Театральная техника в эпоху Шекспира
Шекспировскому театру, несомненно, соответствует система спектакля, первоначально устраивавшегося труппами бродячих комедиантов на постоялых и гостиничных дворах; эти гостиничные дворы обычно представляли собой здание, обнесенное по второму этажу открытым ярусом-балконом, по которому располагались комнаты и входы в них. Бродячая труппа, въехав в такой двор, у одного из прямоугольников стен его устраивала сцену; во дворе и на балконе располагались зрители.
Сцена устраивалась в виде дощатого помоста на козлах, часть которого выходила на открытый двор, а другая, задняя, оставалась под балконом. С балкона опускалась завеса. Таким образом, сразу образовались три площадки: передняя – впереди балкона, задняя – под балконом за завесой и верхняя – самый балкон над сценой. Этот же принцип положен и в основу переходной формы английского театра XVI – начала XVII веков.
|
Театр «Глобус». Здание, воссозданное в 1997 году, вид снаружи |
Первый публичный стационарный театр был сооружен в Лондоне (вернее за Лондоном, вне городской черты, так как в черте города устройство театров не разрешалось) в 1576 актёрской семьей Бэрбеджей. В 1599 |
году был создан театр «Глобус», с которым связана большая часть творчества Шекспира.
Шекспировский театр не знает ещё зрительного зала, а знает зрительный двор, как реминисценцию гостиничных дворов. Такой открытый, не имеющий крыши зрительный двор, обносился галереей или двумя галереями. Сцена покрывалась крышей и представляла собой те же три площадки гостиничного двора.
Передняя часть сцены вклинялась почти на треть в зрительный двор – стоячий партер. Наполнявшая партер демократическая часть публики густым кольцом окружала и подмостки сцены. Более привилегированная, аристократическая часть публики располагалась – лежа и на табуретках – на самой сценической площадке по краям её. История театра этого времени отмечает постоянную вражду и перебранку, иногда переходившую даже в драку, этих двух групп зрителей. Классовая вражда ремесленного и рабочего партера к аристократии сказывалась здесь довольно шумно. Вообще, той тишины, какую знает наш зрительный зал, в театре Шекспира не было.
Задняя часть сцены отделялась раздвижным занавесом. Там обычно исполнялись интимные сцены (например, в спальне Дездемоны), там же играли, когда нужно было сразу быстро перенести действие в другое место и показать действующее лицо в новом положении.
Передняя площадка была главной сценой, ей же пользовались для излюбленных тогда в театре шествий, процессий, для показа чрезвычайно популярного тогда фехтования (сцена в последнем акте «Гамлета»). Здесь же выступали клоуны, жонглеры, акробаты, развлекавшие публику между сценами основной пьесы (антрактов в шекспировском театре не было). Впоследствии при позднейшей литературной обработке шекспировских драм часть этих клоунад-интермедий и шутовских реплик была включена в печатный текст.
Каждый спектакль заканчивался обязательно «джигой» – особого рода песенкой с пляской, исполняемой клоуном; сцена могильщиков в «Гамлете» во времена Шекспира была клоунадой, патетикой её наполнили потом. В шекспировском театре ещё нет резкой разницы между драматическим актёром и акробатом, шутом. Правда, эта разница уже вырабатывается, ощущается, она в становлении. Но грани ещё не стерты. Связь, соединяющая шекспировского актёра с скоморохом, гистрионом, жонглёром, шутовским «чёртом» средневековой мистерии, с фарсовым буффоном, ещё не порвана. Вполне понятно, почему котельщик из «Укрощения строптивой» при слове «комедия» прежде всего вспоминает фокусы жонглера.
Верхняя сцена употреблялась, когда действие должно было изображаться логикой событий наверху, например, на стенах крепости («Кориолан»), на балконе Джульетты («Ромео и Джульетта»). В таких случаях в сценарии имеется ремарка «наверху». Практиковалась, например, такая планировка – верх изображал крепостную стену, а отдернутый внизу занавес задней площадки означал одновременно городские ворота, открываемые перед победителем.
Такой системой театра объясняется и структура шекспировских драм, не знающих ещё ни деления на акты (деление это было проделано уже после смерти Шекспира, в изд. 1623), ни точного историзма, ни изобразительного реализма. Столь характерный для елизаветинских драматургов параллелизм фабул в одной и той же пьесе объясняется в последнее время своеобразным устройством сцены, открытой для зрителей с трёх сторон. На этой сцене господствует так называемый закон «временной непрерывности».
Развитие одной фабулы давало возможность другой как бы продолжаться «за кулисами», чем заполнялся соответствующий промежуток «театрального времени» между отрезками данной фабулы. Построенное на коротких активно-игровых эпизодах действие с условной быстротой переносится с места на место. В этом сказывается ещё традиция мистериальных сцен.
Так новый выход того же лица, а то и просто несколько шагов по сцене с соответствующим текстовым объяснением обозначали уже новое место. Например, в «Много шуму из ничего» Бенедикт говорит мальчику: «у меня в комнате на окне лежит книга, принеси её сюда, в сад» – это обозначает, что действие происходит в саду. Иногда в произведениях Шекспира место или время указано не столь упрощенно, а целым поэтическим описанием его. Это один из его излюбленных приемов. Например, в «Ромео и Джульетте», в картине, следующей за сценой лунной ночи, Лоренцо входя говорит:
«Ясная улыбка зорькой сероокой
Хмурую уж гонит ночь и золотит
Полосами света облако востока…»
Или слова пролога к первому акту «Генриха V»:
«…Вообразите,
Что здесь простерлись широко равнины
Двух королевств, которых берега,
Склонившиеся близко так друг к другу,
Разъединяет узкий, но опасный
Могучий океан».
Несколько шагов Ромео с друзьями обозначали, что он перешёл с улицы в дом. Для обозначения места употреблялись также «титлы» – дощечки с надписью. Иногда сцена изображала сразу несколько городов, и достаточно было надписей с названием их, чтобы зритель ориентировался в действии. С окончанием сцены действующие лица уходили с площадки, иногда даже оставались – так, например, замаскированные гости, идущие по улице в дом Капулетти («Ромео и Джульетта»), не уходили со сцены, а появление лакеев с салфетками означало, что они уже пришли и находятся в покоях Капулетти.
Драма в это время не рассматривалась как «литература». Драматург за авторством не гнался, да и не всегда это было возможно. Традиция анонимной драмы шла от средневековья чрез бродячие труппы и продолжала ещё действовать. Так, имя Шекспира появляется под названиями его пьес только в 1593. То, что писал театральный драматург, он не предназначал для печати, а имел в виду исключительно театр.
Значительная часть драматургов елизаветинской эпохи была прикреплена к определенному театру и брала на себя обязательство доставлять этому театру репертуар. Конкуренция трупп требовала огромного количества пьес. За период с 1558 по 1643 количество их исчисляют в Англии цифрой свыше 2 000 названий.
Очень часто одну и ту же пьесу пользует ряд трупп, переделывая каждую на свой лад, приспособляя её к труппе. Анонимное авторство исключало литературный плагиат, и речь могла идти только о «пиратских» способах конкуренции, когда пьесу крадут на слух, по приблизительной записи и т. п. И в шекспировском творчестве мы знаем ряд пьес, являвшихся использованием сюжетов ранее существовавших драм. Таковы, например, «Гамлет», «Король Лир» и другие.
Публика имени автора пьесы и не требовала. Это в свою очередь вело к тому, что написанная пьеса являлась только «основой» для спектакля, авторский текст во время репетиций переделывался как угодно. Выступления шутов авторы часто обозначают ремаркой «говорит шут», предоставляя содержание шутовской сцены театру или импровизации самого шута. Автор продавал свою рукопись театру и в дальнейшем уже никаких авторских претензий и прав на неё не заявлял. Весьма распространена была совместная и тем самым очень быстрая работа нескольких авторов над одной пьесой, например, одни разрабатывали драматическую интригу, другие – комическую часть, выходки шутов, третьи изображали всякого рода «страшные» эффекты, которые были тогда очень в ходу, и т. д.
К концу эпохи, в начале XVII века, уже начинает пробиваться на сцену литературная драма. Отчужденность между «учёными» авторами, светскими «дилетантами» и профессиональными драматургами становится все меньше. Литературные авторы (например, Бен Джонсон) начинают работать для театра, театральные драматурги в свою очередь все чаще начинают печататься.
Supplementary reading
Old Vic
|
The Old Vic is a theatre located just south-east of Waterloo Station in London on the corner of The Cut and Waterloo Road. It was also the name of a repertory company that was based at the theatre. The company formed the core of the National |
The exterior of the Old Vic from the corner of Baylis Road and Waterloo Road |
Theatre of Great Britain on its formation in 1963, under Laurence Olivier. The National Theatre remained at the Old Vic until new premises were constructed on the South Bank, opening in 1976.
The theatre was founded in 1818 by James King and Daniel Dunn (formerly managers of the Surrey Theatre in Bermondsey). The theatre was a “minor” theatre (as opposed to one of the two patent theatres) and was thus technically forbidden to show serious drama. Nevertheless, when the theatre passed to William Bolwell Davidge in 1824 he succeeded in bringing legendary actor Edmund Kean south of the river to play six Shakespeare plays in six nights. The theatre’s role in bringing high art to the masses was confirmed when Kean addressed the audience during his curtain call saying “I have never acted to such a set of ignorant, unmitigated brutes as I see before me”.
In 1880, under the ownership of Emma Cons to whom there are plaques outside & inside the theatre, it became The Royal Victoria Hall And Coffee Tavern and was run on “strict temperance lines”, by this time it was already known as the “Old Vic”.
The Old Vic Company was established in 1929, led by Sir John Gielgud. In 1963, however, the Old Vic company was dissolved and the new National Theatre Company, under the artistic direction of Lord Olivier, was based at the Old Vic until its own building was opened on the South Bank near Waterloo Bridge in 1976.
Since 1988 the Theatre has been permitted to call itself the Royal National Theatre, but the full title is rarely used. The theatre presents a varied programme, including Shakespeare and other International classic drama; and new plays by contemporary playwrights. Each auditorium in the theatre can run up to three shows in repertoire or repertory, thus further widening the number of plays which can be put on during any one season. The current Artistic Director, Nicholas Hytner took over in April 2003. He previously worked as an Associate Director with the Royal Exchange Theatre and the National. A number of his successful productions have been made into films.
As for The Old Vic and its company, from 1977 the theatre was leased to visiting companies and in1982 it was put up for sale.
Only in 2003 it was announced that The Old Vic would once again become a producing house. Kevin Spacey was appointed first artistic director of The Old Vic Theatre Company. The new Company’s first season opened in September, 2004, with the British premiere of Cloaca by Maria Goos, directed by Kevin Spacey, the first artistic director of The Old Vic Theatre Company.
Now the Old Vic has no subsidy. Ticket sales alone are not enough to cover all of its costs, so the financial support of generous individuals, companies, trusts and foundations is vital to their existence.
BY HEART
Some plays are so successful that they run for years on end. In many ways, this is unfortunate for the poor actors who are required to go on repeating the same lines night after night. One would expect them to know their parts by heart and never have cause to falter. Yet this is not always the case.
A famous actor in a highly successful play was once cast in the role of an aristocrat who had been imprisoned in the Bastille for twenty years. In the last act, a gaoler would always come on to the stage with a letter which he would hand to the prisoner. Even though the noble was expected to read the letter at each performance, he always insisted that it should be written out in full.
One night, the gaoler decided to play a joke on his colleague to find out if, after so many performances, he had managed to learn the contents of the letter by heart. The curtain went up on the final act of the play and revealed the aristocrat sitting alone behind bars in his dark cell. Just then, the gaoler appeared with the precious letter in his hands. He entered the cell and presented the letter to the aristocrat. But the copy he gave him had not been written out in full as usual. It was simply a blank sheet of paper. The gaoler looked on eagerly, anxious to see if his fellow-actor had at last learnt his lines. The noble stared at the blank sheet of paper for a few seconds. Then, squinting his eyes, he said: “The light is dim. Read the letter to me.” And he promptly handed the sheet of paper to the gaoler. Finding that he could not remember a word of the letter either, the gaoler replied: “The light is dim indeed, sire. I must get my glasses.” With this, he hurried off the stage. Much to the aristocrat’s amusement, the gaoler returned a few moments later with a pair of glasses and the usual copy of the letter which he proceeded to read to the prisoner.
KING LEAR INTERRUPTED
Two hundred years ago wigs were worn by almost everybody. And among others was a stout butcher who, accompanied by his very large dog, on one occasion went to the theatre to hear Garrick, the famous actor, in the part of King Lear.
He managed to get a front seat in the pit close to the orchestra. The theatre being crowded and the weather intensely warm, the butcher soon felt very hot in his wig. He took it off but was at a loss where to put it. Then it occurred to him to place it on the head of his dog, which was lying by his side. The animal did not even move, but some time later it suddenly rose on its hind legs and unseen by its master put its four paws on the orchestra rail and watched Garrick from beneath the wig.
The actor was reciting one of the most impressive passages when he saw the dog with the wig. He managed to finish the sentence with due gravity but then burst out laughing. The audience thought that this was a new way of reading the passage and the house rang with applause.
The actors, however, looked at Garrick and at each other in amazement. At last they saw the dog and burst out laughing too, at the same time pointing to the butcher who sat quietly without his wig in the first row. After a time the whole house except the butcher understood what made the actors laugh. And a gentleman in order to end the fun seized the wig and threw it into the orchestra pit. The dog sprang after it and frightened the musicians who ran away.
To go on with the scene was out of the question and the dropping of the curtain became absolutely necessary. After a short pause order was restored and the play was acted out to the end.
Garrick, referred to in this story, was David Garrick who lived from 1717 to 1779 and who was an ingenious actor and dramatist and acted all the great parts of Shakespeare.
GARRICK RefORMS THE STAGE
Garrick began his career as a manager full of ideas for stage reform. Soon his ideas were put into practice. Strict rehearsals were introduced and those actors who forgot their lines on the night of a performance and tried to cover the fact by gags, were punished. For the first time casting was given serious consideration; minor roles, which hitherto had been handed out thoughtlessly, were carefully examined and given to those whose personality arid gifts best fitted them. Intoning, which reminded one of singing, was discouraged and actors were taught to speak accurately and naturally.
Before a new play was put into rehearsal it had been read through to the assembled company, and the roles had been carefully cast.
It cannot be said that Garrick fulfilled all the functions of the modern producer but in the plays that were staged by his theatre, a greater unity of effect was achieved than hitherto had been seen on the stage. Some unevenness of performance was inevitable in the family-like atmosphere of an 18th century theatre; the sympathy between actor and audience was much more strongly felt and more openly expressed then than now. If the spectators lost interest in the action, they started talking loudly ignoring the tragedy which was being played on the stage.
|
In the evenly lit house the actors were almost literally surrounded by the audience: when the actor turned away from the benches in the pit, he met the eyes of those who were seated on the side of the stage and even when he made his exit through the wings he had to push |
William Hogarth. David Garrick as Richard III. 1745. Oil on canvas, 190.5 x 250.8cm
|
through little groups of onlookers who had been allowed to stand there.
In Garrick’s theatre the audience was driven back to their proper side of the footlights and was kept there on all except holiday nights when the rule was relaxed and an amphitheatre was built on the stage itself. Garrick’s innovations have been followed by other theatres of Great Britain and the development of dramatic art in England has been greatly stimulated by them.
THE EARLY ENGLISH THEATRES
In the year 1576, under the powerful patronage of the Earl of Leicester, James Burbage built the first English theatre. The venture proved so successful, that twelve theatres were soon furnishing entertainment to the citizens of London. Of these the most celebrated was “The Globe”. It was so named because its sign bore the effigy of Atlas supporting the globe, with the motto, “Totus Mundus agit Histrionem”. Many of the early London theatres were on the southern or Surrey bank of the Thames, out of the jurisdiction of the City, whose officers and magistrates, under the influence of Puritanism, carried on a constant war against the players and the play-houses. Some of these theatres were cock-pits (the name of “the pit” still suggesting that fact); some were arenas for bull-baiting and bear-baiting. Compared with the magnificent theatres of the present day, all were poor and squalid, retaining in their form and arrangements many traces of the old model – the inn-yard. Most of them were entirely uncovered, except for a thatched roof over the stage which protected the actors and privileged spectators from the weather. The audience was exposed to sunshine and to storm. Plays were acted only in the daytime. The boxes, or “rooms”, as they were styled, were arranged nearly as in the present day; but the musicians, instead of being placed in the orchestra, were in a lofty gallery over the stage.
In early English theatres there was a total absence of painted or movable scenery, and the parts for women were performed by men or boys, actresses being as yet unknown. A few screens of cloth or tapestry gave the actors the opportunity of making their exits and entrances; a placard, bearing the name of Rome, Athens, London, or Florence, as the case might be, indicated to the audience the scene of the action. Certain typical articles of furniture were used. A bed on the stage suggested a bedroom; a table covered with tankards, a tavern; a gilded chair surmounted by a canopy, and called “a state”, a palace; an altar, a church; and so on. A permanent wooden structure like a scaffold, erected at the back of the stage, represented objects according to the requirements of the piece, such as the wall of a castle or a besieged city, the outside of a house, or a position enabling one of the actors to overhear others without being seen himself.
The poverty of the theatre was among the conditions of excellence which stimulated the Elizabethan dramatist. He could not depend upon the painter of scenes for interpretation of the play, and therefore was constrained to make his thought vigorous and his language vivid. The performance began early in the afternoon, and was announced by flourishes of a trumpet. Black drapery hung around the stage was the symbol of tragedy; and rushes strewn on the stage enabled the best patrons of the company to sit upon the floor. Dancing and singing took place between the acts; and, as a rule, a comic ballad, sung by a clown with accompaniment of tabor and pipe and farcical dancing closed the entertainment.
Notwithstanding the social discredit attached to the actor, the drama reached some popularity, and the profession was so lucrative, that it soon became the common resort of literary genius in search of employment. This department of our literature passed from infancy to maturity in a single generation. Twenty years after the appearance of the first rude tragedy, the English theatre entered upon a period of splendor without parallel in the literature of any other country. This was mainly the work of a small band of poets, whose careers began at about the same time. This sudden development of the drama was largely due to the pecuniary success of the new and popular amusement. The generous compensation for such literary work tempted authors to write dramas.
SIR LAURENCE OLIVIER
Sir Laurence Olivier is world famous for his outstanding artistic achievement in the theatre and cinema. He directed stage and film productions that are considered the most difficult ones in the world repertoire. If you saw him on the stage you would understand why he was constantly attracting the best critics’ attention. If you saw him on the screen you would not forget the images he created.
Olivier’s career as a stage and film actor spanned more than six decades. He played a wide variety of roles on stage and screen from Greek tragedy, Shakespeare and Restoration comedy to modern American and British drama. He was the first artistic director of the National Theatre of Great Britain and its main stage is named in his honour. He is generally regarded to be the greatest actor of the XX century, in the same category as David Garrick, Richard Burbage, Edmund Kean and Henry Irving in their own centuries.
|
Sir Laurence Olivier |
In his work as actor and director there was some particular method, or rather his own approach to acting. He relied greatly on rhythm – that is change of speed of speech, change of expression, change of pace in crossing the stage, being not so particular about his costume or make-up. He was constantly changing because he wanted to keep the audience awake. |
He wouldn’t change every minute if he didn’t want the public to respond. He believed that the audience wouldn’t respond if he did what he was expected to do. In this he followed the advice given many years ago by Feodor Chaliapin to an actor: “Never do what the audience expects you to do.” Olivier once said that if Chaliapin had taken breath when he was expected there wouldn’t have been an illusion of his having sung the whole phrase in one breath. The public wouldn’t have admired him. But Olivier was sure that no tricks would make an actor great. If he himself hadn’t had qualities that widen your vision, and add to your understanding of the world, he wouldn’t be regarded as a distinguished actor. These qualities are: thorough knowledge of the play in which he was performing, artistic imagination, physical, intellectual and spiritual strength, a sense of display and an ability to identify with a role or, in other words, to take on the core of a character.
For Olivier identification with a role, a complete transformation into a character was not a should, it was a must. He couldn’t understand other famous actors who in the middle of their monologues about passion, power, death were wondering what they would like to have for supper. He wouldn’t be able to play if he began to think about such things. Olivier was always interested in what agitated the soul. It may seem curious what he himself said about it: “Even if I were not an actor I would be interested in what agitates the soul. If you want to excite people, you should know what makes them respond, what makes them agitated. So if I am going to play a part, first of all, I ask myself what kind of man my character is, and what there is about him that might excite people. And if I couldn’t imagine the entire man, the whole mind of the character, if I didn’t feel I am that man whom I am going to play, I wouldn’t be able to identify easily and naturally, I wouldn’t be able to play, I wouldn’t have made an actor,” said Olivier. With such a particular approach to acting it is no wonder that Olivier created many unforgettable characters, among them — Hamlet, Richard III, Doctor Astrov, Julius Caesar, Titus Andronicus, to mention just a few.
Let’s dwell, for example, on some peculiarities of his image of Titus Andronicus. As Titus Olivier’s terrifying quietness is the quiet at the core of a hurricane. His fury is the fury of the storm in his mind. Just as his Lear is associated with the storm wind so his Titus is associated with the sea. Olivier cries out the words: “I am the ocean!” – as if he were really an ocean, with its waves beating on the world’s shore. When we hear Olivier pronounce the words we forget their inadequacy in the splendour of a projection. The impression is that you not only grasp the image in the character’s mind, but the pronounced words reveal the reality hidden under the surface of things.
To display the character vividly, to make us feel what is happening under the surface, using different, unexpected modulations of the voice, using particular but natural gestures, changing pace and expression, conveying any tiny emotion is a very difficult task for an actor. Olivier coped with it splendidly. His ability to take on the essence of the character was the key to his magic. This ability created miracles on the stage and on the screen.
items of self-study work
Shakespeare and his Globe Theatre.
Mrs Sarah Siddons – the tragic muse.
Bernard Shaw and his plays.
Oscar Wilde – his life and his plays.
The image of theatre in W.S. Maugham “Theatre”.
London’s Covent Garden and its history.
Contemporary actors in the UK – are they as great as their famous predecessors?
The Redgraves – theatre dynasty.
Royal Shakespeare Company: a XXI Century renaissance.
“Hamlet” – history of performance.
Laurence Olivier Awards and their winners.