CAHIERS ÉLISABÉTHAINS 70 AUTUMN 2006 Coriolanus, The Globe, London. Jonathan Cake (Coriolanus), Mo Sesay (Aufidius). Photograph courtesy of John Tramper. Titus Andronicus, The Globe, London. Photograph courtesy of John Tramper. 46 PLAY REVIEWS UK Spring/Summer Season 2006 Please note that reviews of RSC and guest company productions for the 2006-2007 Complete Works Festival at Stratford-upon-Avon will be published in a special issue (see p. 88 for details and subscription) Coriolanus, directed by Dominic Dromgoole, The Foakes recently lamented, the reconstructed Globe Globe, London, 10 May 2006, first gallery, stage cen- “is not the kind of experimental theatre some of us tre. hoped for [and yet it continues to establish] for thou- sands of visitors a fixed idea of an Elizabethan stage ppointed in March 2006 as the Artistic Director that may well be erroneous in many respects”.1 Aof the Globe, Dominic Dromgoole (formerly Dromgoole’s Coriolanus typified exactly the pa- of Oxford Stage Company) directed Coriolanus as ralysis of a theatre hamstrung by the need to look his inaugural production in a season labelled with Jacobean even while attempting to make connections Globish modishness, “The Edges of Rome”. Why between a Roman world and the twenty-first centu- Dromgoole has decided to continue Mark Rylance’s ry. Iconic of this uncomfortable compromise were the idea of a themed season is anyone’s guess — though costumes (designed by Mike Britton): Elizabethan the RSC has also been culpable in its stagings of his- doublets (with ruffs) and hose over which was tories (2000), tragedies (2004) and comedies (2005), draped a Caesarean swag. As far as the design was which probably explains why the Globe plumped concerned, there was no reference or gesture towards for the Roman plays. In a piece of ingenious special the contemporary scene which Dromgoole insists pleading in the programme, Dromgoole writes, “The resonates throughout Shakespeare’s play. narrative of the Roman Empire — its violent open- Clearly it is unfair to castigate a production on ing, its apogee of civility, and its decline into confu- its failure to acknowledge or conform to the pro- sion — throws up any number of parallels with the gramme notes; the production should stand or fall world of today” — at once both anodyne and vague. on its own merits. That said, the reason for starting Why, one wondered, had the production lacked the with Dromgoole’s stated intentions is compelling courage to set because they may be responsible for exacerbating its Coriolanus an uncomfortable effect produced by this production in the modern in this theatre, an effect which if left unchallenged world? The an- will jeopardise not just this Coriolanus but future swer, I fear (and productions directed in the same vein. I want to it is a tendency suggest that this production typified the tendency that this new towards what I shall call “Globe parallax”. Parallax director may is defined as “the apparent difference in the position take some time or direction of an object caused when the observer’s to turn around) position is changed” (Concise Oxford Dictionary). In is an inbuilt re- using this term which is derived from astronomy, I sistance to mo- am referring not to the physical shifting of viewpoint dernity in this offered to the “groundlings” as they peregrinate most conspicu- voluntarily around the pit, or even as they are ma- ously archaeo- noeuvred by the acting company (see below). Rather, logical of thea- I am referring to the distortion of the play’s internal tres. As R. A. distribution of weight — the manner in which its Coriolanus, The Globe, London. configuration of tragedy, violence, lev- Jonathan Cake (Coriolanus). ity, lamentation, combat or comedy is Photograph courtesy of John Tramper. shaken up by its presentation and the 47 CAHIERS ÉLISABÉTHAINS 70 AUTUMN 2006 PLAY REVIEWS degree to which audience response is surprisingly at sensibilities. As the warrior displayed his wounds odds with its textual (as opposed to performative) — his “gown of humility” (II.3.41) was a tatty cream effects. The production repeatedly manoeuvred the smock — he circulated among the audience in the audience into seeing things as comic when the text pit and was jostled by the crowd. At one point he seems to suggest the reverse so that in this way the shook hands in the manner of a modern politician position of the audience redefined the play. For in- on walkabout (“pressing the flesh” in the parlance stance, when Coriolanus (Jonathan Cake) enters after of cynical public relations) though nicely wiped his his combat with the Volscians, he is, as demanded by hand on his smock as though to try and rid himself the stage direction, “bleeding”. Much is made in the of the plebes’ contaminating sweat. Brilliantly, for all subsequent speeches of his bloody wounds and we their expressed solidarity with the common sort, the expect to see him “total gules” (Hamlet, II.2.448). But Tribunes remained on stage to direct the crowd’s dis- something shocking happened here: as Coriolanus sent, never daring to move among them. In this way entered with blood on face and armour, his weapons the configuration of the theatre was purposefully dripping, the audience burst into laughter. Compare employed and this accomplishment was outrageous- this to the entry of Peter Woodward as Posthumus ly effective in the closing moments. As Aufidius in Peter Hall’s Cymbeline at the National Theatre in stabbed Coriolanus from behind, the latter stood fac- 1988, similarly caked in blood and gore: an audible ing the audience on the edge of the stage. He toppled gasp from those in the audience.2 Nor was this aber- forwards (reminiscent of the fall of Saddam’s statue), ration a single moment. While there might be some quite stiff, into the arms of the waiting citizens who wry humour in the hypocritical back-tracking of the proceeded to butcher him. Cake is an extremely big third citizen, recanting his complicity with the ban- man — taller and of larger frame than anyone else in ishment of the heroic Coriolanus — “though we will- the production, and this collapse and the deft catch ingly consented to his banishment, yet it was against must have demanded strength, timing and not a lit- our will” (IV.6.145) — here the grudging speech tle courage. Most ingenious was the dragging down- was greeted by gleeful howls of laughter. Later, the stage of a large black veil which was extended out women entered in sackcloth and Coriolanus, over- to cover the whole of the pit. As it was withdrawn, come with grief, uttered: “Like a dull actor now / I so the butchered corpse of Coriolanus was neatly have forgot my part” (V.3.40-41). This is not Polonius ghosted away. who forgets where he is in the middle of advising Worthy of mention were Margot Leicester’s Reynoldo how to conduct a prurient surveillance Volumnia whose powerful voice made her excessive of his own son (“what was I about to say?”, II.1.49), gesturing unnecessary. Perhaps the best perform- which more often than not causes an audience to ance of the evening was the quietly understated John smirk at his sanctimony and incompetence. Rather, Dougall as Junius Brutus. This was an extremely sotto this is an aristocrat rendered speechless by the sight voce performance without the histrionics that usually of his mother and wife abasing themselves in rags accompany outdoor performances. Dougall precise- in order to sue for mercy. Yet for the Globe audi- ly rendered Brutus’ cynical plotting and politic one- ence, this was a prompt for further hysteria. As she upmanship. There was a quiet determination to his concludes her long and moving speech beseeching contempt for Coriolanus, coupled with an instinc- his pardon of ingrateful Rome, Volumnia, on her tive sense that the warrior’s ascendance marked the knees, concludes with “This is the last” (V.3.172). All Tribunes’ own marginalisation: “All tongues speak talked out, this is the ultimate test of her maternal of him, and the bleared sights / Are spectacled to see puissance and her son’s emotional fidelity; for the him. Your prattling nurse / Into a rapture lets her baby Globe audience, it was one of the funniest lines of the cry / While she chats him” (II.1.203-06). Mo Sesay’s evening. It cannot be right to reprimand an audience Aufidius was disappointingly unequal to the physi- for responding inappropriately to Shakespeare’s cal and vocal magnitude of Cake’s Coriolanus, and text — why should my own response be any more the play’s symmetry was thrown askew as a result. appropriate than theirs? However, when one of He had one supremely egregious moment (sympto- Shakespeare’s most fraught and violently emotional matic of the parallax effect described above) as dur- plays is rendered as little more than stand-up com- ing what is usually an intensely homosocial meeting edy, one is entitled to demand an inquest. with his old enemy, the play has him express adora- In fact, the peculiarity of the audience response tion for Coriolanus in heterosexual terms: “I lov’d aside, this was a workman-like, though uninspired the maid I married; never man / Sigh’d truer breath; production. There was good use of the curved ramps but that I see thee here, / Thou noble thing, more that ran down from either side of the stage into dances my rapt heart / Than when I first my wedded the pit. The citizenry were able to utilise members mistress saw / Bestride my threshold” (IV.5.115-19). of the standing audience to swell their own ranks The play’s flirtation with a homoerotic relationship and marshalled them into something like the rebel- between the mighty adversaries was given short and lious crowd which so offends Coriolanus’ brittle comic shrift here.