Our Production

Research your own Shakespeare play: Measure for Measure. What is the play about? When was it first performed? Give some attention to your own character and their role in the play.

Measure for Measure is one of Shakespeare's lesser known plays, written between 1603 and 1604. Technically it is defined as a problem play however there is a lot of comic dialogue written in throughout the script that made me assume it was a comedy when I first read it. Its classed as a problem play because of its shift in mood, it begins with the problem of the brothels being shut down, the recent ruthless rule of Angelo due to the duke’s absence and the sentencing of Claudio. Its up to the characters within the play to solve these problems and any others that arise as the play progresses. The play is very complex in its plot due to the sheer amount that is going on at the same time. It begins with the rule being handed over to a very authoritarian Angelo as the duke, while pretending to go on leave, remains in the city of Vienna disguised as a Friar. Angelo then sentence's the budding nun Isabella’s brother to death for getting a women he isn’t married to pregnant, although they are in a relationship. Isabella then goes on a journey to try and get the sentenced revoked, which involves Angelo bargaining a one night stand in return for his life and the guidance of the duke disguised as a friar. Long story short, there is a lot of confusion and a lot of going back and forth between many different ideas and plans until they are able to come to a solution. Meanwhile the brothels are being closed and the law is trying to catch and condemn all the heads of these types of organisations. The play is resolved at the end with Claudio being reunited and married to his lover Juliette, Angelo being forced to marry Mariana whom he wronged and slept with when she was pretending to be Isabella and the duke proposing to Isabella, all of which is a supposedly happy ending. The play tackles a vast range of different themes, some of which are; religion, abuse of power, justice,  prostitution, the role of women and authoritarian rule.

The first recorded performance of Measure for Measure was in 1604, but was originally published in the First Folio in 1623 where it was listed as a comedy. The play seems to draw inspiration from two sources, these are ‘The Story of Epitia’ and the play ‘Promos and Cassandra’. ‘The story of Epitia’ is a tragedy where similar characters to Isabella, Angelo and Claudio exist in the same scenario except in that version of events the Isabella of the play is forced to sleep with their Angelo and her brother is still killed despite this, therefore it is a much more brutal account of events but nevertheless you can see that Shakespeare may have used it as a basis for his own play. Since its creation in the 1600s there have been countless performances and versions of the play, even resulting in a film being made of Measure for Measure using lego simpson action figures. In 2015 a film version was also made, entitled M4M, where Isabella was changed into a male character thus bringing in the concept of homosexulaity into the play. The character of Isabella has often been seen as one of virtue and purity due to her interest and devotion to the nunnery and God, which really shines through when she refuses to give up her virginity in order to save Claudio’s life. There has always been a big debate around whether this is true or not as if she was truly virtuous would she not sacrifice herself to save her brother instead of putting herself first and declining. Isabella is one of 5 female characters within the play, all of whom seem to comment on ano reflect certain issues and aspects of sexual attitudes and behaviour. The play shows us the two ends of the spectrum, at one end we have Mistress Overdone who is a well known prostitute that runs quite a lot of the brothels. Her attitudes towards sex and relationships are very different to those like Sister Francisca and Isabella who are both nuns are therefore have pledged a vow of celibacy. The last female character is Juliet, the girlfriend of Claudio whom he gets pregnant before marriage. These other 4 female characters are the ones that Isabella's actions, in terms of how she handles her sexuality and preferences, will be weighted up and compared against.

Find a contemporary production of the play you can get an idea of and research it in terms of concept, style, design, casting.

In 2004 Complicite did a version of Measure for Measure, with Simon Mcburney as the director. The piece was 135 minutes long without an interval, and was created in collaboration with the National Theatre. Mcburney took a more serious and brutal approach to the play, choosing to focus on the negativity that surrounds Angelos strict rule and the tightening of the law, thus portraying it in the context of a repressive state. They modernized the play so that Angelo was a young neo-con who decided to turn the lax society he inherits into a state that has no democracy and is very brutal in how it creates control and presents corruption, the world of the play includes all hour surveillance, prison beatings, arbitrary punishments and rigged trials. The world they create is so relevant to our society and the modern world, with references to George Bush and Guantanamo Bay littered throughout the play to just outline how it links to this era. I thought the concept surrounding the version is very insightful and important in terms of the message it gives, it hones into and emphasizes one of the larger themes about authoritarian rule and corrupt use of someone’s powers and uses that theme to bring the entire body to text into the modern day as those issues are still something that is very present within some governments making the production very successful. To reflect these issues the play was staged on a very bare set, bringing attention to how the world of the play is one devoid of human contact, expression, freedom of speech and all things that come to make up who you are as these have been stripped away within the strict regime. This production also had an interesting take on the characters within Measure for Measure, specifically the psychological aspects. For example Paul Rhys's Angelo had a huge element of a threatening hysteria that seemed to show up how flawed he was mentally, including an aspect to Angelo where he self mutilates himself highlighting how unstable he is. The main theme of abuse, exploration and manipulation of power that this play explored carried through into how each character was portrayed. The corruption of the system was highlighted in how Pompey was able to flick between being a underdog pimp who would have been looked down on, to a well respected state official with a lot of power despite his wrong doings and seemingly unlawful past. It also came through in how the Duke was portrayed, specifically in his proposal to Isabella which the guardian called 'a demonstration of brutal authority', giving the impression that they had decided to bring out the more sinister motives within each character throughout the play. 

Shakespeare Today

Analyse contemporary Shakespeare productions with reference to live performances you may have seen or clips or footage available online. You should comment on what you notice about them and how they differ from what you know about the original performance conditions of Shakespeare’s work?

One of the best contemporary shakespeare plays I have seen was ‘Imogen’ at the globe, this was a modernised version of the shakespearean play ‘Cymbeline’. In this production they kept all the shakespearean dialogue the exact same apart from the names and play title, mainly the name of the main character was changed to Imogen hence the play being renamed Imogen and not Cymbeline. I thought this gave the play a real edge up as it created a whole new element to this character and the modern setting without completely shattering the writing and the language itself. By changing the name they started to break down the wall that’s often created between the characters and the audience due to the language barrier as the audience may find it hard to relate to and understand characters that speak in 1600s english, therefore by putting in a name that is a lot more familiar to our culture now it enables the audience to possibly unlock that character a lot easier. The setting of as well as some of the language in Imogen was also modernised, with it being placed into the concept of it taking places between two powerful gangs. What I loved about how they portrayed this concept was the way they created it visually. They made it so that one of the gangs was all white people dressed in black adidas wear and the other gang was all black people dressed in white adidas wear. I thought this idea was really clever and raised some very significant points about the relativity of the play's themes, which include the original idea of two people from each gang/country within the context of the original cymbeline not being able to mix due to the conflict between the two powers. When this was put into the context of gang culture and race, it not only became relative but it became important in terms of the message it was sending out into the world. ‘Imogen’ took Cymbeline and created this whole statement about issues with the division between races and the amount of racism we have within our world along with the kind of conflict that comes with all that. I found it very powerful to watch and definitely something that spoke out to me despite it being a shakespearian play.

Imogen was also largely movement based, something that was very contemporary in its style and hence breaking away from the tradition shakespearian stereotypes a lot of people associate his plays with. They used movement in various different ways, the first way was through dance. They managed to incorporate a really large use of contemporary music such as tracks from stormzy and skepta, these tracks went along with huge hip hop dance routines that reflect the current mood of music and dance within the last few years. I thought this was really effective as it matched the whole theme of the play and therefore didn’t feel out of place or as if it was just thrown in there to make the play more appealing. Every routine they did was done to such a high level that it felt natural, I think it could have been so easy for dance routines within the playn to just look like a bunch of shakespearean actors trying to spice up the play by doing something that's “cool”. However this wasn’t the case, they had done a really good job at building the full extent of the world it was set in and therefore as an audience member I didn't feel like questioning or doubting the material that was in place because I trusted that this would exist as a world in all its entirety. They also used interesting movement within fight scenes and transitions that really caught my attention as an audience member, there was one fight sequence in particular that I thought was really effective as a device within the play as a contemporary piece. During a fight sequence between two people, instead of having any sort of hidden special effects to create an idea of blood they had the rest of the cast member walking through the sequence with bloodied hands and as they walked past the two characters they would brush their hands on to their white clothing creating an idea of blood. This was a very abstract and unique way of presenting it, detaching it from the traditional way a fight sequence may have been done within shakespearian theatre.

Theatres, Actors & Acting in Shakespeare's Time

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

Theatres at the beginning of the era were amphitheatres, all built without a roof so the plays were able to be lit by the moon and stars as this was a time before anything like electricity was invented and therefore items like light bulbs didn't exist. TThe popularity of the theatre also meant that after a while plays started to be produced inside so that the art form could exist more easily in the winter months. These became known as playhouse. each playhouse had a large main yard for audience members to stand and watch in which was open topped (this was known as the pit), the raised stage that was where all performance would occur however this would always be covered by a small roof, a 'tiring house' that was located behind the stage for actors to rest and get ready in before and during shows, above these there were storage rooms, the lords rooms and an area called the heavens which was where people creating the stage/sound effects would work, lastly all playhouses had wooden, roofed seating that went up in levels as it got higher. The majority of playhouses seated around 500 people and the huge rising success of Elizabethan theatre meant that the majority of theatres were often filled with huge audience numbers.

Playhouses were introduced in the late 1500's with the first playhouse being built in 1567 by a man named John Brayne.  The playhouse was called the Red Lion after the Red Lion Inn, the pub that occupied the building before it was turned into a playhouse. The making of playhouses ensured a huge boost within the industry as acting troupes now were able to have an all year round job that wasn't affected by the unpredictable English weather. These buildings were also home to a lot more comfortable and luxurious seating, especially more the upper class and nobility of the city. These conditions encouraged more powerful and wealthy members of society to come to the theatre and thus lifting the standard and reputation of the theatre higher and higher. Playhouses either came out of the conversion of an older buildings, such as great halls like The Grays Inn and Whitehall or would be purpose built from scratch like the Salisbury Court Playhouse. Shakespeare's company aimed for years to be able to operate their own indoor theatre, this dream became a reality in 1609 when the Burbages took over the London Blackfriars Theatre.

Plays were usually staged with additional skills being shown on stage such as fencing, singing, the playing of instruments, and athletic dances. however hardly any scenery was used for the majority of plays as they had to travel, so instead the playwright would compensate but include really colourful and descriptive language within plays so the audience could still have the imagery of the setting created. There wasn't much effort made to disguise the fact it was a play on a stage and not a window into reality with the exits and entrances being completely visible at the sides of the stage. There were some other technical options to go on and off such a ‘descending from the heavens’ where the actor would be lowered down from up high or to come up from hell where the actor would enter or exit from a trapdoor. There were sometimes even the option for characters to interact and performance from midway galleries in between the stage and the roof.

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

Actors in the Shakespearean era were only men. There was no such thing as a female actor as it women were not allowed to enter that profession, any female roles would be done by men in drag. It wasn't until 1660 that women were allowed to to act in public theatres in England, lots of other places in Europe already had female actors within their theatres. Actors often began their training and involvement in the industry at a young age, with lots of them trying to join companies and become and apprentice to one of the more senior actors. It was a requirement and normally expected for acts to be able to sword fight, dance and sing on top of the standards skills for line learning and general acting. The size of the company you were working with also depended on its wrath and status, a more wealthy company would have around 8 - 12 older and more experienced members called sharers and then 3 - 4 younger boys who are just starting out, and then a number of hired men and tiremen (back stage members who would help with the running of the show) and some musicians. Less wealth companies would have a much smaller amount of members and probably less diverse in skill. In this sense I think being an actor then and being an actor now we're relatively the same as they still had the element of having lots of different roles and pockets of skills and workers to create the final piece, similarly to what goes on now. Within both way of creating theatre the production and role of the actor os one amongst many different components that come together to create a piece. The element of money is also something that hasn't changed through time, the scale of your team and role as an actor often changes depending on weather you're doing a well funded high profile production or a smaller scale show that doesn't have as much of a budget. Actors that were successful would join a company that was under the patronage of a monarch, for example the Lord Chamberlain's men or the Queen's

A large difference between acting then and now was how and what the actors earned through the job. In the Elizabethan era most companies operated a shareholder system where people that shared in the company earned more than men they hired from outside the company. For example Shakespeare was a sharer within the company of the Chamberlains men and therefore the way he earned money was slightly different. The amount he earned was dependent on the amount of profit the business was making as he shared both the profits and earning great of the company as well as the costs. There a higher profit meant a high earning but if there was a larger amount of costs to be covered he would get a lower Earning from sharing that too. This is significantly different to the way we operate now in giving a standard wage to each actor depending on the amount they're involved in the play and the overall budget. The amount earned by actors within this time period was also reliant on where the company was performing, the best place to work was London as performing there always meant a higher earning due to making a larger profit than performing in the countryside. A good example of this was how the actor William Kendall was paid 10 shillings a week while working in London but only half that at 5 shillings a week while working out in the country.

Something that's created a large difference between the experience of acting in the 1600s and now was the invention of the printer in the late 1930s  because before this everything was done hy hand. Therefore in the Shakespearean era there was only one hand written copy of the ply and so actors would have to learn their own part by writing out the lines. This creates a huge difference as the lines and text you are given are not within the context of the whole play, making it a lot harder to build the picture of the entire world of the play and the play of your character within the context of the scenes and setting. The only other bits of the play the actors would have would be their cue lines, the first and last words spoken by the other characters before their own lines.