Connected Communities Shakespeare’s Global Communities Erin Sullivan, Paul Prescott, Paul Edmondson Background

Executive Summary Researchers and Project Partners

‘Shakespeare’s Global Communities’ is a Principal Investigator collaborative research review of the 2012 Erin Sullivan World Shakespeare Festival (WSF), which Shakespeare Institute, was one of the key strands of the London University of Birmingham 2012 Cultural Olympiad. The project sought to document through 131 review essays and Co-Investigator blog posts each of the Shakespeare-related Paul Prescott performances and events that were linked University of Warwick to the Festival, asking the central research question: ‘What does the WSF reveal about Cultural Partner Shakespeare’s status as a site for intercultural Paul Edmondson community building in the twenty-first Shakespeare Birthplace Trust century?’ The central manifestation of the project was the interactive website www. Digital Partner yearofshakespeare.com, where all review Misfit, Inc. essays, blogs and podcasts were uploaded and where participants across professional and Research Network Members cultural communities could post their own Christie Carson responses to the WSF via discussion threads, Royal Holloway, University of London Twitter and Facebook. The project involved two one-day workshops in which members of Michael Dobson different professional communities involved in Shakespeare Institute, WSF activities met to discuss the questions the University of Birmingham Festival raised about Shakespeare in relation to Adam Hansen British cultural politics, national identity and Northumbria University the global creative economy. The full report Tracy Irish highlights three key issues explored during the Royal Shakespeare Company project: the politics of global performance, new methods for cultural participation, and the Farah Karim-Cooper growing significance of digital engagement and Shakespeare’s Globe preservation in the humanities. Peter Kirwan University of Nottingham John Lavagnino King’s College London Adele Lee University of Greenwich Sonia Massai King’s College London

1 Kate McLuskie Key words Shakespeare Institute, University of Birmingham Cultural politics Sarah Olive Global performance University of York Cultural participation Stephen Purcell Publically-funded arts University of Warwick Digital engagement London 2012 Olympics Kate Rumbold University of Birmingham Monika Smialkowska Northumbria University Peter Smith Nottingham Trent University Stanley Wells Shakespeare Birthplace Trust Penelope Woods Queen Mary University of London and Shakespeare’s Globe In addition to this core research group approx. 25 more cross-professional participants from the UK, US and Europe wrote reviews and/or blog pieces about the Festival for the project.

2 SHAKESPEARE’S GLOBAL COMMUNITIES Shakespeare’s Global Communities

The Politics of Global 2012a), the war in Iraq (Bennett and Carson, 2012) and economic crisis in the Eurozone Performance (Purcell, 2012b). Reviewers also highlighted the difficult issues that were raised when While Shakespeare has since the eighteenth one culture was perceived to be ‘performing’ century been identified as England’s ‘national another culture, provoking debates about poet’ (Dobson, 1992), the WSF’s strongly how the boundaries of cultural community multicultural, multinational and multilingual identity are negotiated, challenged and policed treatment of his works has sought to reposition in the twenty-first century (Prescott, 2012b; him as the ‘world’s playwright’ in the twenty- Rumbold, 2012; Smialkowska, 2012). first century (WSF, 2011). Such a move can be Over the course of the project, and especially viewed as both destabilizing and reinforcing during the Olympic and Paralympic period, Shakespeare’s cultural hegemony, and by reviewers were also sensitive to the ways in association British cultural influence. Many which UK-based companies and institutions scholars have noted the parallel development found in Shakespeare a means of voicing of the British Empire and Shakespeare’s global differing ideas about Britishness. While reach, and post-colonial performances of several productions ‘decentred’ Shakespeare, Shakespeare have repeatedly been shown to be moving away from The Bard as a symbol of bound up in questions of cultural and political British achievement (Orford, 2012; Purcell, debate, obedience and dissent (Bharucha, 2012a; Sharpe, 2012), other performances 1993; Kennedy, 1993; Loomba and Orkin, 1998; consolidated Shakespeare into a revised, but Orkin, 2005). none-the-less triumphant, narrative of British The WSF performances, more than half of cultural pre-eminence (Rokison, 2012). This which were performed by non-UK theatre was particularly apparent in the deployment companies and in languages other than English, of Shakespeare in the Olympic and Paralympic likewise raised questions about Shakespeare Opening and Closing Ceremonies (Sullivan, and Britain’s colonial legacy, although not in a 2012a; Wells, 2012). uniform manner. Several reviewers suggested The variety of political views and approaches that WSF productions coming from post- presented in the WSF challenged any single colonial and developing countries found ways account of what Shakespeare means in a of subverting assumed power dynamics and global context. Rather, the project showed taking ownership of the political questions and that Shakespeare continues to be reworked aesthetic choices involved in the play they were by cultural communities to voice a variety reinterpreting – often by moving the central of political views and concerns, at times focus away from overtly political readings contradictory. One perhaps surprising (Dymkowski, 2012; Lee, 2012; Sanders, 2012). discovery during the project period was the In other instances companies drew attention value of the cultural disagreements that arose to and expanded political content present in in response to some of these contradictions. In the source play, using it to bring attention (both several instances WSF productions prompted serious and comic) to a range of national and debates online and in the media about international political issues such as the Arab race, religion, cultural sensitivity and social Spring (Hansen, 2012), homophobia (Prescott, opportunity in the UK (see comment threads

3 in Cowie, 2012; Dickson, 2012; Rumbold, 2012). parallel but separate universes (Mazer, 1985). Although at first glance such arguments might The anti-journalistic foundational principles of be read as a negative by-product of the Festival academic Shakespearean reviewing have until – that is, a stirring up of cultural discontent or recently gone largely unquestioned and have frustration – the project took the view that dominated academic reviewing for the whole such discussions in fact helped bring to greater of its sixty-year history – as Jeremy Lopez has public attention the different viewpoints that noted, theatre reviews in Shakespeare Quarterly exist in the UK about what it means to be a today ‘look and sound pretty much like they multicultural nation. In the words of one of did in 1950, 1960 or 1970’ (Lopez, 2010; our extended network members, ‘What’s Armstrong, 2008). most important [about the WSF] is that the Building on the work of Armstrong, Lopez and a questions around Shakespeare are making an range of recent collections, our project at impact beyond Shakespeare.’ www.yearofshakespeare.com provided a Further research into the potential for arts platform for a new approach to Shakespearean programming to stimulate broader cultural reviewing. This had a range of implications debate and cultural activism is recommended, for the ways in which reviews were both in particular methods for fostering and created and consumed, and for the tone and encouraging this discursive element of cultural tenor of the reviews on the website and in the participation (see below). In light of the diverse subsequent published volume. One of our aims and at times conflicting messages presented was to address a wider malaise of academic via Shakespeare during the WSF, the project insularity and isolationism, an aloofness that all team also recommends further work on what too easily looks like elitism (McDonald, 2007). the critical legacy of the WSF will be, both As editors, we were clear in commissioning in terms of (1) how its diverse messages are these reviews that their purpose was to speak assimilated into cultural narratives about to as wide an audience as possible. Although we Shakespeare’s global communities and (2) the would not be awarding (or withholding) stars, role cultural investment will play in subsequent like national newspaper critics or like primary ‘mega-events’ such the Olympics in both the school teachers inspecting homework, we UK and abroad. would welcome criticism that was evaluative, [Erin Sullivan] outspoken and judgmental. At the same time, we would not pretend to definitive expertise on every aspect of the production in front of New Methods for Cultural us; we would, on the contrary, see the review Participation as an opportunity to ask questions, express doubts and provoke responses. As we wrote in ‘Shakespeare’s Global Communities’ marked our brief to reviewers: ‘The written response an important moment in the evolution we have in mind is something of a hybrid of academic reviewing of Shakespearean – part blog, part review, part provocation, performance. Historically, journalistic and depending on the writer and his/her experience scholarly responses to theatrical productions of the production. We are not looking for an have been targeted at very different authoritative, densely detailed and argued readerships and have therefore existed in verdict on the production, more a lively,

4 SHAKESPEARE’S GLOBAL COMMUNITIES unguarded and informal set of thoughts and are widely seen as prerequisites for critical impressions.’ authority and the right to have an opinion)?; The homepage alone of (2) how do readers actually use reviews and www.yearofshakespeare.com received 12,615 other forms of writing about performance, page views between 23 April and 1 November literature and the arts? To elaborate on the 2012, with the reviews and blogs receiving an second question: it would be very useful and estimated further 25,000 views (based on revealing to know, for example, how many initial figures). 45 percent of visitors to readers read online reviews because: (a) they www.yearofshakespeare.com returned after have seen the production in question and want their first visit and our readers came from to develop their understanding of it by reading, ninety-one different countries. One of our more or less, passively, the thoughts of others; principal aims was to eliminate all notional (b) they have seen the production and wish to barriers between our scholarly reviewers and develop their understanding through digital our readers, who – presumably – came from conversations with others; (c) they have not a variety of backgrounds, so the site (and the seen the production and want to read other’s small amount of non-internet publicity – e.g. thoughts before deciding whether to or not; programme adverts – that accompanied it) (d) they have not seen the production, have repeatedly invited readers to become writers no possibility and/or intention of doing so, but and post their own thoughts and comments. want to read other’s thoughts to e.g. stay up to Many of our readers accepted the invitation and date with wider/expert opinion. Such research chose to respond to the critic (see comment would help us better understand the nature of threads for Lucas, 2012; Massai, 2012; Prescott, online communities such as the one/s formed 2012a; Sharpe, 2012), and in some cases by www.yearofshakespeare.com; it would members of the production’s artistic team used also test the hypothesis that ‘to participate in the forum to elaborate on questions raised in high art is to forgo the direct and unmediated the responses (Buckley, 2012; McLuskie, 2012; perception of the artwork itself. The principal Sullivan, 2012b). Some reviews prompted lively consequence is the dependence of one’s own exchanges that not only serve an immediate judgment of artistic quality on the judgment of cultural purpose but which will also form an others’ (Shrum 1996: 9; Bourdieu 1986). invaluable archive of reception for cultural [Paul Prescott] and theatrical historians of the future. But when we establish the successor to this site Digital Engagement and (www.reviewingshakespeare.com) we will have to revisit and advance our strategies for Preservation generating this kind of interaction. The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust was always Future work seeking to build on this scoping going to be well placed to help articulate project might therefore focus on two key this fascinating research project to a wider questions: (1) how best can we generate user constituency of non-specialist, but even so, interaction and participation on sites devoted www.yearofshakespeare.com has considerably to what is generally perceived to be high culture exceeded our expectations. (i.e. a subject on which education and expertise

5 Not only has every single one of the 73 productions, donate press-clippings of reviews productions on stage and television been and related articles, and photographs taken reviewed, but those reviews have attracted during the WSF. By the time the UK hosts the many thousands of page-views around the Olympics again, eighty or so years will have world. Theatre is ephemeral and if it weren’t passed. We want future generations to be for the Year of Shakespeare project the WSF able to find out as much as possible about this would not have been properly and critically extraordinary year and how audience felt about documented in the way it now has been. It was it: 2012, a Year of Shakespeare. the Honorary President of The Shakespeare How might we develop the project further? Birthplace Trust Stanley Wells C.B.E. (Professor What lessons have we learnt? In our view most Emeritus, University of Birmingham) who of the Research and Project Partners, though suggested that the blog-reviews be published hugely supportive and enthusiastic about the as book, now forthcoming in April 2013 from project, were not digitally connected enough Bloomsbury Publishing. to enhance the project’s major profile online. The SBT’s commitment to the project will We should like to seek ways of developing extend through keeping the archive digital further the digital expertise and outlook of and physical archive of the project open our Research and Project Partners in order to until 23 April 2014 (the 450th anniversary of give added impetus to the online circulation of Shakespeare’s birth). We are inviting people our digital platform. We would also seek more to add their comments to the online blogs assistance in the filming of video blogs and of www.yearofshakespeare.com. It does soundposts to post on the site, thus enhancing not matter whether they saw a particular its engagement potential. production; they can still respond to the [Paul Edmondson] reviews and the sense they give of a cultural moment. People are invited to choose from among their favourite Shakespeare plays, find Outputs to date the reviews and comment on them. They can do this via Twitter, Audioboo or Soundcloud Website/dataset (using #WSF2012). Edmondson, Paul, Paul Prescott and Erin The Year of Shakespeare digital project will be Sullivan, eds. Year of Shakespeare, preserved by The Shakespeare Birthplace Trust www.yearofshakespeare.com (approx. 130,000 and sit within a ‘Trusted Digital Repository’ words, 90 reviews, 40 blog posts, 50 authors, as part of the collections, publicly accessible 60 audience ‘vox pop’ interviews, 40 Storify at The Shakespeare Centre on Henley Street, production response threads, 270 comments, Stratford-upon-Avon, CV37 6QW thousands of social interactions via Facebook (www.shakespeare.org.uk and and Twitter). [email protected]). Alongside these Edmondson, P., Prescott, P. and Sullivan, E., eds. will be the Festival theatre programmes and Reviewing Shakespeare, the project’s administrative archive, including www.reviewingshakespeare.com (forthcoming the recordings of the two workshops held 2013, expanded open reviewing platform in June and September 2012. We are also allowing for collaborative coverage of global inviting people to submit written accounts of

6 SHAKESPEARE’S GLOBAL COMMUNITIES Shakespeare performance outside of and beyond the WSF). Library archive/dataset Edmondson, Paul and Amy Hurst, managers. ‘Year of Shakespeare Archive’, Shakespeare Birthplace Trust Collections, Stratford-upon- Avon, actively collecting materials until 23 April 2014, held in perpetuity and publically accessible. Books Edmondson, Paul, Paul Prescott and Erin Sullivan, eds. A Year of Shakespeare: Re-Living the World Shakespeare Festival, London: Arden/ Bloomsbury, 2013. To include:

■■ 74 revised reviews of WSF productions and events ■■ New pieces including Foreword by Stanley Wells, ‘Olympic Performance in the Year of Shakespeare’ by Erin Sullivan, ‘Nightwatch Constables and Domineering Pedants: the past, present and future of Shakespearean reviewing’ by Paul Prescott and Epilogue by Paul Edmondson Prescott, Paul and Erin Sullivan, eds. Olympic Shakespeare (in preparation for 2014/15, chapters commissioned from research team responding to key issues raised during the WSF). In addition to the outputs listed above, several research team members have been involved in further papers, presentations and blogs relating to WSF programming and events.

7 References and external links

As part of our scoping activity we produced Lucas, Georgie. ‘Year of Shakespeare: As You reviews of all WSF productions, as well as Like It’. several related blog features. A full listing is http://bloggingshakespeare.com/year-of- available at www.yearofshakespeare.com/read shakespeare-as-you-like-it. 21 May 2012. In addition to this we produced an annotated Massai, Sonia. ‘Year of Shakespeare: King Lear bibliography of key scholarship on Shakespeare, at the Almeida’. globalism and Olympic celebration, accessible http://bloggingshakespeare.com/year-of- at www.citeulike.org/group/16695 shakespeare-king-lear-at-the-almeida. 28 September 2012. Project reviews and blogs cited in report: McLuskie, Kate. ‘Year of Shakespeare: I, Cinna (The Poet)’. Bennett, Susan and Christie Carson. ‘Year http://bloggingshakespeare.com/year-of- of Shakespeare: Romeo and Juliet in Baghdad’. shakespeare-i-cinna-the-poet. 21 June 2012. http://bloggingshakespeare.com/year-of- shakespeare-romeo-and-juliet-in-baghdad. 6 Orford, Pete. ‘Year of Shakespeare: Henry V on May 2012. the BBC’. http://bloggingshakespeare.com/year-of- Buckley, Thea. ‘Year of Shakespeare: The shakespeare-henry-v-on-the-bbc. 21 July 2012. Taming of the Shrew’. http://bloggingshakespeare.com/year-of- Prescott, Paul. ‘Year of Shakespeare: Macbeth’. shakespeare-the-taming-of-the-shrew. 26 May http://bloggingshakespeare.com/year-of- 2012. shakespeare-macbeth. 11 May 2012. Cowie, Andrew. ‘A post-colonial view of Julius Prescott, Paul. ‘Year of Shakespeare: Troilus Caesar’. and Cressida (RSC)’. http://bloggingshakespeare.com/a-post- http://bloggingshakespeare.com/year-of- colonial-view-of-julius-caesar. 20 June 2012. shakespeare-troilus-and-cressida-rsc. 6 September 2012. Dymkowski, Christine. ‘Year of Shakespeare: The Tempest’. Purcell, Stephen. ‘Year of Shakespeare: Circles, http://bloggingshakespeare.com/year-of- Centres and the Globe to Globe Festival’. shakespeare-the-tempest-globe. 13 May 2012. http://bloggingshakespeare.com/year-of- shakespeare-circles-centres-and-the-globe-to- Hansen, Adam. ‘Year of Shakespeare: globe-festival. 22 June 2012. Macbeth: Leïla & Ben – A Bloody History’. http://bloggingshakespeare.com/year-of- Purcell, Stephen. ‘Year of Shakespeare: shakespeare-macbeth-leila-and-ben-a-bloody- Pericles’. http://bloggingshakespeare.com/year- history 21 July 2012. of-shakespeare-pericles. 30 April 2012. Lee, Adele. ‘Year of Shakespeare: Titus Rokison, Abigail. ‘Year of Shakespeare: Andronicus’. Henry V’. http://bloggingshakespeare.com/year-of- http://bloggingshakespeare.com/year-of- shakespeare-titus-andronicus. 7 May 2012. shakespeare-henry-v. 14 June 2012.

8 SHAKESPEARE’S GLOBAL COMMUNITIES Rumbold, Kate. ‘Year of Shakespeare: Much Bourdieu, Pierre. Distinction: A Social Critique Ado about Nothing at the RSC’. of the Judgement of Taste (1979). Trans. Richard http://bloggingshakespeare.com/year-of- Nice. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1986. shakespeare-much-ado-about-nothing-at-the- Dickson, Andrew. ‘Troilus and Cressida – rsc. 10 August 2012. review’. The Guardian. 24 April 2012. www. Sanders, Julie. ‘Year of Shakespeare: The guardian.co.uk/stage/2012/apr/24/troilus- Winter’s Tale’. cressida-review. http://bloggingshakespeare.com/year-of- Dobson, Michael. The Making of the National shakespeare-the-winters-tale. 28 May 2012. Poet: Shakespeare, Adaptation and Authorship, Sharpe, Will. ‘Year of Shakespeare: King John 1660-1769. Oxford: Oxford University Press, at the RSC’. 1992. http://bloggingshakespeare.com/year-of- Edmondson, Paul, Paul Prescott and Peter J. shakespeare-king-john-at-the-rsc. 17 May 2012. Smith, eds. Reviewing Shakespearean Theatre: Smialkowska, Monika. ‘Year of Shakespeare: The State of the Art, Shakespeare 6.3 (2010). Julius Caesar at the RSC’. Hodgdon, Barbara and Peter Holland, eds. http://bloggingshakespeare.com/year-of- Watching Ourselves, Watching Shakespeare shakespeare-julius-caesar-at-the-rsc. 6 August 1 and 11, Shakespeare Bulletin, 25:3 and 25:4 2012. (2007). Sullivan, Erin. ‘Year of Shakespeare: The Kennedy, Dennis. ‘Shakespeare without Olympics Opening Ceremony’. His Language’, in Shakespeare, Theory and http://bloggingshakespeare.com/year-of- Performance, ed. James C. Bulman. London: shakespeare-the-olympic-opening-ceremony. Routledge, 1993. 133-48. 28 July 2012. Lobanov-Rostovsky, Sergei. ‘London Struts Sullivan, Erin. ‘Year of Shakespeare: Othello’. on the World Stage’. The New York Times. 26 http://bloggingshakespeare.com/year-of- July 2012. www.nytimes.com/2012/07/27/ shakespeare-othello. 6 May 2012. opinion/with-olympic-pageantry-britain-struts- Wells, Stanley. ‘Olympic Shakespeare’. again-on-the-world-stage.html?_r=0/. http://bloggingshakespeare.com/year-of- Loomba, Ania and Martin Orkin (eds). Post- shakespeare-the-olympic-opening-ceremony. 8 Colonial Shakespeares. London: Routledge, June 2012. 1998. Additional works cited: Lopez, Jeremy. ‘Spreading the Shakespeare Armstrong, Alan. ‘Romeo and Juliet Academic Gospel: A Rhetorical History of the Academic Theatre Review Kit’. Shakespeare Bulletin 26:1 Theater Review’ in New Directions in (2008). Renaissance Drama and Performance Studies, ed. Sarah Werner. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2010. Bharucha, Rustom. Theatre and the World: Performance and the Politics of Culture. London: Mazer, Cary. ‘Shakespeare, the Reviewer, and Routledge, 1993. the Theatre Historian’. Shakespeare Quarterly 36 (1985). 648-61.

9 McDonald, Rónán. The Death of the Critic. London: Continuum, 2007 Orkin, Martin. Local Shakespeares: Proximations and Power. London: Routledge, 2005 O’Toole, Emer. ‘Shakespeare, universal? No, it’s cultural imperialism’. The Guardian. 21 May 2012. www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/ may/21/shakespeare-universal-cultural- imperialism/ Phillips, Melanie. ‘Oscars all round for a spectacular feelgood fantasy of modern Britain’. Mail Online. 30 July 2012. www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2180786/ Olympics-2012-opening-ceremony-Oscars- round-spectacular-feelgood-fantasy-modern- Britain.html/ Prescott, Paul, Peter J. Smith and Janice Valls-Russell, eds. ‘Nothing if not critical’: International Perspectives on Shakespearean Theatre Reviewing, Cahiers Élisabéthains 40th Anniversary Special Issue (2012). Shrum, Wesley Monroe. Fringe and Fortune: The Role of Critics in High and Popular Art. Princeton, 1996 World Shakespeare Festival [WSF]. ‘Festival Guide: April-September 2012’. September 2011

10 SHAKESPEARE’S GLOBAL COMMUNITIES The Connected Communities

Connected Communities is a cross-Council Programme being led by the AHRC in partnership with the EPSRC, ESRC, MRC and NERC and a range of external partners. The current vision for the Programme is: “to mobilise the potential for increasingly inter- connected, culturally diverse, communities to enhance participation, prosperity, sustainability, health & well-being by better connecting research, stakeholders and communities.” Further details about the Programme can be found on the AHRC’s Connected Communities web pages at: www.ahrc.ac.uk/FundingOpportunities/Pages/ connectedcommunities.aspx www.connectedcommunities.ac.uk