CLOWNING ON AND THROUGH SHAKEPEARE: LATE 20th AND EARLY 21st CENTURY CLOWNING’S TACTICAL USE IN SHAKESPEARE PERFORMANCE by David W Peterson BA, University of Michigan, 2007 Masters, Michigan State University, 2009 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The Kenneth P. Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Pittsburgh 2014 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH THE KENNETH P. DIETRICH SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES This dissertation was presented by David W Peterson It was defended on April 16, 2014 and approved by Dr. Attilio “Buck” Favorini, Professor Emeritus, Theatre Arts Dr. Bruce McConachie, Professor, Theatre Arts Dr. Jennifer Waldron, Associate Professor, English Dissertation Advisor: Dr. Lisa Jackson-Schebetta, Assistant Professor, Theatre Arts ii Copyright © by David Peterson 2014 iii CLOWNING ON AND THROUGH SHAKEPEARE: LATE 20th AND EARLY 21st CENTURY CLOWNING’S TACTICAL USE IN SHAKESPEARE PERFORMANCE David Peterson, PhD University of Pittsburgh, 2014 This dissertation argues that contemporary clown performance (as developed in the latter half of the 20th century) can be understood in terms of three key performance practices: the flop, interruption, and audience play. I further argue that these three features of flop, interruption, and audience play are distinctively facilitated by Shakespeare in both text and performance which, in turn, demonstrates the potential of both clown and Shakespeare to not only disrupt theatrical conventions, but to imagine new relationships to social and political power structures. To this end, I ally the flop with Jack Halberstam’s sense of queer failure to investigate the relationship between Macbeth and 500 Clown Macbeth. Interruption finds echoes not only in the dramatic theories of Brecht, but also in de Certeau’s notion of strategies and tactics, as expressed both in Shakespeare’s play text for King Lear and Antony Sher’s 1982 performance of the Fool. Audience play is put in conversation with the reconstructed Globe’s theory of original practices in order to examine the relationship between the audience, performer, and history in Mark Rylance’s clownish Shakespeare performances. Finally, in the conclusion, I use Bill Irwin to analyze the cumulative effect of these clown (and clown/Shakespeare) practices in the contemporary theatre. Whereas much of contemporary Shakespeare production emphasizes the psychology of the character and therefore prizes the rendering of a believable character, clown instead emphasizes the work that goes into creating a theatrical performance. The clown, then, draws force not through the power of creating a believable character, but from exposing the work iv of artistic creation. A close analysis of clown and early modern Shakespeare performance practice reveals a complimentary relationship that proves one alternative to the dominant regimes of “realistic” performance. v TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE ................................................................................................................................. VIII 1.0 INTRODUCTION: THE CONTEMPORARY CLOWN AND MR. WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 BEGININGS ......................................................................................................... 1 1.2 CLOWNS (RE)MEET SHAKESPEARE .......................................................... 3 1.3 WHAT IS A CLOWN? ..................................................................................... 13 1.4 EXISTING WORK ON CLOWNS .................................................................. 19 1.5 CHAPTER SUMMARIES ................................................................................ 26 2.0 CHAPTER ONE: FAILURE THROUGH THE FLOP AND PLAYFUL VIEWS OF AUTHORITY IN 500 CLOWN MACBETH ....................................................................... 30 2.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 30 2.2 LECOQ AND HALBERSTAM: TOWARD A THEORY OF FLOP, FAILURE, AND PLAYFUL NEW WORLDS ................................................................ 34 2.3 MACBETH AND AUTHORITY IN JAMES I’S ENGLAND ...................... 44 2.4 500 CLOWN MACBETH AND THE FLOP OF AUTHORITY .................... 55 2.5 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................. 72 3.0 THERE OUGHT TO BE CLOWNS: ANTONY SHER AND THE CLOWNS HAUNTING LEAR ..................................................................................................................... 76 vi 3.1 INTRODUCTION: INTERRUPTING THEATRICAL EXPECTATION .. 76 3.2 INTERRUPTION: THE CONSTANT OF CLOWN ..................................... 78 3.3 INTERRUPTION AS SOCIAL TACTIC ....................................................... 85 3.4 THE GREAT STAGE OF FOOLS .................................................................. 94 3.5 GETTING OUT THE GHOST ...................................................................... 110 3.6 SHER’S CLOWN FOOL ................................................................................ 117 3.7 GHOSTS, TACTICS, STRATEGIES, AND MARGARET THATCHER 131 4.0 “AMBITION IN THE FOOL”: MARK RYLANCE’S CLOWNING FOR THE AUDIENCE ............................................................................................................................... 137 4.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 137 4.2 CLOWNS NEED AN AUDIENCE ................................................................ 141 4.3 ORIGINAL PRACTICES AND THE AUDIENCE ..................................... 146 4.4 RICHARD AND HAMLET, VICE AND JESTER ...................................... 153 4.5 MARK RYLANCE: CLOWN ........................................................................ 166 4.6 CONTEMPORARY CLOWNING ON EARLY MODERN CLOWNS .... 170 4.7 TOO MUCH AUDIENCE? ............................................................................ 184 5.0 SHAKESPEAREAN CHARACTER AND CLOWN WORK ............................. 188 5.1 SHAKESPEARE’S CHARACTER ............................................................... 188 5.2 BILL IRWIN, WORK FOR THE AUDIENCE’S PLEASURE .................. 195 5.3 FLOPS, INTERRUPTIONS, AND AUDIENCE PLAY .............................. 204 5.4 CLOWNS AND UTOPIA ............................................................................... 213 BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................................... 216 vii PREFACE There are a great many people that should be acknowledged here. It is my goal to thank a few of them for the role they had in bringing this document into existence. First I should thank my family, namely Mary Ann, Matt, and Mike, for all the wonderful support they have given me since before this dissertation was even thought of. They have allowed me to pursue those things that I was most passionate about with unconditional support. Thank you. I would also like to thank all of the wonderful teachers I have had the pleasure of learning from before coming to the University of Pittsburgh. To name a just a few, Sherrie Tiderington, Ellen Francis, and Elizabeth Richardson at Heritage High School in Saginaw, MI. At the University of Michigan I had the pleasure of studying under many fine teachers, but above all, Dr. Leigh Woods, Dr. E.J. Westlake, Dr. Enoch Brater, Dr. J. Mills Thornton, Dr. Barbara Hodgdon, and Dr. Ralph Williams. At the Michigan State University I learned from many students and teachers alike, most notably Lynn Lammers, Christian Traister and Dr. Lister Matheson. All of these people led me to become the scholar and artist I am today. At Pitt the list of people to thank is large. The entire Department of Theatre Arts has helped me grow and sustained me during my time here. A special thanks goes to all of my fellow graduate students who provided support both professional and personal. I also must thank all of the wonderful undergraduate students who allowed me to grow as a teacher, artist, and scholar. Connie Markiw has guided me through every bureaucratic step in the PhD process. viii Tamara Goldbogen gave me more opportunities to enlarge my view of theatre than I can count. Stacey Cabaj must be thanked for being an inspiration in all things. Gale McNeeley showed me so many joys of clowning. My committee, Dr. Bruce McConachie, Dr. Attilio “Buck” Favorini, and Dr. Jennifer Waldron all gave me their time and knowledge as I worked through my time at Pitt and during the composition of this dissertation. Finally, Dr. Lisa Jackson-Schebetta, my chair, has spent many, many hours listening to my ideas, then reading my ideas, and pushing these ideas, challenging them, and ultimately enabling me to create a work of my passions and interest. II cannot imagine this project without her. Thank you to all of those a Pitt who helped this project come to be. Finally, I must circle in on a small group who has essentially been my family in the city of Pittsburgh. Dave Bisaha, Julianne Avolio, and John Michnya have all supported me, and allowed me to stay sane while writing this dissertation. I don’t know how I could have completed this process without them. Of this small “urban family” Deirdre O’Rourke takes pride of place. My wonderful soon-to-be-wife has helped me through every stage of this process,