As we celebrate the 400^th anniversary of the publication of Shakespeare’s First Folio, the popularity of its author is stronger than it has ever been, as his reputation, already at a height unknown to any other writer, simply increases.

Why is that?

Well, it’s because in the realm of literature, few works hold as much significance and enduring influence as William Shakespeare’s plays. These masterpieces of storytelling and language have captivated audiences for centuries, transcending time and cultural boundaries to remain relevant and impactful even in the 21st century. Among the many contributions to Shakespeare’s enduring legacy, the publication of the First Folio in 1623 stands out as a pivotal moment, preserving and disseminating his works to a wider audience and ensuring their survival for generations to come.

The First Folio, a collection of thirty-six of Shakespeare’s plays, was published seven years after his death by two of his fellow actors, John Heminges and Henry Condell. It marked the first time that all of Shakespeare’s known plays were assembled and published in a single volume, making them more accessible to readers and performers alike. The First Folio’s significance lies not only in its preservation of Shakespeare’s works but also in its role in shaping the perception of Shakespeare and his plays.

Prior to the publication of the First Folio, Shakespeare’s plays were primarily known through performances and individual play quartos. These quartos, often produced by different publishers and of varying quality, were susceptible to errors and omissions, raising concerns about the accuracy of the texts. The First Folio, with its comprehensive and carefully compiled collection of plays, established a definitive version of Shakespeare’s works, providing a foundation for subsequent editions and critical interpretations.

The impact of the First Folio extended beyond the preservation of texts. It played a crucial role in elevating Shakespeare’s status to that of a literary giant. The Folio’s title page, featuring an engraved portrait of Shakespeare, further solidified his image as an iconic figure in English literature. The collection’s publication also contributed to the development of Shakespearean criticism and scholarship, providing a solid textual basis for analysis and interpretation.

In the 21st century, the First Folio continues to hold immense value for scholars, performers, and readers alike. Scholars rely on the Folio as a primary source for textual analysis and understanding of Shakespeare’s language and intentions. Performers draw inspiration from the Folio’s stage directions and insights into Shakespeare’s characters and plots. And readers, with access to readily available editions of the Folio, can engage directly with Shakespeare’s words, appreciating the nuances and richness of his language in its original form.

The First Folio’s significance extends beyond its literary and theatrical value. It stands as a testament to the power of storytelling and the enduring appeal of Shakespeare’s works. In a world increasingly dominated by digital media and fleeting entertainment, the First Folio reminds us of the enduring value of literature, the power of words to transcend time and connect us to our shared humanity.

The First Folio’s legacy is not merely a matter of historical preservation; it is a living testament to the enduring power of Shakespeare’s words. As we navigate the complexities of the twenty-first century, Shakespeare’s plays continue to offer insights into human nature, explore themes of love, loss, power, and justice, and provide a mirror to our own lives and experiences. The First Folio, as a gateway to these timeless works, remains a cherished artifact, a reminder of the enduring power of literature and the transformative potential of storytelling.

Some of Europe’s most popular tourist attractions feature Shakespeare in one way or another –theatres, the town where he grew up, the house where he was born, and so on – and there is a new, exciting feature soon to be added.

How would you like to tap your feet on the only surviving stage from Shakespeare’s time, the original boards that he trod as an actor? Well, you may get that chance.

The story begins in 1592/3 when the plague shut the London theatres down. The young actor, Will Shakespeare, who had been taken in by Lord Strange’s theatre group at the Rose Theatre soon after his arrival in London in 1590 had become friendly with  Strange’s writers, who were working day and night to supply the company with plays. He must have given them some reason for noticing him because our first glimpse of him is as a member of the writing ensemble working on the text that was to become Henry VI Part 2.

The writers were all young men – very talented young men – with names like Thomas Nashe, Thomas Kydd and one Christopher Marlowe. Shakespeare was to become very close to Marlowe in particular, both personally and professionally, as a collaborator, a rival and a friend. Marlowe had already been  credited with several box office hits and now this young actor was working with him. How thrilling that must have been! Will was bitten by the bug and the rest, as they say, is history.

So there he was, acting full-time, with other young actors like Richard Burbage and Will Kemp who would become lifelong friends,  and at the same time turning out plays, working with his other friends, the writers.

In 1592 Lord Strange was making changes in his company and some of the actors, including Shakespeare and Burbage, left to join the new company that Henry Herbert, 2nd Earl of Pembroke was putting together. And then the plague struck.

Lord Pembroke’s company left London and began touring. During 1592 and 1593 they performed in Bath, Coventry, York, Rye Ipswich, Leicester, Shrewsbury, and King’s Lynn . And it is in King’s Lynn, Norfolk, that this story really begins.

The touring players performed in the guildhalls of the towns they went to. When they arrived in Kings Lynn they set themselves up in the St George’s Guildhall, built in the early fifteenth century. It is still there and it is still staging plays. It is the oldest working theatre in the UK.

Recently, as they were renovating the hall, the workmen pulled up sections of the 75 year old floor and discovered what looked like the original floor two inches beneath it – thick heavy boards locked together and pegged through to some massive bridging beams – well worn and uneven. The theatre called in, an expert in historical buildings – Dr Jonathan Clark, who, using  a combination of tree-ring dating and a survey of how the building was assembled, dated the floor to between 1417 and 1430.

That was a relatively straightforward piece of research. The Shakespeare connection is a bit more difficult but not frustratingly impossible as so much is when it comes to discovering the Bard’s life.

There has been much academic debate over the years about whether Shakespeare did actually act in King’s Lynn, but experts say the discovery is significant. There is no smoking gun but we think that Shakespeare was with Pembroke’s Men in 1593 and we know from written records that the company performed in King’s Lynn in 1593 and that Henry VI and Titus Andronicus, two plays Shakespeare had worked on with other writers, were in the repertoire. It’s quite an easy leap to place Shakespeare there.

It all seems to fall neatly into place and if, indeed, Shakespeare was there, he would have trod those boards at the performing end of the long hall. No doubt the floor will eventually be on display but whether you will be allowed to step on to it yourself is as yet unknown.

Perhaps you will be left just to stand and stare and imagine the actors jumping about and taking that now-sacred floor for granted!

In recent months, there has been a trend in Florida to restrict the teaching of Shakespeare in high schools. This is one of the casualties of the passage of laws regarding sexual content in school reading materials.

One of the victims is classroom Shakespeare where several school districts are interfering in the curriculum and insisting on the teaching of Shakespeare via extracts of his plays rather than reading the whole play, and completely excluding some. Such minimization of Shakespeare – the use of extracts in place of reading the whole text – comes in the context of a general conservative backlash against the teaching of classic literature.

That is part of a larger trend of censorship in the United States generally. Conservatives often argue that classic literature is harmful to children because it contains content that is considered to be inappropriate, such as violence, sex, and profanity. They also argue that classic literature is not relevant to our lives in the modern world. The people making the rules are not teachers, nor do they have the wisdom of those who have sought the lessons of great literature.

This backlash is particularly strong in Florida, where Governor Ron DeSantis has made it a priority to restrict what students are taught in schools. In 2022, DeSantis signed the Parental Rights in Education Act, which prohibits teaching about sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through third grade.

The backlash is also being fuelled by the rise of social media. Conservatives who are opposed to teaching classic literature often use social media to spread misinformation about these works. They may claim that classic literature is racist, sexist, or homophobic. They may also claim that it is something of the past and not relevant to the lives of today’s teenagers.

The move against classic literature is a serious threat to education. It is important to remember that classic literature is not harmful to children. In fact, it can be a valuable tool for teaching them about history, culture, and the human experience.

Students are losing out on the opportunity to learn about important works of art and literature. And the state of Florida is becoming less educated and more divided. If the Floridian model catches on it will drag America backwards. Oh dear, just think of the great geniuses of literature. Ernest Hemingway, Walt Whitman, Herman Melville, Emily Dickenson, and so many more – consigned to the dumpster.

In particular, the Parental Rights in Education Act (also known as the “Don’t Say Gay” law) prohibits classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through third grade. This law has been interpreted by some school districts to mean that Shakespeare’s plays, which often contain sexual references, can no longer be taught in full.

So back to Shakespeare.

Some of his plays have even been removed from the curriculum altogether. This has been met with criticism from many educators and parents, who argue that Shakespeare is an important part of the literary canon and that his plays can be taught in a way that is age-appropriate and respectful of all students if left to teachers.

There are a several burning reasons why Shakespeare should be taught in high schools. The plays are rich in language and can help students to develop their own writing skills. They deal with themes that are as relevant today as they have always been, such as love, loss, betrayal, friendship, family and revenge.

One of the most targeted plays by this movement is Romeo and Juliet. This play, which tells the tragic story of two young lovers from feuding families, contains a number of sexual references that have been deemed inappropriate by some school officials. As a result, some schools in Florida have begun to only teach excerpts from Romeo and Juliet, or have even removed the play from the curriculum altogether. Censoring it is based on a narrow and outdated understanding of what constitutes “inappropriate” content. The sexual references in Romeo and Juliet are tame by modern standards, and they are essential to the plot of the play. Removing them would fundamentally alter the work.

Moreover, there are a number of specific reasons why Romeo and Juliet in particular should be taught. First, the play is a classic of English literature. It is one of the most frequently performed plays in the world, and it has been adapted into numerous films and television shows. Second, Romeo and Juliet is a timely play. It deals with themes that are highly relevant to teenagers today, such as love, family, loss, and violence. Romeo and Juliet is a well-written, gripping drama. The characters are complex and believable, and the plot is suspenseful and engaging. It is the perfect Shakespeare play for teenagers.

Teenagers in the 21st century are exposed to much more explicit sexual content than they would find in Romeo and Juliet. They see it on TV, in movies, and on the internet. They also have access to more information about sex than ever before, and they access a lot more sexual material than their parent’s generation does.

If we want to protect our children, we need to teach them about sex in a healthy and age-appropriate way. We need to give them the tools they need to make informed decisions about their bodies and their relationships. And we need to let them enjoy the works of art that have inspired and entertained people for centuries.

The plays that DeSantis enthusiasts have removed are among the greatest works of literature:

• Macbeth – because it contains themes of violence, murder, and witchcraft.
• Romeo and Juliet – because it is about teenage sexuality – a love story between two teenagers from feuding families. It contains some sexually suggestive language, although nothing near what today’s teenagers encounter in their daily lives.
• The Taming of the Shrew – a comedy about a man who tries to tame a headstrong woman. It contains some misogynistic language, (which provide excellent teaching opportunities)
• A Midsummer Night’s Dream – a comedy about love, magic, and fairies, but it contains some sexually suggestive language.
• The Tempest – a fantasy about a magician who shipwrecks on an island and uses his magic to control the inhabitants. But, oh dear, It contains some violence and sexual content.

After all that we should remember that the censoring of good things never endures. Centuries after the age of Ron DeSantis Shakespeare will still be popular, enjoyed in the theatres of the future, and interpreted in ways we can’t yet imagine. As Shakespeare himself wrote:

“So long as men can breathe and eyes can see

So long lives this and this gives life to me.”

English literature is important in the worlds of language and education. From Shakespeare’s plays to modern novels, English literature has not only delighted readers for centuries, but it has also played an important role in extending vocabulary and improving language skills. 

This article investigates how English literature helps to build language abilities, expand vocabulary, encourage a deeper grasp of the English language, and promote critical thinking. Let’s dive in!

Expanding Vocabulary Through English Literature and Language Learning Applications

English literature, together with language learning applications, presents readers with abundant opportunities to enrich their vocabulary. By exploring literary works, readers encounter a wide range of words and phrases that contribute to the expansion of their lexicon. These works encompass diverse subjects, individuals, and scenarios, allowing readers to discover new vocabulary. Authors not only captivate readers with vivid descriptions, analogies, and intricate wordplay, but they also serve as educators, introducing readers to unfamiliar terms. Immersing oneself in literature and utilizing language learning applications enable readers to strengthen their command of the English language by exposing them to a myriad of terms.

Reading literature provides individuals with contextual learning experiences that enhance their language proficiency. Unlike traditional vocabulary lists or isolated word exercises, literature offers a holistic understanding of word usage within specific contexts, shedding light on meanings, connotations, and nuances. The exploration of various literary genres and styles deepens readers’ comprehension of how language functions. 

Complementing this process, language learning applications like Promova incorporate interactive exercises, quizzes, and personalized feedback to further enhance contextual learning. By combining literature and language learning applications, readers can develop a comprehensive understanding of vocabulary and language usage.

Improving Language Proficiency Through English Literature

• Improving Language Fluency: English literature is a wonderful resource for enhancing language fluency. Readers get an instinctive knowledge of sentence form, grammatical use, and language rhythm by immersing themselves in well-crafted novels, poems, and plays. Exposure to many writing styles and voices helps readers build a natural flow in their own language usage, boosting their capacity to speak effectively and eloquently. Readers absorb the patterns and structures of the English language when they engage with literary texts, leading to better fluency and a greater appreciation for linguistic creativity.
• Literary Devices and Figurative Language: Literary devices and figurative language abound in English literature, including similes, metaphors, alliteration, and personification. Engaging with these components not only expands one’s vocabulary but also develops one’s language skills. Readers get insights into the nuances of language usage by examining and comprehending the aim and effect of certain literary approaches. This exposure to metaphorical language encourages creative thinking and improves the ability to articulate thoughts in a more vivid and complex manner.

Cultural and Historical Understanding Through English Literature

• Exploring Diverse Civilizations: English literature not only increases language skills but also provides insights into many civilizations and historical periods. Literary works frequently tackle societal challenges, human emotions, and universal themes, giving readers a greater perspective of the world. Readers acquire exposure to many viewpoints, beliefs, and ways of life through diving into the works of authors from various historical periods and backgrounds. This exposure not only broadens their cultural understanding but also increases their language comprehension as they encounter idiomatic phrases, cultural allusions, and historical background.
• Historical Importance: Literature reflects the age in which it was produced. Reading works from various eras allows readers to have a better grasp of the historical and social conditions in which these works were written. This understanding helps readers grasp the intricacies of language usage as well as the growth of the English language across time. It also gives a window into the cultural, political, and social concerns that developed the language, thus increasing one’s language competence and cultural knowledge.

Improving Critical Thinking and Analytical Skills 

Literary Analysis and Interpretation

• Critical Thinking Skills: Literary analysis is an essential component of learning English literature. Engaging with complicated characters, rich narratives, and thought-provoking issues challenges readers to develop critical thinking abilities. By understanding symbols and analyzing underlying messages, readers improve their capacity to evaluate and interpret information. This analytical approach to reading enables readers to think critically, question assumptions, and construct their own interpretations, creating a skill set that goes beyond the field of literature.
• Understanding views: English literature exposes readers to a variety of views, challenging preconceived beliefs and developing empathy. As readers immerse themselves in various storylines, they encounter characters from various origins and with various points of view. This exposure creates a greater awareness of human nature, societal dynamics, and the intricacies of the human experience. Readers acquire empathy and a larger worldview by contemplating diverse views and evaluating the reasons and conflicts revealed in literature, therefore improving their critical thinking and communication abilities.

Language Proficiency and Career Advancement

• Effective Communication: Fluency in the English language is a highly sought-after ability in today’s globalized society. The study of English literature provides individuals with the tools they need to speak effectively and convey their views with clarity and accuracy. Readers gain a solid command of language through exposure to well-crafted prose, poetry, and conversation, allowing them to express themselves eloquently in both written and spoken forms. This talent is important in a variety of professional contexts where excellent communication is critical to success.
• Writing Ability: English literature fosters writing ability by exposing readers to examples of writing styles and encouraging personal expression. Readers acquire insights into narrative structure, character development, and the art of storytelling as they interact with various literary works. This exposure helps readers improve their own writing abilities by encouraging creativity and improving their ability to produce interesting tales, persuasive arguments, and captivating essays. Strong writing abilities are highly recognized in many fields, and studying English literature gives a firm basis for efficient written communication.

Lifelong Learning and Personal Enrichment

• Intellectual Stimulation: English literature provides limitless potential for intellectual stimulation and personal improvement. The examination of difficult issues, rich plotlines, and different characters invites readers to think critically and engage in serious analysis. This constant contact with books keeps the mind active and fosters a lifelong love of study. Furthermore, literature acts as a gateway to other disciplines, since it frequently integrates parts of history, philosophy, psychology, and sociology, among others. Individuals who immerse themselves in the realm of English literature go on a voyage of academic curiosity and personal enrichment.
• Cultural Appreciation: English literature exposes readers to the rich fabric of human culture and innovation. Readers gain a great appreciation for the beauty and power of language by diving into the works of different writers and examining other literary traditions. Literature reflects society, expressing its achievements, challenges, and ambitions. Individuals gain an appreciation of their own cultural legacy while also appreciating the richness of other cultures through the study of English literature. This cultural awareness improves their overall language ability and enriches their personal lives.

Conclusion

English literature serves a varied function in growing vocabulary, improving language ability, encouraging critical thinking, and promoting personal growth. Readers improve their vocabularies and gain a better grasp of the English language by being exposed to a wide range of vocabulary, contextual learning, and figurative language. Engaging with literature also improves language fluency, fosters critical thinking abilities via literary analysis, and gives insights into diverse cultures and historical periods. 

The study of English literature provides students with essential language abilities that have practical implications in professional contexts, as well as a lifetime source of intellectual stimulation, personal enrichment, and cultural appreciation. So, delve into the realm of English literature and begin on a transforming adventure that will broaden your language competence and open new vistas of knowledge and comprehension.

By Ralph Goldswain

Violence? What violence?

Titus Andronicus was hugely popular when it came out in 1594. Since then, until the twenty-first century, it was largely ignored, probably because its violence was too grossly over the top for the Victorians, who had developed narrow Shakespearean expectations, which this play simply didn’t meet. It’s an early play by an aspiring young playwright, trying his hand at working on a play on his own.

In the process of serving his “apprenticeship” with Thomas Kyd and Christopher Marlowe, two of the finest writers of his time, the young Shakespeare perhaps decided that he would imitate, and even outdo, their huge money-spinning plays, The Revenger’s Tragedy and The Jew of Malta, which are distinguished by their violence.

Titus Andronicus must surely be a parody of those plays, and in aiming for that Shakespeare certainly did go over the top, himself parodying their over-the-top violence. Hardly a moment goes by without someone being murdered or having parts of their body chopped off.

But the play retains all the humour and comedy one would expect of a parody and, indeed, the extreme violence contributes to that effect, simply by its being absurdly overabundant. And this being a play by Shakespeare, it has serious thematic directions –violence, race, revenge, family, war, cannibalism, rape and so much more – even babies! And so, it was a winner – violence for those who went to the theatre especially for that, and thoughtfulness for those who went to the theatre for mental stimulation.

Jude Christian’s all-women production cuts out the violence and turns up the comic tone. Even the method of replacing the physical violence – the torturing and murdering of candles – is funny, and from the first moment, when the cast present themselves as a chorus in a song that signals the disguised violence to come, announcing “torture porn, but more artistic” the audience begins their almost continuous two and a half hour laughing marathon. It is an accomplished performance by a team of talented actors with no weak links.

All Sam Wanamaker productions have one thing in common: they do not use stage lighting, but leave the producer to find ways of using candles. In this production, the candles themselves are central to the concept. The missing dimension of bloody violence is provided by the use of candles that represent the victims. Whenever there is a violent action a candle is chopped or broken, smashed with mallets or strangled. When a character dies their flame literally goes out.

The plot is complicated and quite difficult to follow, particularly as all the actors are dressed in identical silk cultural revolution-style pyjamas in a variety of colours, all women and all with their, mainly dark, hair in a long tail down their back.

They are energetic and speak clearly, and as they work their way through the byzantine plot they hone in on the comic opportunities, in a sense pointing to Shakespeare’s personal sense of humour where, as he so often does, he produces little jewels. At one point Kirsten Foster impersonates a fly, running about the stage buzzing until Marcus kills it.

The action stops as Titus reprimands his brother, reminding him that the fly probably had a mother and father, and saying:

“Poor harmless fly,
That, with his pretty buzzing melody,
Came here to make us merry!
And thou hast kill’d him.”

And when Marcus tells him that he killed the fly because he was:

“a black ill-favor’d fly,
Like to the empress’ Moor”

Titus takes a butcher’s knife and viciously squashes the dead fly. It’s funny and profound and shocking on many levels – and carried out with perfect comic timing by the actors. And in the incident where two of Titus’ sons fall into a hole in the ground – not an intrinsically funny episode –  it’s hilariously performed by Beau Holland, playing both sons in burlesque, amid side-splitting audience laughter.

The four songs composed by cabaret duo, Liv Morris and George Heyworth are lively and contemporary, and they brilliantly set and maintain the tone of the performance. The action is supported by a score, composed by Francesca Ter-Berg, in much the way that music does in a film, with sensitive mood-creating strains.

And what does this all add up to? Yes and no, really. To strip the Elizabethan raison d’etre for the audience pouring in to see this play takes quite some swallowing, and no matter how creatively it’s done it leaves the play almost naked. It’s entertaining but as the man in the Elizabethan street might have said, “It’s not what I came here for.”

By Ralph Goldswain

The Globe’s breathtaking Henry V.

This is a very intelligent working of Shakespeare’s text. That’s the first thing to say, and the second is that Oliver Johnstone’s performance as Henry is outstanding.

To turn a centuries-old interpretation of a Shakespeare play on its head without taking liberties with the text is unusual but it happens here. The English king who has the most claim to being a ‘good’ king and a ‘good’ man, a reputation gained mainly as a result of the depiction of him in Shakespeare’s play, becomes an angry and emotional toddler, weeping and screaming by turns. He terrifies his supporters with his instability and unpredictability, skating on the thin edge of sanity, and coming across as threatening and dangerous. The traditional view of him as a young man who becomes king after learning how to be human by scorning the trappings of regnal power and associating with the underbelly of London, thus emerging as a judicious, wise, humane adult, and therefore a great king, is subverted. In this production Henry is more like a Donald Trump than a Nelson Mandela.

How does Holly Race Roughan achieve this transformation?

First, she dispenses with the chorus, whose job is to praise Harry of England as the perfect English king, the king of kings. Instead of the Prologue’s rousing introduction with its extreme images of kingship and patriotism the play opens with the scene from Henry IV Part II in which the dying Henry IV wakes to find his son Prince Hal at his bedside, trying on the crown. The Chorus is subsequently omitted altogether from the performance. Occasions where patriotism is called for are accompanied by the ironic singing of ‘God Save the King’ by a court brutalised and constantly wrong-footed by their new monarch.

We see the ‘warlike’ Harry’s desire to attack France but he has no reason for it and it is only when insulted by the Dauphin – sending him a gift of tennis balls, suggesting that he’s not a serious king but more of a playboy – that he makes his decision, driven by the petty need to ‘get him back’ and show him what’s what than by anything else. In the text we see him ordering the execution of traitors  – a swift decisive, act – but here he personally strangles Scroop onstage with his bare hands. This unexpected and shocking execution is a breathtaking theatrical moment, but more than that, it conditions the audience to what is to come – instability, unpredictability and cruelty.

When anticipating going to see a performance of Henry V we usually look forward to two speeches in particular – two of Shakespeare’s best – and here the ‘Once more unto the breach dear friends’ speech is turned into a soliloquy. Not only that but delivered while crouching in a foetal position, all alone on the stage, instead of the rousing, morale-lifting encouragement to his troops it becomes a man having a panic attack, battling against feelings of insecurity. The St Crispins Day speech is delivered only to a small group of his inner circle and is transformed from a patriotic rally to a complaint about the inadequacy of his troops. So we do not have the two usual expressions of great leadership but just by changing the staging of the speeches, quite the opposite.

The diplomatic negotiations are also transformed. Henry’s deal-making is like Don Corleone’s, making the French king an offer he can’t refuse. But the piece de resistance is the courting scene with Princess Katherine. What we have enjoyed in this scene before is a charming and gentle Henry and a flirtatious and interested Princess. Without any alteration of the text, we now have Henry as a bullying, frightening sex fiend who actually makes an unwanted sexual attack on the princess, and instead of a delighted, receptive young woman, what we see is a terrified victim. It’s a remarkable and shocking scene, effected by two superb actors.

In Shakespeare’s history plays it is the story and the condition of kingship that has interested him up to this point but in Henry V he is interested in both the condition of kingship and the character of the king rather than only the story and the ideas it produces. And so, from his pen comes an apparent story of a thoughtful and judicious king who takes kingship seriously and is able to avoid the mistakes and pitfalls of his predecessors. Henry does that but encounters different problems. In the traditional way of looking at it he deals with all that and emerges as the master of kingship, but in this production his personal weaknesses – his insecurity and narcissism – make him an unpleasant dictator that we would run from rather than follow.

This interpretation requires the highest quality of acting by the main character. Congratulations to Oliver Johnstone as one of the best that the Globe has offered for a long time. He builds and maintains a totally convincing portrait of this complex character.

The supporting players are all excellent although one, Josephine Callies, as Katherine, stands out. In her, we feel what it’s actually like to be the victim of a cruel, merciless attacker. One could say that the huge list of characters being played by such a small group, constantly changing rolls, becomes a bit confusing, but in the scheme of things, in such a fascinating performance of the play generally,  and with the focus so firmly on the central character, that’s relatively unimportant. What is important is Ms Roughan’s demonstration of the universal nature of Shakespeare’s work, which defies anyone to pin down a definitive interpretation of even such a sure bet as his Henry V.

By Ralph Goldswain

If kids love a show written and staged for kids then it doesn’t matter what the grown-ups think, and while Splendid Productions’ Midsummer Mechanicals confused at least one grown up – this reviewer – the kids were laughing and shouting and providing the sound effects by answering prompts to make thunder and wind, and even abstract things like fear, and silent things like snow. They were also offered circus and pantomime effects like clown acts and the opportunity of shouting “He’s behind you!” repeatedly when a bear came on and the actors pretended they couldn’t see it.

Three of the rude mechanicals from A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Peter Quince (Jamal Franklin), Nick Bottom (Kerry Frampton) and Francis Flute (Sam Glen), plus Patience Snout (Melody Brown), a new character introduced by writers, Kerry Frampton and Ben Hales, gather in the woods outside Athens to prepare a play to be performed at the first anniversary celebrations for the Duke, Theseus and the Duchess, Hippolyta. Their play, Pyramus and Thisbe having been well received a year before, they are full of enthusiasm and confidence, but not any more competent than they had been during their previous production.

Although it was slightly difficult to follow because of all the interaction between the players and the audience of children, it penetrated a child’s imagination with great effectiveness. It does have a clear story, however: it’s an episode in the parallel, half-told story in Shakespeare’s play, of the life of the Fairy King and Fairy Queen’s marriage – the intervention in that by a human, Weaver, who has strayed into the woods. The first half is the rehearsal, and when you come back after the interval you can sit back and enjoy the hilarious performance.

The genius of this production is that it doesn’t matter whether children, of any age, follow the story. There is enough for an afternoon of fun anyway. Both halves are packed with invitations to the children to participate. In addition to the sound effects, children are invited to shout out comments and questions, which the actors respond to with their improvised replies. The Company composer, Ben Hales, has provided several songs, which the cast sing, playing a variety of instruments. Something striking and mysterious is how kids manage to sing along with songs they have never heard. There was a lot of that, and congratulations to Ben Hales for writing songs that have that characteristic.

Apart from the comedic antics of the cast, there are other moments when raw, immediate Shakespeare is introduced. Shakespeare loved name-calling and his plays are full of some of the most colourful insults anywhere. When Peter Quince invites the kids to supply insults for the main character – Weaver – played by Bottom, and the Fairy King, to throw at each other the kids become very excited and creative. When one of them shouts (BUTT!) it renders Quince speechless, while the audience rolls about.

One of the interesting moments was when the mechanicals get towards the end of the casting. They are left without anyone to play the Fairy King. Patience (Melody Brown) steps up and says she’ll do it. The others reject that flat out. A child shouts “A woman is not allowed on the stage” and the cry is taken up by others. The rustic actors discuss that and decide that it’s only illegal if you don’t get caught, and when the very female Patience comes out as the Fairy King, she is the most masculine figure on the stage, and gets the kind of acclamation all actors dream of. But how do little kids know about sixteenth century theatre conditions?

The decision to stage this performance in the Sam Wanamaker Playhouse was a good one. Its intimacy is perfect for the desired atmosphere – not too big and not too small for a good dose of audience participation.

Every member of the cast deserves a standout credit and it would be an artificial exercise to single any one of them out. The astonishing thing to this reviewer is the level of energy applied to each performance by each of the actors. Just thinking about it is exhausting. But the result is something special.

By Ralph Goldswain

Bravo, bravo and double bravo!

This is not only one of Shakespeare’s greatest entertainments with its almost continuous music, including several songs, its magic, lots of belly-laughing comedy, including slapstick, and with an engaging romance at its centre: it is also a profound essay on power in all its forms and, perhaps most interesting for our times, very much about the colonialism that was beginning in Shakespeare’s time and which the developing world is still trying to work out of its system.  But a director can’t emphasise all of those things when presenting the text as a play on the stage and has to make choices. If you want everything at the same level of intensity you should read the text.

Sean Holmes gets it right. He does what Shakespeare would have done – present the text as sheer entertainment, as a very funny comedy. All the serious considerations that inform this great play are still there but by placing the antics of the three comedians, Stephano (George Fouracres), Trinculo (Ralph Davis) and Caliban (Ciaran O’Brien) at the centre of the drama he hits the nail on the head. He manages to embrace those big themes in the performance of those three, expressing them through the comic centre of the production.

Holmes gives the audience their money’s worth of entertainment, as Shakespeare strove to do in his productions. The scene where Ariel distracts the two shipwrecked royal servants from their insurrection with a collection of fashion garments while Caliban almost literally explodes with frustration, is about as funny as anything could possibly be. And even among three outstanding performances, George Fouracres once again shows his unmatchable mastery of comic acting and consolidates his place as a top Shakespearean comic actor.

 The Tempest is very much about power. The absurdity of the sophisticated European politicians, marooned on a remote island from which escape seems unlikely, dressed in the clothes of courtiers, – sharp yuppie suits –seriously conducting a coup, is underscored in high comedy by the ridiculous bumblers playing out their own insurrection.

All this is done under the gaze of the cruel, autocratic Prospero, who, having been deposed by his brother fifteen years before, has all the power now, and most important, the power to forgive and redeem. Wearing only bright yellow Speedos, in contrast to the European power figures in their expensive suits, the well-endowed magician controls everything through his magic until, at last, he abjures the magic, dons an executive suit and re-enters the world of human politics. Ferdy Roberts plays the role well but in his dealings with Caliban and Ferdinand, and also Ariel, misses the iron-hard side of Prospero’s character by using an almost kindly tone in language that calls for a much harsher delivery,

The Tempest is full of magic, and Holmes has decided to underplay that. Although it’s still there, it is partly done with an unreal dreamlike set, where everything is vividly coloured and weird, from huge yellow crates and plastic props – a blow up duvet and armchair, bright green palm trees and water bottles, instead of magical effects. The magic is in the language and the situations, and it comes through in the high quality of the actors’ delivery, which is how Shakespeare would have done it.

Holmes has an interesting take on Caliban, a character that is always difficult to present on the stage. Described in the dramatis personae section of editions of the text in language like “a savage and deformed slave” producers present him as something not quite human, with scales, hunch-backed, with horror masks, always essentially ugly and very unappetising. Ciaran O’Brien’s Caliban achieves immediate sympathy by being completely human  – an ordinary young man whose only distinctive feature is his obvious depression. This works because it forces us to see his point of view. He complains of having had his country stolen from him and his having been turned into a slave. Even though we laugh all the way through his scenes with Stephano and Trinculo we sympathise with him as they bungle his chance of taking back his territory. When that chance arises he rejoices in the freedom that is coming, in song. When he invites the audience to join him in celebrating it’s a triumphant moment. They raise the non-existent roof with their response as Caliban leads them in a deafening chant of “Freedom!” It’s a wonderful moment in the theatre.

The romance between Ferdinand and Miranda doesn’t work all that well. Apart from being something of a distraction from the comedy there is something not quite right about the casting of Olivier Huband as Ferdinand. He is too old for the part of the young prince. His instant zooming in on the innocent 15 year-old comes across as slightly distasteful. And Shakespeare certainly didn’t intend Caliban to be more attractive and more age-suitable than the young prince, as he is here. In Shakespeare’s text Miranda comments both on the beauty of Ferdinand and the physical repugnance of Caliban and there is a sad mismatch in both cases here.

The Tempest is full of music and in this production the audience is treated to Cassie Kinoshi’s remarkable score, which includes new settings for Shakespeare’s famous songs. The music in this play has an important dramatic function, alternating with thunder and the different sounds of a tempest. In the text, both the music and the thunder are conjured up by Prospero and Ariel, according to the mood of each moment in the play, and continuous, as in a film soundtrack. Holmes misses that, as if he had used the music and other sounds in that way it would not have interfered with his comic interpretation and may well, in fact, have enhanced it.

However, nine out of ten for Sean Holmes and all the cast and everyone involved in this production.

History was made yesterday, Monday 4th July at 7.45 pm (UK time) when “the first ever full production of Hamlet inside Grand Theft Auto Online” was live-streamed on YouTube.

The production was put together by Rustic Mascara, the nom the plume of Sam Crane, a talented stage actor, critically acclaimed for his performances at the National Theatre, Shakespeare’s Globe, in The West End, and on Broadway.

Comments were going wild through the performance. We’d love to know what you think of it! Watch the whole performance here:

By Ralph Goldswain

King Lear has been called Shakespeare’s greatest play. It has also been said that it’s impossible to make it work on the stage. Those contradictory statements may both be true.

On the one hand, if the text is studied as a work of literature, which it is in many introductory Shakespeare courses in colleges and universities around the world, one can only marvel at Shakespeare’s genius. The poetic unity, the characterisation, the dramatic structures, are all master classes in creative writing, even to the invention of stream-of consciousness – four centuries before James Joyce – in Lear’s ravings on the blasted heath, and to several features of .twentieth century postmodern fiction.

On the other hand, as a stage play, it threatens at every turn to fall apart. Like most great literary and dramatic works, such as Anna Karenina, Pride and Prejudice, A Long Day’s Journey into Night and the film, The Godfather, it is a family drama – in this case, two family dramas. They are both fascinating stories and the action moves almost equally between the two. Each one is a powerful story that focuses on the family’s father. Each story is crammed with deep and serious issues and they are presented in instalments, with an instalment of the Lear story followed by one of the Gloucester stories, then back each time to the other story. Plays work by making an emotional impact on the viewer but in this case it is emotional confusion. Lear is out on the blasted heath. We have just caught up with him but now we are to put him on hold as we get back to Gloucester’s story. And then to be left up in the air with Gloucester to return to Lear. Each one builds audience emotion up then moves away to another build-up, allowing the emotions to cool on the other one. Confusing. How does a person respond? It’s difficult in a play. It works in novels but in plays? Does it?

It is the director’s job to resolve that structural problem and Helena Kaut-Howson hasn’t. That makes it difficult to identify with Lear. And it is that question of emotional identity that may be the cause of the failure of this production. Given that difficulty, the actors playing Lear and Gloucester also have a big job to do to find ways of making the play work. It is that issue that should be the main conversation between director and actors as the performance is being developed but it doesn’t look like it was discussed at all.

In this performance Diego Matamoros’ Gloucester emerges as more convincing, emotionally, than Katheryn Hunter’s Lear. His pain, his suffering, his realisation of the condition that has afflicted him as the patriarch of his noble family is convincing. “I stumbled when I saw” he admits as he reviews his life. Gloucester has an unbeatable moment, perhaps unbeatable in all of Shakespeare, when he has his eyes pulled out by Cornwall. Matamoros’ performance doesn’t suffer by the inexplicable audience laughter at that horrific event. It’s difficult to understand what there was in that moment that evoked it but surely playing it for laughs wasn’t planned by Ms Kaut-Howson or any of the actors in that scene? If it wasn’t it is something for them to look at for subsequent performances. If it was deliberate it’s inexplicable.

Also difficult to understand is what statement, if any, Helena Kaut-Howson, is making in directing this play. At this stage of theatrical development in the UK we expect a statement, but we don’t seem to have one here.

Kathryn Hunter is a huge star and netting her is a coup for The Globe, and after such great anticipation Lear’s entrance is promising. Lear, the all-powerful absolute monarch, arrives at court in a wheelchair and he’s very old, as directed by Shakespeare, and he’s pale, sickly-looking and tiny. When he stands up his daughter, Regan, helps him and she towers over him like a giant. It looks like anyone at court could lift him with one hand and fling him over their shoulder. Interesting: after all, political and personal power does not depend on physical appearance and size. Look at Napoleon and Hitler – both small men. How wonderful it would have been if Ms Hunter’s Lear had the charisma that the text clearly demands, in spite of her physical stature. It’s no wonder actors are in awe of the role. They have to present a convincing combination of charisma, narcissism and dementia with immense emotional power. That seems to be out of Kathryn Hunter’s reach.

What we have is a pathetic old man. The rage and passion and angry questioning called for in the text are just not there. Shakespeare has provided the language for those things by writing the loudly uttered emotions of a man already frustrated by dementia, but that bountiful gift is wasted. For example, the ‘nothing’ interplay between Lear and Cordelia is a swelling duet that gets louder and angrier until in an apoplectic rage Lear banishes his favourite daughter, but it is underplayed here to become a quiet casual incident with the banishment seeming like an evenly judged, considered decision. And then, on the blasted heath, Ms Hunter’s delivery doesn’t convey the extreme emotions the language asks for.

Lear gives everything that makes him a king away without the wisdom to understand that if you do that you can’t expect to keep control of things, and people are not going to treat you as they did when you had all the power. He has lived his whole life in hiding behind things like position, power and wealth. Now he doesn’t know who he is and he keeps asking the question, howling against a deafening storm. Who and what he is is what he has to learn.  He doesn’t know how to react. He undergoes a huge mental storm with a lot of raging and shouting, and then there is a complete contrast to that as he wakes to music to find the noise of the storm gone from his brain. He emerges with an understanding that eluded him when he held power. Without the trappings of power he is now, personally, “every inch a king.” It’s like a Beethoven symphony, with noisy violent passion and then a resolution – lightness and harmony, and catharsis. There’s none of that contrast here. One cannot say that Kathryn Hunter has misinterpreted the role but one can certainly say that her interpretation doesn’t work – she does not connect with the emotions of the audience. That is not helped by inadequate voice projection, where she can hardly be heard much of the time, a difficulty shared by several of the cast.

Generally, this is a, traditional presentation of the drama, without anything innovative apart from the squeezing of humour from the text and adding things like making the first impression of the frail, demented Lear of him playing a child’s tune on a whistle, with laughter from the audience. The actors are all competent, none standing out, apart from Matamoros, and Michelle Terry as the Fool who, made up as Joker in Batman, provides a physical agility and mental sharpness that contrasts effectively with Lear’s frailty and vulnerability as she artfully manoeuvres herself around his mental condition. A special word for Max Keeble as Oswald as he is struck, kicked, tripped up and thrown about the stage. And congratulations to the choreographer.