The Routledge Companion to Actors' Shakespeare

196 REWIEWS | PAVEL DRÁBEK Brown makes his point most clearly. ger, and even Adrian Lester). Though General observations come in vain. the selection of personalities may be This is perhaps a performative di- surprising at first sight and would mension of the book’s mission. perhaps call for a more pronounced justification, the unifying moment of the volume is the stress on live theatre, a leitmotif of J. R. Brown’s crit- icism over the decades. Since that mission is the main topic of my re- view of his Studying Shakespeare in Performance (Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), one brief quote from the latter book will suffice for this purpose. Pavel Drábek | Brown’s collection documents twen- John Russell Brown (ed.) ty different ways of the actor’s en- The Routledge Companion gagements with Shakespearean roles, in his own words: to Actors’ Shakespeare London and New York: Routledge, 2012. [T]he actor’s response to his or 276 pp. her whole journey through a play, which involves changes in rela- John Russell Brown’s newly edit- tionship to other characters and ed collection of essays is dedicated actors, and in self-awareness. How to twenty remarkable Shakespearean any one moment is arrived at will actors and actresses of today. Each of always be part of that moment in the chapters is authored by one schol- theatre performance. ar, which provides a fresh and in- (Studying Shakespeare in Per- spiring variety of approaches to the formance, 11) equally varied talents of the individual actors. The performers includ- A like consistency is in Routledge’s ed range from stars (Judy Dench, Ian project. Actors’ Shakespeare is a McKellen, Vanessa Redgrave, An- companion piece to The Routledge tony Sher), through well-established Companion to Directors’ Shake- and celebrated actors (Simon Rus- speare, edited by John Russell Brown sell Beale, Greg Hicks, Kevin Kline, (Routledge, 2008), a similarly con- Marcello Magni, Pyotr Semak) to ceived collection of 31 directors from performers that have won acclaim but late-nineteenth-century figures (Hen- may still be thought of being in the ry Irving and William Poel), through early years of their careers (Mariah leading theatre-makers of the mid- Gale, Rory Kinnear, Jonathan Slin- twentieth century (Max Reinhardt, REWIEWS | PAVEL DRÁBEK 197 Harley Granville Barker, Tyrone This is not to say that academic schol- Guthrie, Orson Welles or Ingmar arship proffers little help to theatre Bergman, Peter Brook and Giorgio practitioners. Rather, this is to sug- Strehler) to contemporary and recent gest the radically different qualities directors (Declan Donnellan, Rob- of epistemological endeavours when ert Lepage, Mark Rylance and Jul- it comes to theatre practice. Acting as ie Taymor). Currently, another vol- an epistemological endeavour is also ume in the series is underway, The how Jonathan Holmes treats Adrian Routledge Companion to Designers’ Lester’s acting in his fascinating and Shakespeare, co-edited by John Rus- incisive chapter: sell Brown and Stephen Di Benedet- to, forthcoming in 2013. Lester has appeared in only three This book’s approach is extremely Shakespeare productions on stage, useful to academic Shakespeareans. yet each has been a landmark event In a kind way it justifies as well as in the history of staging those plays. corrects some of the interpretive hy- […] In discussing this trajectory in potheses of scholarship. Though most interview, it becomes clear that for actors included in this volume take Lester in particular the experience academic scholarship into account, of playing Rosalind [in Donnel- their own work provides yet anoth- lan’s Cheek by Jowl production of er source of knowledge. The New 1991 and 1994, PD] at the age of Yorker columnist Adam Gopnik, who 22 continues to influence his sub- brought together Kevin Kline (then sequent approach to Shakespeare, rehearsing for Falstaff) and Stephen and in particular to the notion of Greenblatt, summed up some of the character. (132) practical theatre misgivings about academic knowledge: The actor engages in an intellectual, emotional as well as physical effort They had a lively and happy talk, that transforms one’s (the actor’s, the though of course ultimately the co-actors’, the spectators’) notion of kinds of things that preoccupy Ste- reality by mediating an unprecedent- ve and the like – who might have ed epistemological moment. This is a been the model for Falstaff, Lords dimension that is unique to the theatre of Misrule, Oldcastle and Falstaff – it’s playful as well as game-like na- – aren’t of much help to an actor. ture (cf. Johan Huizinga’s Homo Lu- It’s certainly the case that Kevin dens (1938)). In Lester’s own words, has an appetite for scholarship, and “[y]et, it’s a play, but actually it’s not, for reading about his roles, that in because we will use you” (141). my experience is unique in an ac- Such profound insights into both tor of his gifts. (129) the art of acting and Shakespeare’s 198 REWIEWS | PAVEL DRÁBEK theatre are far from rare in this vol- tuition. Kevin Ewert’s portrait of the ume. I take this as the greatest Canadian actor Colm Feore compris- achievement of the individual con- es mostly a priori and ex post reflec- tributors and their sensitive and ar- tions on what actually happens on ticulate approaches that help mediate stage. This is a feature of the entire this understanding. In so doing, some book – more explicitly pronounced of the essays surpass their genres here than in other chapters: the text and purpose: they are not only por- captures the technē only – though re- traits of remarkable Shakespearean fined and in minute detail; the dian- actors and actresses but also encoun- oia – here, the “mystery of acting” ters with the genii – outstanding and – eludes us along with the transito- rich personalities that have the talent ry performance. From this perspec- to make our lives richer by engaging tive, the book may be read as “a sur- in the ʻknowing’ that theatre makes vivor’s guide to acting Shakespeare” happen. This is certainly true of Car- – asserting one’s space as an actor in ol Chillington Rutter’s brilliant chap- negotiation with the director and the ter on Simon Russell Beale analyzing audience, even to the point of advo- his work after decades of watching cating (or defending) cynical maxims as well as interviewing him. This es- such as “Fake it till you make it” (60). say aims at the core of Beale’s work Darren Tunstall’s fascinating por- – his analytical intelligence and in- trait of Patrice Naiambana ventures terest in psychology, combined with into a new sphere too: an actor find- comical talent. Another such essay is ing a place and a voice (literally, not Clare Smout’s essay on Mariah Gale, only metaphorically) in British thea- an actor prodigy – energetic, highly tre and simultaneously admitting and intelligent, earnest and experiment- not denying one’s cultural roots (Si- ing: a rare combination of a willing- erra Leone). Naiambana throws new ness to risk and a tactfulness in seeing light on rhythm, music and storytell- and analyzing the outcomes. Jonath- ing in Shakespeare. an Holmes’ brilliant chapter on Adri- A number of the essays trace proc- an Lester has already been mentioned esses – Ben Naylor’s chapter on Greg and deserves highlighting. So does Hicks documents the actor in the Paul Prescott’s Rory Kinnear with its process of rehearsing King Lear with fascinating search for possibilities – David Farr at the Royal Shakespeare “discovering/inventing” (114) ways Company (100‒104). Martin White’s of acting, which are both inconclu- brilliant essay on Antony Sher cap- sively tentative and obliging in how tures him in search of his character, they are acted. Prescott has a master- finding his own ʻlivable’ interpre- ful sense of listening to and mediat- tation, while at the same time being ing Kinnear’s talent, intellect and in- haunted by his own anxieties. REWIEWS | CHRISTIAN M. BILLING 199 James Loehlin’s portrait of Kate actors’ portraits in that it procures to Duchêne is rather straightforward – the reader the opportunity of meeting though based on observation and one outstanding people and glimpsing the interview (and Duchêne’s only Shake- mastery and mystery of acting. spearean role), it is inspiring in point- ing out how Duchêne’s experience with Avant-Garde theatre informs her Shakespearean acting. Maria Shev-ts- ova’s “Pyotr Semakˮ and David Pel- legrini’s “Kate Valkˮ are not only actors’ portraits but also portraits of theatre companies, Maly Teatr Mos- cow and Cheek by Jowl (Shevtsova) and The Wooster Group (Pellegrini). Christian M. Billing | Especially the latter says little about Marie Zdeňková, and Josef “actors’ Shakespeare” though it ven- Vomáčka. Miroslav Melena: triloquizes the cultural ghosts of John Gielgud’s 1964 Broadway production Scénograf a architekt (Sce- of Hamlet with Richard Burton. nographer and Architect) Some of the volume’s essays re- Published in Czech with a (most- lay on the reader’s knowledge of the actor (actress). That does not neces- ly) parallel English translation. sarily coincide with the fame of the Prague: Arts and Theatre Institute, 2011. individual artists, famous stars such 240 pp. as Judi Dench, Kevin Kline, Ian Mc- Kellen, Vanessa Redgrave or An- This book is a very welcome addi- tony Sher. While many of the essays tion to the existing bibliography on communicate the uniqueness of their post-war Czech and central Europe- personalities without depending on an scenography and theatre design. It one’s memory of experiencing them offers for the first time a comprehen- as actors, some of the generally less- sive account of the work of Miroslav er-known actors’ portraits reach the Melena as both a practicing scenogra- limits of whether one knows their pher, and as an architect whose work work or not (this is true of Shevtso- in temporary and permanent thea- va’s Semak, Pellegrini’s Valk or Jer- tre structures constitutes some of the emy Lopez’s John Harrell).

Load more