QUESTION: How important to you feel it is to make Shakespeare racially accurate in performance? Should Cleopatra be portrayed by African actors only? Or Shylock only by Jewish actors? Considering that in Shakespeare's day women weren't even allowed on stage, is it more important to adhere to the realities of the stage, or the realities of the plot? What do we gain or lose by being more historically or racially-aware?
Monday, April 20, 2020
Short Video Lecture for Acts 1-2 of Antony and Cleopatra
Please watch the short video (20 min) on Acts 1-2 of the play, focusing primarily on Cleopatra as an actress, and answer the question that follows as a Comment (or send it with your next set of questions). I'll post questions for Acts 2-3 later this week, but I'll give you time to digest those acts first. But never fear--we're almost done with the course! :)
QUESTION: How important to you feel it is to make Shakespeare racially accurate in performance? Should Cleopatra be portrayed by African actors only? Or Shylock only by Jewish actors? Considering that in Shakespeare's day women weren't even allowed on stage, is it more important to adhere to the realities of the stage, or the realities of the plot? What do we gain or lose by being more historically or racially-aware?
QUESTION: How important to you feel it is to make Shakespeare racially accurate in performance? Should Cleopatra be portrayed by African actors only? Or Shylock only by Jewish actors? Considering that in Shakespeare's day women weren't even allowed on stage, is it more important to adhere to the realities of the stage, or the realities of the plot? What do we gain or lose by being more historically or racially-aware?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
Answer TWO of the following for class: Q1: The Chorus of the Epilogue warns, “Regard his hellish fall,/Whose fiendful fortune ma... -
Answer TWO of the following... 1. The final act is peppered with scenes and moments that are often cut or condensed in modern pro...
Kari Elledge
ReplyDeleteI think that Shakespeare had so many rules and regulations about who was allowed on the stage that it wasn’t even a question of why a historically/racially appropriate woman wasn’t cast. In addition, Shakespeare’s audience would never have questioned it. However today’s, audience is a different breed. We live in a much more global society and to cast an Anglo-Saxon woman as an Egyptian is not only going to cause some confusion for the audience, it’s going to create social backlash. Yet, I hesitate to answer this question in an absolute because I love when directors take a Shakespeare play and change the setting or switch gender roles. I love to witness the versatility of these plays. So, then to say that Cleopatra should ALWAYS be played by an Egyptian woman or that Shylock should ALWAYS be played by a Jewish man would be limiting the opportunity for creative expression.
Great point--dealing in absolutes will limit what is possible in the play, and with Shakespeare, ANYTHING is possible. However, since casting race appropriate characters used to be impossible, it opened up so many expressive possibilities for these plays, especially this one and Othello. I often think Shakespeare wrote for his imaginative ideal, and then settled for the realities of his stage, which is why his plays survive into our own time. They transcend these limitations, and are waiting for us to realize them with broader ideas and technology (film, especially--he would have loved film!). So for this reason, I think we owe it to him to go beyond what he would have expected in his own theater, and re-imagine it boldly in our own.
DeleteVery good points, Kari!
DeleteI agree with everything Kari said! Back when these plays were actually being performed, the race of the character was not a liberty that could be afforded with what was acceptable during this time but now in our times, I believe that it is important to cast the characters as they were intended and as realistically as possible. In Shakespeare's time, it seems they put more emphasis on the realities of the stage rather than the realities of the plot; today, directors seem to pay more attention to the realities of the plot, because the realities of the stage can easily be worked around. Today, as compared to Shakespeare's time, there is more room to pay attention to the racial and historical aspects of a play, and I think this is where directors get to add their own spin to bring to life what Shakespeare might have dreamed.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think we ought to consider what he might have done if he lived today, rather than simply what he did with the limitations of his day. Sure, Mozart couldn't use a synthesizer when he wrote for piano...but if he had it available, surely he would have tinkered around with it!
DeleteCarla Torres:
ReplyDeleteI also agree with what Kari said. I think as well that because there were different rules that Shakespeare was under at these times, it's hard to tell when or how these plays should be played racially accurate. I do think it is important to take into account that women roles were not usually played by women instead some were played by males. Now things are different compared to when Shakespeare first came out with all of his plays, I do believe that there is always room for change and his plays being looked at differently. With that being said, if a man was playing a women's role in Shakespeare's time, it is now time for a women to play their own roles. As far as race, I think that there is more flexibility to allow whoever to play whatever according to whatever the director wants.
This is true, and I think we gain something from seeing what Shakespeare's theater looked like as much we gain from seeing Shakespeare's theater in our OWN image. However, this brings up a dilemma: now we don't allow a white actor to portray Othello, since performing in black face would seem racist (if you want to see what this looks like, the ECU library has a DVD of Anthony Hopkins' early 80's Othello where he performs in blackface). White women can still get away with being Cleopatra, though this is becoming rarer...so should all roles be equal opportunity? Or should they be accurate to the race as designated in the play itself? (another example of this: Gershwin's opera, Porgy and Bess, can only be performed with an all-black cast, by his own wishes...and the estate forced a production in Hungary to close down because they didn't have enough black actors/singers).
DeleteKelci Pollock:
ReplyDeleteI think in today's day and age it is important to allow these characters to be played by actors that are of the same race or gender of the characters themselves. Times have changed and I don't think we are missing out on anything by becoming inclusive. The issue with Shakespeare's plays when he was alive wasn't really some long held tradition of only men, only one race actors -- it was an issue of the times. Seeing a man play a female character in a Shakespeare play now would be absolutely fine, but to act like it is done out of some kind of historical homage is outdone. The reason women were not in those plays was not because Shakespeare wanted men to play these roles, it was misogyny. The same goes for the race issue -- it was racism. We are in a modern society. If we have remakes of Romeo and Juliet as garden gnomes then we can handle moving forward with racially diverse casts and women playing women characters.
Right, it wasn't Shakespeare's choice, it was the cultural racism/misogyny of the day. f he lived in our time, he wouldn't stage plays the same way, so why pretend he would? That said, I worry that might take Shakespeare too literally at times, and assume that a Moor can only be a Moor, when he had no real interest in the race beyond its status as an 'outsider.' So should we not allow a great Shakespearean actor who is white the opportunity to play Othello? Would this be as tragic as not allowing a great black Shakespearean actor to be Richard III because Richard III wasn't black? It's tricky...
DeleteCody Baggerly
ReplyDeleteI believe, in some ways, there is room for both. There’s a case to be made for remembering the historical accuracy of Shakespeare’s performances and to allow an actor to perform their duties free of racial/gender restraints but, as it was mentioned in an earlier comment, we live in an entirely different society today and we have a better understanding of the implications that come along with those limitations- again, as mentioned, these ideas imply deep racial and misogynistic prejudice. Because of this, and because we have a deeper understanding of equality, proper race and gender should also be appreciated in these performances. By following the rules of Shakespeares era, it is true that we can appreciate his work in a more historical manner. However, by following a more modern mindset, we can appreciate his characters in a more authentic way by seeing them as he visualized them- not performed them while chained by his constraints. Also, based on his desire to constantly push boundaries, I personally lean towards the mindset that Shakespeare himself would have cast women and minorities in his plays if he believed he was able to get away with it.
Definitely, he always wanted to push the boundaries, so people who make the argument for a 'conservative' Shakespeare who upheld the status quo are missing the point (or never knew it to begin with). Yet the danger is over-correcting him and making his plays too dogmatic, and not remembering that they are primarily great works of dramatic literature. I'm interested to see how future generations continue to solve issues of casting and staging in his plays, esp. Othello, Antony and Cleopatra, and The Merchant of Venice.
DeleteWhile it is valid to want to accurately portray a character both racially and historically, I do not believe it is that important for the performance to be effective. To the modern way of thinking, anyone should be able to play a part if they are the best person for the role regardless of the actor’s or character’s race. The plot is more important. There is a risk to becoming too racially aware. Creativity and talent would be limited if we became focused on race alone. For example, the musical Hamilton is not racially accurate but is a powerful representative of a historical event.
ReplyDeleteyes, I agree--it's ultimately in the actor's hands. While a director has to be sensitive to what kind of message he puts across with his staging (and casting), Cleopatra's identity lies in the hands of its actress, and can't merely be the visible aspect of race. I think Hamilton is a great example: it shows that characters don't have to be historically/racially accurate to be 'truthful,' but also, it shows that a play doesn't have to follow tradition to be successful. We like a play that surprises and dazzles us, not one that gives us the same old thing warmed over.
DeleteHeck yes I love a question about race.
ReplyDeleteI think it's a question of sensitivity always and certain, prescriptive answers never... except honestly? White people have owned the stage for centuries and it won't kill us to not have Cleopatra. And this goes for all the other roles that people of color should have been getting for years, too. For instance, the movie version of the musical West Side Story - which, for the uninitiated, is about conflicts between white and Puerto Rican gangs in New York City in the 50s - is beautiful, sure, but SO MANY of the Puerto Rican characters are played by white actors. You cannot tell me there were zero non-white actors available to play those parts. It's the hegemony, folks.
Anyway. Sure, everyone has the right to cast whoever they want in their shows. Just, if you're going to have a white women play Cleopatra (or Maria or whoever else), for the love of God don't put her in brownface or yellowface. The way people did things in the 17th century is not justification for continuing to give white actors more jobs than actors of color.
The connection to West Side Story is important here; there were many Puerto Rican actors/actresses who could have sang and danced those roles, but they were largely neglected as not having the proper training, etc. Also, in the past (as well as today), it's a question of star power: you want to sell a production with actors that people want to see. And because of cultural hegemony, most people don't know the Puerto Rican actors--so they don't want to see a production with them. So this leads us back to Shakespeare: everyone wants to see David Tennant, or Benedict Cumberbatch, or Ian McKellan's Shakespeare...not necessarily the talented unknown who is more racially appropriate. But theater is for the audience, and they get to choose what they want and support. So can we blame the audience for not wanting to see the 'wrong' Shakespeare? (though I agree with you--no one wants to see great actors in black or brownface: watch the Sir Laurence Olivier Othello sometime...it's hideous, even though he's a fantastic actor).
DeleteDuring Shakespeare’s time, they really focused on the stage and making it realistic compared to focusing on the plot; today in modern time, that is not the way plays are designed, usually. I believe that racism really wasn’t big during Shakespeare time, and that it really wasn’t even thought of, like it is today so nobody was aware of the racial aspects of the play. I do however believe that Shakespeare would enjoy the broad range of different cultures playing different characters in renditions to his plays.
ReplyDeleteYes, he would love the capacity to stage his world however he wanted, since he had to work from a very limited palette. Anything goes today, which either would have spurred him to greater creativity, or possibly made him wonder why he bothered. I think he flourished because he had so little to work with...his mind seemed to relish in limitations and improvisations.
DeleteI think that it is important to be sensitive and intentional when casting a play, but like everyone else, I don't really have a definitive answer. Right now, I think that Cleopatra should be cast appropriately because, well, representation! Like Teresa said, we do not need another white actress playing her. With that though, we talk about Shakespeare's intentions and how he doesn't write for history's sake. So, I really don't think the race of Cleopatra, or *most* of the actors for that matter, are important as long as the character themselves are portrayed. Race is a theme in some plays, so I think it depends on what areas the producer wants to focus on. While this isn't a play by Shakespeare, Lin Manuel Miranda's Hamilton casts actors of a variety of races to play the white founding fathers. Even though it isn't accurate, the actors still fill the roles and the story continues. Of course, this instance was very intentional. I guess it depends on the producer's interpretation, but there are so many creative possibilities. Shakespeare did not situate his plays in a Christian world so that he would not be criticized for blasphemy, so I think you could sort of do the same with race and "not see color" - as if racial inequalities don't exist within the play's world. WITH THAT SAID, representation is extremely important, racial issues are extremely important, and we need to stop white washing!
ReplyDeleteOkay, to elaborate on that, I think that if Cleopatra is not cast accurately, the other characters should also be played by whatever race. Representation is important, and if the other characters are cast accurately, then she definitely needs to be, too!
DeleteGreat response that covers a lot of angles! While we don't necessary want another "white" Cleopatra, this does have the tendency to boil down Shakespeare to ONLY race, as if that's the main thing he's doing in this place. I would argue that race is an issue in this play, but it's not the point of this play (identity is, and otherness is, but race in the modern sense might be lost on him). So do we deny a great actor the chance to play Cleopatra merely because she's white? For example, couldn't we equally say, "we've had enough white runners for a generation or two--let them go do something else." Theatre shouldn't be limited only to racial representation, but nor should it be exclusively the domain of a single representation. This is tricky with Cleopatra, though, since if she's white and Antony's white, American audiences won't understand what the big deal is...some of the lines will be completely lost. and yet, a great actress can make us see the racial disparities...and for Shakespeare, much of the play occurs in the lines and their delivery, and not in the stage props or the actors themselves. But I do frown on the former Antony and Cleopatras where everyone in Egypt was black except Cleopatra and maybe Enobarbus.
DeleteI know that back then, racial and gender diversity wasn't possible on the stage. But now it is, and I think that that should be taken advantage of. One of the central themes of this play is racial tension. So, I feel like the play wouldn't have been as effective then as it is now since it didn't have that racial distinction between Antony and Cleopatra. This is why I think that the roles of characters like Cleopatra and Shylock don't have to be completely racially accurate, because when directors get creative with their casting for Shakespeare performances, it opens up doors that can often times lead to what was intended all along. I mean, it is frequently said that Shakespeare was way ahead of his time, and this is a prime example of that.
ReplyDeleteSince during Shakespeare’s time period didn’t allow for women to be on stage, why an actor who is or isn’t a POC be an issue? IMO, anyone can be anyone they want to be on stage. Historically, Cleopatra was an Egyptian, and the skin tone of Egyptian people can range from a pale cafe-au-lait to a color that’s similar to dark chocolate.
ReplyDeleteI think, for me, it would be unacceptable if the actress playing Cleopatra had the coloration of someone like Charlieze Theron or Cate Blanchette (ie - Galadriel from LOTR movies.) It was even weird when Angelina Jolie (my favorite actress) played Cleo in the movie Alexander. She didn’t fit the role. She did pull it off well, as she is a good actress, but IMO, Cleopatra has to fit what my mind’s eye sees her as - a woman with dark hair and dark eyes. Skin tone doesn’t matter to me one iota.
That being said, I think the audience loses when we don’t use a POC is that we don’t get to see the full effect of Cleo and Tony’s love, and why the story is similar to the “star-crossed lover” story of Juliet and her Romeo.
As far as what the audience gains when we don’t use a POC - we get to pay more attention to the story instead of paying attention to the contrast of skin colors. I think that as a Western audience, we get a mental shock when a POC shows up in a play where we’re expecting someone “white”. When that happens, our gray, pudding-brains tend to focus on the contrasts of skin color, rather than the meat of the play itself. If you don’t stay focused on Shakespeare’s words, we tend to lose the plot. Then it’s like we’re walking into the middle of a tv show that we can’t start over from the beginning and we have to ask other people “What’s going on?” every few minutes.
I guess I could also compare it to this: Imagine a gender-bent version of the story. If we went to “the theatah” to watch Shakespeare, and Antony and Caesar were both men. Everything would be copesthetic. But then, imagine Cleopatra walking onto the stage and instead of seeing this beautiful, curvy, passionately womanly creature, we see a man wearing the typical man-skirt-garb thingie, we’d have the same moment of shock as we do with a POC. Honestly, I’m all for having more POC acting in Shakespeare and on stage. We absolutely need more minorities on stage and screen so that when we do get faced with a POC playing a role we don’t expect them to, we won’t automatically have that reaction.