"The Sense of an Ending": the Destabilizing Effect of Performance Closure in Shakespeare's Plays
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Western University Scholarship@Western Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository 6-8-2016 12:00 AM "The Sense of An Ending": The Destabilizing Effect of Performance Closure in Shakespeare's Plays Megan Lynn Selinger The University of Western Ontario Supervisor Margaret Jane Kidnie The University of Western Ontario Graduate Program in English A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree in Doctor of Philosophy © Megan Lynn Selinger 2016 Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd Part of the Literature in English, British Isles Commons, and the Performance Studies Commons Recommended Citation Selinger, Megan Lynn, ""The Sense of An Ending": The Destabilizing Effect of Performance Closure in Shakespeare's Plays" (2016). Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository. 3797. https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/3797 This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Western. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Western. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Abstract What makes a good ending? How do we know when something ends? In performance, it is difficult to characterize that nebulous and highly subjective — yet nonetheless theatrically powerful — “sense” of an ending. Previous scholarly work on Shakespearean endings, even when emphasizing performance, has largely focused on understanding endings from a narrative viewpoint, questioning how endings reach textual closure. These works examine the lingering questions or problems at the end of Shakespeare’s texts, and discuss how performance tackles these issues. This dissertation takes performance as its starting point. It argues that Shakespearean performance endings naturally trouble textual conclusiveness, as Shakespeare’s endings are generally open to new analysis. Thus, this dissertation analyzes ten Shakespearean productions to demonstrate how aspects like performance ephemerality, textual adjustments, or affectual signifiers can change the meaning of closure — textual or performance — and disrupt the sense of a play’s ending. Chapter One sets out my methodology, drawing upon Susan Bennett’s inner and outer frames and Hans Robert Jauss’s range of expectation. Chapter Two tackles four individual outlier performances with endings that deviated significantly from the rest of their respective productions, creating an altered experience for the audience in attendance that night. Chapter Three examines three productions which textually modified the expected or established ending in order to pursue a particular political or social message. Chapter Four analyzes three productions by director Des McAnuff whose endings attempted to evoke an emotional response from the audience through the inclusion of a visual or auditory stimulus, while interacting with the political, racial, or gendered questions of each play. Through the analysis of these ten productions, this work concludes that due to the nature of performance, performed endings of Shakespeare’s works can destabilize the established or intended readings of a production. Thus, the closing moments reinterpret the rest of the play according to the images, sensations, or questions brought to the forefront. Within a performance’s final moments, any presumption of a static nature of the text — of an “authentic Shakespeare” — is fractured so that new meanings, new ideas, and new “senses” can be found onstage. Keywords Renaissance drama; early modern; theatre; performance theory; spectator response; audience; endings; closure; Shakespeare ii Acknowledgments It is a myth that a dissertation is the output of a single scholar. Many individuals helped drag me, kicking and screaming, towards this goal. This work is the product of their tenacity. My supervisor M.J. Kidnie has been my mentor on this project and a constant source of encouragement. Thank you for reading and editing countless drafts, and the many fruitful hours of conversation over tea and scones. No one should have to read this project’s poorly written first drafts, and thanks to you, no one else will ever have to. I am equally grateful for Kim Solga’s guidance and support as my second reader. Kim has always ensured that I seek out the less obvious answers and not shy away from getting my hands dirty. I am very thankful for enriching experience provided by my examining committee: Roberta Barker, Paul Werstine, Scott Schofield and Christopher Brown. I am humbled and grateful for your comprehensive engagement with my work. Thank you to the exceptional faculty and staff at the University of Western Ontario, especially John Leonard, and James Purkis who helped guide me as a scholar through questions, criticism, and witty commentary, and Leanne Trask who, on a daily basis, unties hundreds of administrative Gordian Knots. At York University, Judith Rudakoff and Deanne Williams are both, in different ways, responsible for deepening my passion for theatre. And I would be remiss not to thank Scott Spillane, the high school teacher who first kindled my love for Shakespeare and Stratford. The generous financial support of the Ontario Graduate Scholarship and the Western Graduate Research Scholarship allowed me to travel to England for vital archival work. Thank you to Juliet Rufford for accommodations on my research trip, and to the many iii archivists and reading room attendants at the RSC, the Globe, the National Theatre, and the Stratford Festival archives. You kept me well supplied in prompt books, video recordings, and stage managers’ notes as I combed through hundreds of productions and tried not to succumb to archive fever. To my closest friends and colleagues at Western: Marzena Musielak and Will Samson. Thank you both so much for listening to me ramble about Shakespeare for the past few years, and for offering equal amounts of constructive criticism, help with editing, and complete and utter joy. To the rest of my dear friends in London, Toronto, and everywhere in between — Phil, Yuri, Grant, Traci, Allison, Chris, Jesse, and Jake — you provided me with distracting games, dynamic conversation, and comfy couches to crash on when I needed to rest and recharge; the care you provided kept me going from week to week. To my extended family — my aunts, uncles, grandparents, and cousins — you may have no idea what I’ve been working on for the last five years, but I know you’re there for me nonetheless. Finally, I could not possibly have come this far without the incredible love and support of my parents. Mom and Dad: my love of reading, of the written word, was learned at your feet. Everything I am, I owe to you. There is no way to adequately express my gratitude. Dad, you are my strength. Mom, you are my inspiration. Thank you. This dissertation is dedicated to the loving memory of my brother, Myles Selinger, who taught me to climb higher, run faster, and believe in magic. iv Table of Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................ i Acknowledgments.............................................................................................................. iii Table of Contents ................................................................................................................ v Preface............................................................................................................................... vii 1 Introduction: What’s in an Ending? ............................................................................... 1 1.1 A Methodology for Performance Analysis, Audience Reception, and Spectatorship ......................................................................................................... 17 1.2 Talking about the Audience: Performance Analysis Theories ............................. 24 1.3 Between Actor and Character ............................................................................... 31 2 One Night Only!: Unique Endings in Outlier Performances ....................................... 34 2.1 A Daughter is Born: A New Addition to Hamlet ................................................. 40 2.2 Overturning the Ending: Shylock’s Appeal and The Merchant of Venice............ 50 2.3 Her Dream Proposal: One Night at A Midsummer Night’s Dream ...................... 66 2.4 One Night Only vs. Every Night is Unique .......................................................... 77 2.5 Our Histories: The British Audience as Community and Richard II .................... 79 2.6 Making Sense of the Material ............................................................................... 96 3 Textual Resketchings: Restructuring the Text, Reshaping the Ending ........................ 98 3.1 The Post-Apartheid Body: Reknitting South Africa in Titus Andronicus .......... 101 3.2 Cressida’s Silences: Unheard Conversations in Troilus and Cressida ............... 125 3.3 Misogyny at High Noon: Stitching Equality onto The Taming of the Shrew ..... 143 3.4 Shakespearean Collages ...................................................................................... 160 4 Affective Audiences: Ending Images in Three of Des McAnuff’s Shakespearean Productions at the Stratford Festival .......................................................................... 164 4.1 Of Feathers and Freedom: Des McAnuff’s 2010 Production of The Tempest ... 168 4.2 Singing in a Wedding Dress: Des McAnuff’s