The run at Sheffield was a great success and everybody very pleased.
I also did a radio interview with BBC Radio Sheffield.
To listen to it go to BBC Radio Sheffield ... find "listen again" and Paulette Edwards and the 16th of September ... slide the time bar across to 1hr 05min and I'm on after Madonna!
Next date Doncaster Little Theatre 6th October.
3.9.10
Arts Funding
ARTS FUNDING A new perspective.
The funding of the arts is subject to a new debate, due in part to the new Government’s declaration that massive and swingeing cuts are in the future.
I would like to propose an entirely new approach to arts funding, which will be cost effective as no other system has been.
The basic principle is
“Guarantee against loss”
“Subsidy” gives to an organisation a fixed sum of money that the organisation is then obliged to spend, regardless of the financial viability of the project in question.
“Guarantee against loss” would make available to an organisation a sum of money equivalent to the production costs which would not then necessarily be called upon if the project were to become financially viable in its own right.
“GAL” therefore maximises the efficacy of the financial resources available to the funding body by essentially making the same money available to finance different projects.
Many projects never get off the ground as organisations lack the financial resources to front them – even though the project may, in the long term be viable, either completely or in part.
Having been awarded a “GAL” an organisation can then launch the project and within a predetermined time frame, eventually returning all or part of the money that was guaranteed.
A practical example:
A theatrical production destined for touring with pre-performance costs of £10k.
The GAL is established at £10k with a time frame of 18 months.
The company in question is then in a position to rehearse and prepare the production, shop window it and find touring dates for the following season.
The subsequent tour of – for example – 60 performances with a ratio of 30% revenue over touring expenditure and an average performance fee of £600/performance would result in a net touring revenue of £10.8k enabling the company to return the £10k to the funding body and retain a small profit. Once the GAL has been reimbursed in full, the company would then be free to continue exploiting the production – maybe with a small percentage of profit going to the funding body to help finance other projects.
Should there be a shortfall and the project does not reach the target figure of £10k by the end of the predetermined period, the funding body could then look at the possibility of extending the time allotted, if there is a reasonable chance of the project gaining further revenue or terminate the arrangement and recall whatever money was available. (Obviously the company would not then be permitted to continue to tour the production.)
If the company is only able to reimburse £8k of the GAL, the funding body has nevertheless obtained £10k of activity for £2k of expenditure.
The figures can be multiplied depending on the size of the projects concerned.
The advantages of this system over subsidy are manifest.
1) The money available to the funding body is recycled, whereas with subsidy it is given once and then is no longer available and has to be renewed.
2) The companies will be encouraged to economise rather than expand their expenditure to the money available.
3) There is a very strong pressure on the companies to maximise box office or sales revenue, rather than relying on funding.
4) Sound economic management within the companies would be encouraged because if the shortfall on a project were large, the funding body would be reluctant to accept the same company a second time.
Much has been made in the current debate of business and other private sponsorship of the Arts being encouraged as an alternative to public funding.
Setting up a funding body of this nature could be very attractive to business sponsors as their participation could be visible on all the activities supported, rather than just one particular project.
Ideologically business leaders might also find this more interesting as much of their resistance to subsidy is “giving money for no return” or to put it more graphically “hand outs”
Initially the running and organisation of the funding body should be by volunteers. For too long the situation has been that the administrators receive salaries, while the creative workers/artists work for nothing and it should be remembered at all times that each £ spent on administration is a £ not spent on the primary activity of the organisation.
The funding body would solicit funds from business partners and even modest contributions would make it function. Funding a single project requires a certain commitment which in the current economic climate is unrealistic. Finding 200 partners each prepared to donate £1k would give a substantial start to the idea and make it functional.
The funding of the arts is subject to a new debate, due in part to the new Government’s declaration that massive and swingeing cuts are in the future.
I would like to propose an entirely new approach to arts funding, which will be cost effective as no other system has been.
The basic principle is
“Guarantee against loss”
“Subsidy” gives to an organisation a fixed sum of money that the organisation is then obliged to spend, regardless of the financial viability of the project in question.
“Guarantee against loss” would make available to an organisation a sum of money equivalent to the production costs which would not then necessarily be called upon if the project were to become financially viable in its own right.
“GAL” therefore maximises the efficacy of the financial resources available to the funding body by essentially making the same money available to finance different projects.
Many projects never get off the ground as organisations lack the financial resources to front them – even though the project may, in the long term be viable, either completely or in part.
Having been awarded a “GAL” an organisation can then launch the project and within a predetermined time frame, eventually returning all or part of the money that was guaranteed.
A practical example:
A theatrical production destined for touring with pre-performance costs of £10k.
The GAL is established at £10k with a time frame of 18 months.
The company in question is then in a position to rehearse and prepare the production, shop window it and find touring dates for the following season.
The subsequent tour of – for example – 60 performances with a ratio of 30% revenue over touring expenditure and an average performance fee of £600/performance would result in a net touring revenue of £10.8k enabling the company to return the £10k to the funding body and retain a small profit. Once the GAL has been reimbursed in full, the company would then be free to continue exploiting the production – maybe with a small percentage of profit going to the funding body to help finance other projects.
Should there be a shortfall and the project does not reach the target figure of £10k by the end of the predetermined period, the funding body could then look at the possibility of extending the time allotted, if there is a reasonable chance of the project gaining further revenue or terminate the arrangement and recall whatever money was available. (Obviously the company would not then be permitted to continue to tour the production.)
If the company is only able to reimburse £8k of the GAL, the funding body has nevertheless obtained £10k of activity for £2k of expenditure.
The figures can be multiplied depending on the size of the projects concerned.
The advantages of this system over subsidy are manifest.
1) The money available to the funding body is recycled, whereas with subsidy it is given once and then is no longer available and has to be renewed.
2) The companies will be encouraged to economise rather than expand their expenditure to the money available.
3) There is a very strong pressure on the companies to maximise box office or sales revenue, rather than relying on funding.
4) Sound economic management within the companies would be encouraged because if the shortfall on a project were large, the funding body would be reluctant to accept the same company a second time.
Much has been made in the current debate of business and other private sponsorship of the Arts being encouraged as an alternative to public funding.
Setting up a funding body of this nature could be very attractive to business sponsors as their participation could be visible on all the activities supported, rather than just one particular project.
Ideologically business leaders might also find this more interesting as much of their resistance to subsidy is “giving money for no return” or to put it more graphically “hand outs”
Initially the running and organisation of the funding body should be by volunteers. For too long the situation has been that the administrators receive salaries, while the creative workers/artists work for nothing and it should be remembered at all times that each £ spent on administration is a £ not spent on the primary activity of the organisation.
The funding body would solicit funds from business partners and even modest contributions would make it function. Funding a single project requires a certain commitment which in the current economic climate is unrealistic. Finding 200 partners each prepared to donate £1k would give a substantial start to the idea and make it functional.
14.8.10
latest work
Just finished shooting "Le Père de ma Fille" with François Berléand. A true gentleman and professional. Director Martin Valente
Photo to come I hope!
Photo to come I hope!
5.7.10
Gift to the Future performances
Performances booked for "Gift to the Future" for the season 2010/11 so far;
The Lantern Theatre Sheffield September 13 / 18 inclusive (6 perfs)
The Little Theatre Doncaster October 6th
The Heron Theatre Milnthorpe Cumbria October 22 / 23
The Cotswold Playhouse Stroud May 28 (2011)
The Lantern Theatre Sheffield September 13 / 18 inclusive (6 perfs)
The Little Theatre Doncaster October 6th
The Heron Theatre Milnthorpe Cumbria October 22 / 23
The Cotswold Playhouse Stroud May 28 (2011)
Shakespeare Acting Workshop
Unlocking Shakespeare.
Shakespearean verse presents many problems for actors both in comprehension and performance but by the application of a few simple techniques, you can make the verse work for you, the actor.
This is an intensive workshop and a unique way of discovering Shakespeare. By referring to The First Folio for a return to the original texts and avoiding the literary and intellectual baggage that has accumulated over the centuries, the workshop combines the theatrical techniques of Jacques Lecoq with a practical approach to interpretation.
The techniques you will acquire during the workshop include:
Textual and verse analysis in relation to performance;
Corporal control and expression;
Breathing;
By studying and practicing these techniques, applying them to scenes and monologues individually and in small groups you get a better grasp of Shakespeare's language.
You will be directed and guided through the process, learning how to use the verse to develop characterisation and at the end of the workshop you will be left with a unique understanding of Shakespeare's verse and how to make it work for you as an actor, a studied and developed monologue, which could be used as an audition piece and a knowledge of some of Lecoq's techniques, particularly in regard to how movement and text are one.
The workshop will be taken by Colin David Reese, an actor and director for over 40 years, working in the UK, Canada and France. Over the course of his career he has worked with such names as Sir John Gielgud, Alan Bennet, Paul Eddington, Nigel Hawthorne, Sophie Marceau, Lauren Bacall and Harold Pinter. He trained at the Webber Douglas Academy, followed by two years with Jacques Lecoq in Paris and has attended many workshops on Shakespeare including “Is Shakespeare Still our Contemporary?” with Jan Kott and “Original Shakespeare” with Patrick Tucker.
To apply for the workshop please contact Lucy on
assistant@marlowes-agency.com
Mob:07538 389961/07505-787122
Marlowes, P.O Box 64576
London, SW17 1BP
Some comments from previous participants;
“the technique is different … and it works”
“ the workshop gave me an understanding of how to use the tools in the text and my speech felt so different afterwards”
“a great tutor and actor sharing his skills”
“the extensive research and knowledge make for a fascinating workshop”
Shakespearean verse presents many problems for actors both in comprehension and performance but by the application of a few simple techniques, you can make the verse work for you, the actor.
This is an intensive workshop and a unique way of discovering Shakespeare. By referring to The First Folio for a return to the original texts and avoiding the literary and intellectual baggage that has accumulated over the centuries, the workshop combines the theatrical techniques of Jacques Lecoq with a practical approach to interpretation.
The techniques you will acquire during the workshop include:
Textual and verse analysis in relation to performance;
Corporal control and expression;
Breathing;
By studying and practicing these techniques, applying them to scenes and monologues individually and in small groups you get a better grasp of Shakespeare's language.
You will be directed and guided through the process, learning how to use the verse to develop characterisation and at the end of the workshop you will be left with a unique understanding of Shakespeare's verse and how to make it work for you as an actor, a studied and developed monologue, which could be used as an audition piece and a knowledge of some of Lecoq's techniques, particularly in regard to how movement and text are one.
The workshop will be taken by Colin David Reese, an actor and director for over 40 years, working in the UK, Canada and France. Over the course of his career he has worked with such names as Sir John Gielgud, Alan Bennet, Paul Eddington, Nigel Hawthorne, Sophie Marceau, Lauren Bacall and Harold Pinter. He trained at the Webber Douglas Academy, followed by two years with Jacques Lecoq in Paris and has attended many workshops on Shakespeare including “Is Shakespeare Still our Contemporary?” with Jan Kott and “Original Shakespeare” with Patrick Tucker.
To apply for the workshop please contact Lucy on
assistant@marlowes-agency.com
Mob:07538 389961/07505-787122
Marlowes, P.O Box 64576
London, SW17 1BP
Some comments from previous participants;
“the technique is different … and it works”
“ the workshop gave me an understanding of how to use the tools in the text and my speech felt so different afterwards”
“a great tutor and actor sharing his skills”
“the extensive research and knowledge make for a fascinating workshop”
11.3.10
Acting Shakespeare Workshops in Paris
Keys to Performing and translating Shakespeare
For French actors with a good level of English and Anglophones wishing to extend their performance of Shakespeare’s verse.
2 sessions over 2 days
10am – 3pm
Next workshop 29/30 March.
€100.00 / participant - 20% reduction for intermittents/chômeurs
(max 10 participants)
For more information:
colindavidreese@yahoo.fr
01 45 28 01 70
06 63 79 63 30
Understanding for better performance.
Shakespearean verse presents many problems for actors both in comprehension and performance. By the application of a few simple techniques, the actor can make the verse work for him/her.
The techniques that will be acquired in these workshops include:
- Textual and verse analysis with a relation to performance;
- Corporal control and expression;
- Breathing;
- Articulation;
The participants will study and practice these techniques, applying them to monologues.
Finding the keys in Shakespeare’s text.
Shakespearean verse gives many indications of how to create character and the workshops will show how to use it. By referring to The First Folio for a return to the original texts and avoiding the literary and intellectual baggage that has accumulated over the centuries, the workshops combine the theatrical techniques of Jacques Lecoq with a practical approach to interpretation.
The Workshops:
For the workshop, each participant is requested to prepare a verse monologue in English, NOT to learn it by heart.
Soft shoes and track suits for the men and practice skirts for the women.
Please bring a “Complete Works” and a note book and pencil.
Session 1
- First contact with the text – each participant reads their prepared monologue.
- Movement analysis.
- Working with the “pointe fixe” and equilibrium and disequilibrium.
- How physicality affects characterisation.
- How to analyse movement, both one’s own and that of other people.
- Linking movement to breathing. How breathing affects movement and vice versa.
- Verse analysis. Explanation of Iambic pentameter and how Shakespeare exploits and deforms its structure, thereby giving indications to the actor concerning interpretation and characterisation.
Overnight work
The French participants will be asked to translate their chosen monologue, and the Anglophones to study theirs, both using the verse analysis tools/clues discussed during the workshop.
Session 2
Presentation of monologues in both English and translation showing results from overnight work. Criticism and direction from Mr. Reese, inviting comments from the other participants.
Taking a short section from each monologue – committing it to memory, adding movement and breathing pattern to take it to a performance level.
For French actors with a good level of English and Anglophones wishing to extend their performance of Shakespeare’s verse.
2 sessions over 2 days
10am – 3pm
Next workshop 29/30 March.
€100.00 / participant - 20% reduction for intermittents/chômeurs
(max 10 participants)
For more information:
colindavidreese@yahoo.fr
01 45 28 01 70
06 63 79 63 30
Understanding for better performance.
Shakespearean verse presents many problems for actors both in comprehension and performance. By the application of a few simple techniques, the actor can make the verse work for him/her.
The techniques that will be acquired in these workshops include:
- Textual and verse analysis with a relation to performance;
- Corporal control and expression;
- Breathing;
- Articulation;
The participants will study and practice these techniques, applying them to monologues.
Finding the keys in Shakespeare’s text.
Shakespearean verse gives many indications of how to create character and the workshops will show how to use it. By referring to The First Folio for a return to the original texts and avoiding the literary and intellectual baggage that has accumulated over the centuries, the workshops combine the theatrical techniques of Jacques Lecoq with a practical approach to interpretation.
The Workshops:
For the workshop, each participant is requested to prepare a verse monologue in English, NOT to learn it by heart.
Soft shoes and track suits for the men and practice skirts for the women.
Please bring a “Complete Works” and a note book and pencil.
Session 1
- First contact with the text – each participant reads their prepared monologue.
- Movement analysis.
- Working with the “pointe fixe” and equilibrium and disequilibrium.
- How physicality affects characterisation.
- How to analyse movement, both one’s own and that of other people.
- Linking movement to breathing. How breathing affects movement and vice versa.
- Verse analysis. Explanation of Iambic pentameter and how Shakespeare exploits and deforms its structure, thereby giving indications to the actor concerning interpretation and characterisation.
Overnight work
The French participants will be asked to translate their chosen monologue, and the Anglophones to study theirs, both using the verse analysis tools/clues discussed during the workshop.
Session 2
Presentation of monologues in both English and translation showing results from overnight work. Criticism and direction from Mr. Reese, inviting comments from the other participants.
Taking a short section from each monologue – committing it to memory, adding movement and breathing pattern to take it to a performance level.
8.3.10
24.7.09
The Rose Theatre update
The 5 shows at The Rose went very well. And I have been invited to come back during the the season. A number of people were interested in booking the show. I will inform those interested when new performances are booked.
20.5.09
Gift To The Future in London
Gift To The Future will be playing in London at The Rose Theatre, Bankside. This theatre, originally built in 1587, was where a number of Shakespeare's plays were first performed, before the company he was with moved to The Theatre in Shoreditch and subsequently to The Globe. A wonderful opportunity to discover not only The Rose itself but the story of how The First Folio came into existence
The Rose Theatre
Bankside’s First Theatre
56 Park Street London SE1 9AS
(Look out for the Blue Plaque next to Southwark Bridge)
Nearest Mainline / Tube Stations:
London Bridge, Mansion House or Waterloo
Performance times:
Thursday 9th July 7:30 pm
Friday10th July 7:30 pm
Saturday 11th July 7:30 pm
Sunday 12th July 1:00 pm and 6:30pm
Box Office:
Telephone 0207 261 9565
rosebankside@btinternet.com
£10 (£8 concessions)
The Rose Theatre
Bankside’s First Theatre
56 Park Street London SE1 9AS
(Look out for the Blue Plaque next to Southwark Bridge)
Nearest Mainline / Tube Stations:
London Bridge, Mansion House or Waterloo
Performance times:
Thursday 9th July 7:30 pm
Friday10th July 7:30 pm
Saturday 11th July 7:30 pm
Sunday 12th July 1:00 pm and 6:30pm
Box Office:
Telephone 0207 261 9565
rosebankside@btinternet.com
£10 (£8 concessions)
17.12.08
just finished shooting La Mallette Rouge
I've just finished shooting a full length feature - working title "La Mallette Rouge" playing "Arif" a farmer and father of a family in just post war Bosnia. Written by the director Bernard Mazauric the film tells the story of a little Serbian girl lost in the forest after her father has been shot. She finds herself at Arif's farm and he has to look after her ... "you can't leave a little girl alone in the forest" But he knows if he takes her to the local police, as a Serb she will be maltreated, "If I saw a policeman or any other imbecile hurt a little girl, I would kill him ... Do you understand?" So he decides to take the 2 days necessary to take her to the Red Cross. However .... She finally has to stay with Arif and his family until she decides to run away and look for her father.
The post production is now underway and we hope the film will be ready for Cannes!
29.9.08
Edinburgh festival report
All went well during the festival except the dreadful weather ... apparently the worst in years! Most people were very positive about the show and one even said "the highlight of my Fringe" Which is always nice to hear.
Gift to the Future is currently being offered to different theatres and universities and I will post more when I have more news.
Gift to the Future is currently being offered to different theatres and universities and I will post more when I have more news.
24.6.08
Colin David Reese replies to Mark Rylance and prof.Stanley Wells
Colin David Reese, actor and artistic director of “La Compagnie du Cèdre” (France) replies to Mark Rylance and Prof. Stanley Wells :
The Shakespeare Authorship debate continues complete with invective and name calling, not to mention light hearted remarks taken out of context and turned around to invoke further accusations of professional slurs.
The “Declaration of Reasonable Doubt” raises some very interesting points. However there are several elements missing from it, two of them essential.
Firstly as Gerald Eades Bentley points out in his 1971 book ”The Professions of Dramatist and Player in Shakespeare’s Time” :
“Too often the assumption of the critic – generally tacit – has been that Elizabethan standards and values were those of his own time, and on these assumptions the critic posits the reputation or the response of Shakespeare or Marlowe or Heywood and of the audiences for which they wrote.”
This is a large part of the problem with the “Declaration”. Its writers talk about a ‘literary career’ and the lack of evidence for it. Shakespeare did not have a literary career in the way we would understand it.
Their argument revolves around the lack of visibility of the man from Stratford, particularly concerning the lack of reaction to his death. As somebody who has worked in the entertainment industry for over 40 years, I am acutely aware of the relationship between visibility and status.
With status comes visibility and in the entertainment industry without status you are invisible.
A modern parallel could be the Hollywood screenwriter. The “best” film of the 20th century would be considered by many to be Gone With The Wind. Who can name the screen writer? Who can recall when he died and how? I leave you to do your own research, you will be surprised by what you find in his brief obituary in the New York Times. The man (a clue) in question had no status and therefore no visibility.
The status of professional playwrights in Elizabethan and Jacobean England was equally low, even below that of players (and theirs was that of ‘rogues and vagabonds’) Philip Henslowe, in a letter to an actor referred to Benjamin Jonson as a “bricklayer” even though a number of Jonson’s plays had been performed in Henslowe’s theatres. Jonson did indeed achieve status later, not as a playwright, but for the masques he wrote for the court.
According to Bentley there were about 22 professional playwrights (of which Shakespeare was one) active in the period. For most of them there exists little or no documentation about their lives beyond their contribution to the playhouses’ repertoires.
Playwrights of the time fell into two categories; “amateur” and “professional”. The amateur had a certain status in that he wrote (usually) one play on a particular theme and was often a man of letters. The professionals by contrast were considered hacks and their output unworthy of consideration in poetic or literary terms. In much the same way as the scripts for TV soap operas would be regarded now. Sir Thomas Bodley, founder of the Bodleian Library, referred to plays as “riff-raff” and “baggage books” refusing categorically to accept them in his library. John Donne was of much the same opinion. (It was not until the 18th century that the Bodleian started to collect plays of the period)
That the Stratford man did not boast of his writing successes in his native town is understandable, being that “wool merchant” would carry a great deal more status than “playwright” - a rather shameful way of making money, perhaps best hidden. The fact that the extant documentation concerning William Shakspeare revolves around other activities than writing plays reflects more an attitude to playwrighting as a profession than anything else.
So when the “Declaration” refers to Shakespeare as ‘The Greatest Englishman of all Time’ this is emphatically not an opinion that would have been shared at the time.
The second point missing from the “Declaration” and indeed from all the documents referring to the authorship debate, is the undeniable fact that whoever created these plays was a theatre worker. Very much more important than all the “extensive knowledge of law, philosophy, classical literature etc. etc. etc.” cited by the authors, is the knowledge of Theatre. These plays are perfect in their theatricality and stage craft. Only a true theatre professional could have “wrought” these masterpieces... someone who was intimately familiar with the playmaking process, with the scenic progression that produces tension and drama, with what an actor needed technically to create a character. No other writer comes close and only a man of the theatre could have written like that.
The “Declaration” refers to Shakespeare from Stratford as a “minor actor” - a somewhat speculative assumption given the number of contemporary references to his performances at court and before sundry nobility. This is, in fact, another example of the writers doing exactly what they accuse the ‘orthodox’ scholars of doing; adapting the known facts to support their theory. The two major stars of the era were Richard Burbage and Edward Alleyn, but the company of which Shakespeare was a member stayed together almost unchanged for a period of nearly 30 years and enjoyed a success unparalleled in British theatrical history, either before or since. The actors - all of them - must have been superb; that sort of success can only be achieved with an immense talent pool. Any weak member would be replaced. That is how it has always been in our business.
That there is doubt is true. Is it reasonable? As a working professional, I find it perfectly reasonable that a half educated man from a provincial town could do the research necessary to create these plays, given the talent and the imagination. And that the eternal nature of these creations would be completely ignored due to the intellectual snobbery of the literati of the day.
What is so ironic is that this same intellectual snobbery seems to have come full circle.
Finally, the most disturbing aspect of the “Declaration” is its inherent attack on the fundamentals of art. Its entire argument revolves around the contention that an artist is incapable of creating anything beyond his or her own personal experience.
Colin David Reese plays the head of the SOE, Colonel Maurice Buckmaster, in Female Agents, starring Sophie Marceau and will be appearing in his own play “Gift to the Future” at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival this summer. For more details see www.codecedre.com
The Shakespeare Authorship debate continues complete with invective and name calling, not to mention light hearted remarks taken out of context and turned around to invoke further accusations of professional slurs.
The “Declaration of Reasonable Doubt” raises some very interesting points. However there are several elements missing from it, two of them essential.
Firstly as Gerald Eades Bentley points out in his 1971 book ”The Professions of Dramatist and Player in Shakespeare’s Time” :
“Too often the assumption of the critic – generally tacit – has been that Elizabethan standards and values were those of his own time, and on these assumptions the critic posits the reputation or the response of Shakespeare or Marlowe or Heywood and of the audiences for which they wrote.”
This is a large part of the problem with the “Declaration”. Its writers talk about a ‘literary career’ and the lack of evidence for it. Shakespeare did not have a literary career in the way we would understand it.
Their argument revolves around the lack of visibility of the man from Stratford, particularly concerning the lack of reaction to his death. As somebody who has worked in the entertainment industry for over 40 years, I am acutely aware of the relationship between visibility and status.
With status comes visibility and in the entertainment industry without status you are invisible.
A modern parallel could be the Hollywood screenwriter. The “best” film of the 20th century would be considered by many to be Gone With The Wind. Who can name the screen writer? Who can recall when he died and how? I leave you to do your own research, you will be surprised by what you find in his brief obituary in the New York Times. The man (a clue) in question had no status and therefore no visibility.
The status of professional playwrights in Elizabethan and Jacobean England was equally low, even below that of players (and theirs was that of ‘rogues and vagabonds’) Philip Henslowe, in a letter to an actor referred to Benjamin Jonson as a “bricklayer” even though a number of Jonson’s plays had been performed in Henslowe’s theatres. Jonson did indeed achieve status later, not as a playwright, but for the masques he wrote for the court.
According to Bentley there were about 22 professional playwrights (of which Shakespeare was one) active in the period. For most of them there exists little or no documentation about their lives beyond their contribution to the playhouses’ repertoires.
Playwrights of the time fell into two categories; “amateur” and “professional”. The amateur had a certain status in that he wrote (usually) one play on a particular theme and was often a man of letters. The professionals by contrast were considered hacks and their output unworthy of consideration in poetic or literary terms. In much the same way as the scripts for TV soap operas would be regarded now. Sir Thomas Bodley, founder of the Bodleian Library, referred to plays as “riff-raff” and “baggage books” refusing categorically to accept them in his library. John Donne was of much the same opinion. (It was not until the 18th century that the Bodleian started to collect plays of the period)
That the Stratford man did not boast of his writing successes in his native town is understandable, being that “wool merchant” would carry a great deal more status than “playwright” - a rather shameful way of making money, perhaps best hidden. The fact that the extant documentation concerning William Shakspeare revolves around other activities than writing plays reflects more an attitude to playwrighting as a profession than anything else.
So when the “Declaration” refers to Shakespeare as ‘The Greatest Englishman of all Time’ this is emphatically not an opinion that would have been shared at the time.
The second point missing from the “Declaration” and indeed from all the documents referring to the authorship debate, is the undeniable fact that whoever created these plays was a theatre worker. Very much more important than all the “extensive knowledge of law, philosophy, classical literature etc. etc. etc.” cited by the authors, is the knowledge of Theatre. These plays are perfect in their theatricality and stage craft. Only a true theatre professional could have “wrought” these masterpieces... someone who was intimately familiar with the playmaking process, with the scenic progression that produces tension and drama, with what an actor needed technically to create a character. No other writer comes close and only a man of the theatre could have written like that.
The “Declaration” refers to Shakespeare from Stratford as a “minor actor” - a somewhat speculative assumption given the number of contemporary references to his performances at court and before sundry nobility. This is, in fact, another example of the writers doing exactly what they accuse the ‘orthodox’ scholars of doing; adapting the known facts to support their theory. The two major stars of the era were Richard Burbage and Edward Alleyn, but the company of which Shakespeare was a member stayed together almost unchanged for a period of nearly 30 years and enjoyed a success unparalleled in British theatrical history, either before or since. The actors - all of them - must have been superb; that sort of success can only be achieved with an immense talent pool. Any weak member would be replaced. That is how it has always been in our business.
That there is doubt is true. Is it reasonable? As a working professional, I find it perfectly reasonable that a half educated man from a provincial town could do the research necessary to create these plays, given the talent and the imagination. And that the eternal nature of these creations would be completely ignored due to the intellectual snobbery of the literati of the day.
What is so ironic is that this same intellectual snobbery seems to have come full circle.
Finally, the most disturbing aspect of the “Declaration” is its inherent attack on the fundamentals of art. Its entire argument revolves around the contention that an artist is incapable of creating anything beyond his or her own personal experience.
Colin David Reese plays the head of the SOE, Colonel Maurice Buckmaster, in Female Agents, starring Sophie Marceau and will be appearing in his own play “Gift to the Future” at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival this summer. For more details see www.codecedre.com
21.6.08
Colin David Reese - a biography
Colin David Reese was born in 1950 in London. The son of celebrated radio actor, Harold Reese, he was immersed in the theatre world from his earliest years. His first appearance on stage was at the age of 5, his first professional appearance at 12, in a musical fantasy “All The King’s Men” about the life of (of course) Shakespeare, as his illegitimate son. Shakespeare was always present in the family home; quotes, misquotes, aphorisms, references, anecdotes - all providing part of the routine daily conversation. Indeed his nickname at grammar school was inevitably – Shakespeare.
On leaving school in 1967, Colin immediately went into the professional theatre, at Plymouth where he performed in a number of plays during the season, including Romeo and Juliet, directed by Joan Knight. A number of other regional contracts followed, leading to a role in 1968 for an 18 month run as one of the boys in Alan Bennett’s “40 Years On” at the Apollo Theatre in London, starring Sir John Gielgud, Paul Eddington, Alan Bennett and directed by Patrick Garland. Backstage conversations often turned to Colin’s favourite subject and the delight of an 18 year old at being so close to perhaps the greatest Shakespearean actor of the century is easy to imagine.
The usual life of a young working actor, small parts in TV productions, tours, pantomimes occupied the next few years – then a part in Christopher Hampton’s “The Philanthropist” starring Nigel Hawthorne at the MayFair Theatre for 15 months. This allowed Colin to save the money necessary to realise his ambition to undertake a fully professional training at the world famous Webber Douglas Academy of Dramatic Art in London where he graduated in 1975. The training is justly renowned and gave him the grounding in all aspects of acting, with particular emphasis on the classics. Straight to Canada where he worked for three years in Edmonton (Alberta) and Kamloops (BC). In 1978 he took a year off to travel - Israel, Greece, Yugoslavia, Italy, France, returning to London to continue his career.
From 1979 to 1990 he worked in many different aspects of the profession, notably a 7 month run in 1985 at the Haymarket Theatre in Tennessee Williams’ “Sweet Bird of Youth” directed by Harold Pinter and starring Lauren Bacall. It was in this year that he also started his own company – Jericho Theatrical Productions, specifically to mount a production that he had compiled with his father; “A Lover and His Lass” – a two-handed compilation of love scenes from Shakespeare. This was performed in many small theatres and in community centres around Britain, bringing to many people their first taste of Shakespeare in performance. It was doing the research for this production that the real obsession began. How could these scenes, out of the context of their plays, stand alone? Research into the Elizabethan Theatre gave the answer but opened another, larger question. 150 plays a year, access to cue-scripts only, how could the players have managed to perform and be as successful as they were?
Dulwich College in London, a school founded by Edward Alleyn, one of Shakespeare’s contemporaries, contains an unusual series of documents from the period. Including a cue-script and a plot sheet. Colin went to study them. Standing in the school library with a cue-script in one hand and a plot sheet in the other, a shiver ran down his spine. “As an actor, I could see how it worked.” Prove it! By chance he met Patrick Tucker, who at the time was running workshops on the acting of Shakespeare’s verse. John Barton had also just published a book on the same subject. Both had come to the same conclusions, but there was an element missing. More research into the history of British theatre before Shakespeare finally provided the answer: Comedia dell’ Arte. Elizabethan actors were working in the same way as the Italian masters of the most successful theatrical form ever, a form which lasted almost unchanged for about 300 years. The influence of Comedia on Shakespeare’s writings is highly visible. Where to study Comedia dell’ Arte? The only two serious practitioners were Georgio Strehler in Milan and Jacques Lecoq in Paris.In 1990, at the age of 40, Colin went to Paris to spend 2 years as a student at the Ecole Internationale du Théâtre with Jacques Lecoq. He still lives in France with his two children and runs “La Compagnie du Cèdre” a professional theatre company for which he has written and directed 8 productions, including GIFT TO THE FUTURE to be presented at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival this August.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
