about the characters). Notes From the Director: Learn Lines so we can be off book and have more fluency with the scene. Make sure you understand what words you are emphasising.
There were many different types of playhouses in London during the Shakespearian era. There were amphitheatres or 'public' playhouses and playhouses that were indoors called 'halls' and sometimes referred to as 'private' playhouses. These types of theatres were both very different as they attracted a different type of audience.
It is unknown about how successful this playhouse was but it is believed to be a play house that spurred on other playhouses to be built.
What happened next....?
In 1576 there was another theatre build by Brayne and James Burbage, which again was outside the city walls - more about Burbage, he was an actor with the Ear of Leicester's Men and they often performed in the theatre in their first two years of it being built.
Newington Butts theatre was built in the south in 1576 also and in the following year the Curtain was build neat the Theatre. In the following 5 years more and more companies started to perform in the Inn's Yards - Fun Fact! - Theatres in that time were also used for other forms of entertainment as well as plays.
What made people want to build on the south of the Thames?
Because people thought that crime rates were high and the loudness of the theatres were too disruptive many people decided to build playhouses on sites where city officials couldn't control them - however this did mean building outside the city walls. Now where could they find somewhere really accessible to build the theatres? The South Side of the River Thames! Of course it's outside the city's walls and there were already loud activities that took place there like Animal Baiting Arenas, brothels and Taverns where you could drink your sorrows away. And obviously this was a place for good entertainment and it was where
Features of outdoor Playhouses
Globe Theatre Labeled
Raised stage that would go out into the yard
a roof over the stage (aka 'the heavens')
A tiring house behind the stage with a backstage area - this is where the actors would dress and would await their entrance
A central yard that opened up to the sky
Above the the tiring house area there was the lord's rooms where there would be large rooms to store different things in and this was roofed.
and obviously the galleries surrounding the theatre where the audience would sit
Who Build the Playhouses?
James Burbage
Some were built by Businessmen, they noticed the rising attraction of the theatre and that companies were touring so decided to create money making spaces around the city.They were the ones in wealth which is very different to the acting companies who usually would be penniless. It was a great opportunity for businessmen to let the companies hire out the land - the fare would usually be half the income that they would make per ticket.
During the Elizabethan time, only men were permitted to act. So all girls parts were played by boys because women were not allowed to perform in the public theatres until 1660. Personally I think this has really influenced today's media coverage of women - in my opinion there is a misrepresentation of women in the Media because of the long history of men dominating the acting world, maybe that is where it all started?
But also the Panto has picked up on gender reversing roles and I think it is a very 'British' thing to do. Who doesn't want to see a very masculine man prance around in a pretty dress.
I do think however that plays like 'twelfth night' and 'as you like it' might get a little complicated as there is a lot of role reversing in the play! Often young boys would perform as the female characters during the Shakespearean time, to avoid confusion.
Training as actor?
Some young boys would join a company and would be taught by other actors who would of had more experience. The skills that actors had to had were varied.
Sword fighter
Singer
Dancer
Good at remembering
The companies size did vary and the size did depend on where the company was working and how much money the company had - more money = more people. A company of wealth would have 8-12 experienced actors and there would be 3-4 boys who would be hired. Then there was the stage men who would help with costume and props if needed. And then finally the musicians.
Actors would join a company which would be under the Patronage of a monarch, a good example would be the Queen's Men.
How much did an actor earn?
Because there were shareholders in the company the boys or 'hired men' would earn less than the investors. Shakespeare was a sharer in several different companies throughout his theatre careers; such as Chamberlain's men and the King's men. The amount of money they would earn per show would also depend on the Venue. Obviously in a city like London you would earn more money because of the dense population - Fun Fact! William Kendall was pain 10 shillings a week in London and only 5 Shillings in the country side.
Working place?
A lot of companies were based in London when they had permanent theatres. When the city was at rage with the Plague a lot of the theatres did shut which meant the companies had to go on tour around the countries. There was an occasion when the companies would go abroad in Germany and the Netherlands.
What was the average day like?
Most shows were performed in the afternoon in the repertory because of the light in the theatres was very limited. The same play was never performed two days in a row and actors would spend their morning rehearsing and preparing to the afternoon. A lot of actors would be doing different plays at the same time and would have little time to rehearse. There were not lots of copies of the same script for the actors to use so they were given pieces of papers with their lines and cues and the last words of what the previous person said before them - this could make learning worse. Did actors specialise? Most actors would be type cast, but there were a variety of characters for people to play. Some parts would be written for a certain person - Shakespeare wrote the part of Dogberry in Much Ado About Nothing for William Kempe because he could capture comedic physicality. The fool in King Lear was also written for Robert Armin who had the skills for good witty language and slaptick comedy. Sources I used: http://www.shakespearesglobe.com/uploads/files/2014/01/actors.pdf .
Warm ups We walked around the room as our characters and were told to push them to a melodramatic level. So all my physical choices would change and enhance more and more. Once we got our physicality to it's best we then had to speak any line from the play and deliver it while doing our melodramatic movements. I found that a lot of my characters movement relies on her posture and facial expressions. And when I walk I take my time to let others notice my presents. I found that my character has a very slow movements which flow elegantly. Quite short steps but I never move anywhere unless I want to - not to the demand of others.
Shooting Scene Today we did the shooting scene which has all the girls in, we have guns and we are shooting at deer. This scene shows our banter between us all and I feel that this scene is quite difficult to work out, I am still working out my physicality and voice of my character. She is very difficult to work out as most plays have stage directions which give me a little insight into the character and situation I am in. With Shakespeare there are minimal stage directions and the language is quite complex to get your head round. I have enjoyed working through the language but I do find it a challenge to work out what I am saying and therefor how to say it. I think as weeks will develop I will have more of an understanding of my character once I understand the language a bit better.
So today we finally got a chance to perform in the new theatre, this was a time to get a feeling for the place around us and how much we will have to project our voices in order to be heard. 
/Romeo_and_Juliet/images/burbage2.jpg)
