DOCSLIB.ORG

The Shakespearean Performances of Sir John Gielgud

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Shakespearean Performances of Sir John Gielgud University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. 2nd of 2 files Chapters 4-6 Appendices and Bibliography THE SHAKESPEAREAN PERFORMANCES OF SIR JOHN GIELGUD by Robert James Frost Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of the University of Birmingham. The Shakespeare Institute October 1983 243 CHAPTER FOUR MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING Much Ado About Nothing is to be distinguished from the other comedies of Shakespeare that are its nearest contemporaries because of its concern with one circumscribed social unit. Unlike As You Like It,Twelfth Night, The Merchant of Venice and A Midsummer Night's Dream,which play off different kinds of worlds against each other, the problems arising in one being resolved by a retreat to the next or alternatively by a foreign visitor, the action of Much Ado About Nothing is focussed on a single, indigenous group. (That Don Pedro,strictly speaking,is an outsider from Aragon seems less important than the fact that he and the other guests freely interact with Leonato's household, making themselves at home there.) If the intervention of Dogberry and the Watch is required to restore harmony, then Dogberry, although of a different class, is quite clearly part of the civic life of Messina. All this tends to reinforce the play's preoccupation with mistaken identities, indicating, not so much a failure of perception of the individual, but an inordinate willingness to trust gossip, scandal and hearsay evidence above personal intuition. As private persons,they depend heavily on social appraisals to modify their view of reality. Suitably enough, Beatrice and Benedick, the eccentric rebels who defy social convention, are brought to heel by means of a collective conspiracy whose very operation asserts their ccmnunal integration. The wolves have prey'd, and look, the gentle day, Before the wheels of Phoebus, round about Dapples the drowsy east with spots of grey. (V.3.25) 244 says Don Pedro just before the bonds of the loving couples are publicly ratified in marriage and the temporary rift in relationships caused by Claudio's mistrust of Hero is repaired. The closed figure of the circle described by the wheels of the sun's chariot writes large the direction of the ebb and flow of human intercourse within this small, self-contained society and is recapitulated in the patterned steps of the players when they are called upon to dance. In the theatre,frequent revivals of the play dating from the restor­ ation have testified to an engagement with its themes - especially in the unusual opportunities that the sexual antagonism of Beatrice and Benedick have offered for partnered actors and actresses. During the Victorian period Much Ado About Nothing vied with A Midsummer Night's Dream and The Merchant of Venice as Shakespeare's most popular comedy owing to the performances of Irving and Ellen Terry. If theatrical presentations have often failed to preserve the overall shape and balance of Shakespeare's design,tending to isolate certain features and neglect others, then they have repeatedly demonstrated the centrality of the festive spirit and a convivial mood distilled in the activities of masquing, singing, courtship and dancing and the power these have to generate theatrical intimacy. 2 Gielgud's own productions have consistently developed this vein. After playing Benedick at the Old Vie in 1931, directed by Harcourt Williams, G-'elgud went on to direct the play himself in 1949 at the Shakespeare Memorial Theatre with Anthony Quayle and Diana Wynyard taking the parts of Benedick and Beatrice. The success of this production led to its revival in the following year, Gielgud himself and Peggy Ashcroft stepping into the two leading roles. In 1952 the production was revived in London 245 at the Phoenix Theatre where Gielgud continued to play Bendick, this time alongside Diana Wynyard, who returned to take on her original part. In 1955 the production toured England and then Europe with George Devine's con­ troversial King Lear designed by Isarau Noguchi, Peggy Ashcroft being called upon once more to play Beatrice. The production had its final revival in 1959 in America at the Lunt Fontanne Theatre, New York, with Margaret Leigfrton partnering Gielgud. Thus, in all, the production was revived on four occasions over a period of ten years after its initial evolution at Stratford, employing, on the whole, the same lavish sets and costumes. However, examination of the three promptbooks (1949, 1950, 1955) shows that in that time the staging was altered, the text was rearranged, speeches were interpreted differently and new business was introduced to suit the new actors and actresses who were assembled to make up successively different casts. On every occasion the play was revived Gielgud redirected it, often introducing novel ideas into his own performance, so that the playing was kept fresh by constant innovation. This, in turn, led to changing emphases of character and theme. In the light of these developments, to treat this series of presentations exclusively either as one production, subject to revival, or a number of independent productions is unsatisfactory. Against a background of continuity supplied by the decor and Gielgud's association with the play, features of change may be examined to represent the altering shape of Much Ado About Nothing in the context of performance. The setting for Har court Williams's production at the Old Vie consisted of two pillars backed by a vine-covered trellis with an arch in the centre. In the eavesdropping scenes Beatrice and Benedick hid behind these scanty pillars instead of arbors (Pictures in Everyman, 26.3.1931, The Daily Telegraph, 8.11.1932). The modest simplicity of design 246 threw into relief the brilliant costumes of the players, some of whom flaunted richly embroidered handkerchiefs, and ensured brisk continuity of action. The director was especially concerned to bring out the atmosphere of vivacity and courtly elegance, at the same time treating the broader comic elements with restraint. Characteristically, business was pared down and attention was focussed on the fluency of the dialogue with some stylization in the acting being used to complement the highly finished,ingenious contrivance in the puns, conceits and double entendres. Ivor Brown thought that more could have been done to accentuate the artificiality of the comedy. The setting seemed to him rather 'dowdy' against the glittering, verbal mosaic (Observer, 22.3.1931). But The Morning Post (17.3.1931) appreciated the unpretentiousness of an 'entirely adequate pillared setting, which served with slight alteration for garden, church or courthouse', a 'rich mosaic of pecularly beautiful costumes' and the swift scene changes 'which helped to clip the comedy in with the drama and so give variety and lightness'. Even though, according to Brown, insufficient notice was taken of 'the frankly fantastic air of the text, Harcourt Williams simply allowing his story to run naturally', The Morning Post reviewer observed that the audience were not allowed to feel too much the poignancy of Hero's pli^it. The Times (17.3.1931) concurred with this view, implying that a certain distance was maintained in the delineation of the narrative generally that qualified the audience's identification with the characters. Ibis was maintained partly through the formalized speech and attitudes of the actors: Mr. Harcourt Williams knew that we should come, not to be stirred by the villainies of Don John and the sombre melodrama that so suddenly envelops Hero, but to hear bouts of exquisite talking. Accordingly he saw to it that the acting should concern itself less with miming than with declamation and deportment; that it should reproduce the easy flowing pattern of spontaneous and finished talk before it sougjit to elucidate character or imitate life. And the intentions of the producer have been fairly carried out by an admirable cast. 247 Going on to Gielgud's Benedick and Dorothy Green's Beatrice, the critic noted that if these characters were more fully rounded than the others and filled with the peculiar life of the Renaissance, then it was still impossible to get on fully intimate terms with them. Their speaking appeared to suggest a life style, but in reality relied upon hints and nuances working on the imagination to supply this further dimension to their theatrical existence. These hints were the essence of the play and both Gielgud and Dorothy Green captured this in their interpretations, in particular in the way they incorporated occasional hesitations in their speech to convey the impression of spontaneity as their minds seemed suddenly to hit upon the perfect expression for the moment. The Curtain (April, 1931) described them as declaiming 'their way through Shakespeare's comedy which is an artificial affair. The plot is operatic, a heavy setting for the gems of wit'. The Yorkshire Post (18.3.1931) would have liked a more subtle appreciation of the romance of the pair when they are openly lovers, adding that they were in full carmand of the humour of the parts. Indicating that the balance of the production may have been slightly unequal, the reviewer mentioned that the audience watched solemnly the trials and tribulations of Claudio and Hero, which were rather 'fatuous 1 , although they brightened up perceptibly in the Benedick situations as they did with Dogberry and the Watch.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cinematic Hamlet Arose from Two Convictions
    INTRODUCTION Cinematic Hamlet arose from two convictions. The first was a belief, confirmed by the responses of hundreds of university students with whom I have studied the films, that theHamlet s of Lau- rence Olivier, Franco Zeffirelli, Kenneth Branagh, and Michael Almereyda are remarkably success- ful films.1 Numerous filmHamlet s have been made using Shakespeare’s language, but only the four included in this book represent for me out- standing successes. One might admire the fine acting of Nicol Williamson in Tony Richard- son’s 1969 production, or the creative use of ex- treme close-ups of Ian McKellen in Peter Wood’s Hallmark Hall of Fame television production of 1 Introduction 1971, but only four English-language films have thoroughly transformed Shakespeare’s theatrical text into truly effective moving pictures. All four succeed as popularizing treatments accessible to what Olivier’s collabora- tor Alan Dent called “un-Shakespeare-minded audiences.”2 They succeed as highly intelligent and original interpretations of the play capable of delight- ing any audience. Most of all, they are innovative and eloquent translations from the Elizabethan dramatic to the modern cinematic medium. It is clear that these directors have approached adapting Hamlet much as actors have long approached playing the title role, as the ultimate challenge that allows, as Almereyda observes, one’s “reflexes as a film-maker” to be “tested, battered and bettered.”3 An essential factor in the success of the films after Olivier’s is the chal- lenge of tradition. The three films that followed the groundbreaking 1948 version are what a scholar of film remakes labels “true remakes”: works that pay respectful tribute to their predecessors while laboring to surpass them.4 As each has acknowledged explicitly and as my analyses demonstrate, the three later filmmakers self-consciously defined their places in a vigorously evolving tradition of Hamlet films.
    [Show full text]
  • Text Pages Layout MCBEAN.Indd
    Introduction The great photographer Angus McBean has stage performers of this era an enduring power been celebrated over the past fifty years chiefly that carried far beyond the confines of their for his romantic portraiture and playful use of playhouses. surrealism. There is some reason. He iconised Certainly, in a single session with a Yankee Vivien Leigh fully three years before she became Cleopatra in 1945, he transformed the image of Scarlett O’Hara and his most breathtaking image Stratford overnight, conjuring from the Prospero’s was adapted for her first appearance in Gone cell of his small Covent Garden studio the dazzle with the Wind. He lit the touchpaper for Audrey of the West End into the West Midlands. (It is Hepburn’s career when he picked her out of a significant that the then Shakespeare Memorial chorus line and half-buried her in a fake desert Theatre began transferring its productions to advertise sun-lotion. Moreover he so pleased to London shortly afterwards.) In succeeding The Beatles when they came to his studio that seasons, acknowledged since as the Stratford he went on to immortalise them on their first stage’s ‘renaissance’, his black-and-white magic LP cover as four mop-top gods smiling down continued to endow this rebirth with a glamour from a glass Olympus that was actually just a that was crucial in its further rise to not just stairwell in Soho. national but international pre-eminence. However, McBean (the name is pronounced Even as his photographs were created, to rhyme with thane) also revolutionised British McBean’s Shakespeare became ubiquitous.
    [Show full text]
  • Waiting for Godot by Samuel Beckett
    PROSCENIUM Waiting For Godot By Samuel Beckett Waiting For Godot For Waiting Wednesday 16th January to Saturday 19th January 2008 Compass Theatre, Ickenham PROSCENIUM Waiting For Godot By Samuel Beckett Waiting For Godot For Waiting Wednesday 16th January to Saturday 19th January 2008 Compass Theatre, Ickenham WAITING FOR GODOT The Author 1906 Born on Good Friday, April 13th, at Foxrock, near Dublin, son of a quantity surveyor. Both parents were Protestants. BY SAMUEL BECKETT 1920-3 Educated at Portora Royal School, Ulster. 1923-7 Trinity College, Dublin. In BA examinations placed first in first class in Modern Literature (French and Italian). Summer 1926: first contact with France, a bicycle tour of the chateaux of the Loire. 1927-8 Taught for two terms at Campbell College, Belfast. CAST: 1928-30 Exchange lecturer in Paris. Meets James Joyce. 1930 First separately published work, a poem Whoroscope. Four terms as assistant lecturer in French, Trinity College, Dublin. Estragon.....................................................................................................Duncan Sykes Helped translate Joyce’s Anna Livia Plurabella into French. 1931 Performance of first dramatic work, Le Kid, a parody sketch Vladimir ................................................................................................ Mark Sutherland after Corneille. Proust, his only major piece of literary criticism, Pozzo .............................................................................................................. Robert Ewen published.
    [Show full text]
  • A Lively Theatre There's a Revolution Afoot in Theatre Design, Believes
    A LIVELY THEatRE There’s a revolution afoot in theatre design, believes architectural consultant RICHARD PILBROW, that takes its cue from the three-dimensional spaces of centuries past The 20th century has not been a good time for theatre architecture. In the years from the 1920s to the 1970s, the world became littered with overlarge, often fan-shaped auditoriums that are barren in feeling and lacking in intimacy--places that are seldom conducive to that interplay between actor and audience that lies at the heart of the theatre experience. Why do theatres of the 19th century feel so much more “theatrical”? And why do so many actors and audiences prefer the old to the new? More generally, does theatre architecture really matter? There are some that believe that as soon as the house lights dim, the audience only needs to see and hear what happens on the stage. Perhaps audiences don’t hiss, boo and shout during a performance any more, but most actors and directors know that an audience’s reaction critically affects the performance. The nature of the theatre space, the configuration of the audience and the intimacy engendered by the form of the auditorium can powerfully assist in the formation of that reaction. A theatre auditorium may be a dead space or a lively one. Theatres designed like cinemas or lecture halls can lay a dead hand on the theatre experience. Happily, the past 20 years have seen a revolution in attitude to theatre design. No longer is a theatre only a place for listening or viewing.
    [Show full text]
  • Do You Think You're What They Say You Are? Reflections on Jesus Christ Superstar
    Journal of Religion & Film Volume 3 Issue 2 October 1999 Article 2 October 1999 Do You Think You're What They Say You Are? Reflections on Jesus Christ Superstar Mark Goodacre University of Birmingham, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/jrf Recommended Citation Goodacre, Mark (1999) "Do You Think You're What They Say You Are? Reflections on Jesus Christ Superstar," Journal of Religion & Film: Vol. 3 : Iss. 2 , Article 2. Available at: https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/jrf/vol3/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UNO. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Religion & Film by an authorized editor of DigitalCommons@UNO. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Do You Think You're What They Say You Are? Reflections on Jesus Christ Superstar Abstract Jesus Christ Superstar (dir. Norman Jewison, 1973) is a hybrid which, though influenced yb Jesus films, also transcends them. Its rock opera format and its focus on Holy Week make it congenial to the adaptation of the Gospels and its characterization of a plausible, non-stereotypical Jesus capable of change sets it apart from the traditional films and aligns it with The Last Temptation of Christ and Jesus of Montreal. It uses its depiction of Jesus as a means not of reverence but of interrogation, asking him questions by placing him in a context full of overtones of the culture of the early 1970s, English-speaking West, attempting to understand him by converting him into a pop-idol, with adoring groupies among whom Jesus struggles, out of context, in an alien culture that ultimately crushes him, crucifies him and leaves him behind.
    [Show full text]
  • Shakespeare on Film, Video & Stage
    William Shakespeare on Film, Video and Stage Titles in bold red font with an asterisk (*) represent the crème de la crème – first choice titles in each category. These are the titles you’ll probably want to explore first. Titles in bold black font are the second- tier – outstanding films that are the next level of artistry and craftsmanship. Once you have experienced the top tier, these are where you should go next. They may not represent the highest achievement in each genre, but they are definitely a cut above the rest. Finally, the titles which are in a regular black font constitute the rest of the films within the genre. I would be the first to admit that some of these may actually be worthy of being “ranked” more highly, but it is a ridiculously subjective matter. Bibliography Shakespeare on Silent Film Robert Hamilton Ball, Theatre Arts Books, 1968. (Reissued by Routledge, 2016.) Shakespeare and the Film Roger Manvell, Praeger, 1971. Shakespeare on Film Jack J. Jorgens, Indiana University Press, 1977. Shakespeare on Television: An Anthology of Essays and Reviews J.C. Bulman, H.R. Coursen, eds., UPNE, 1988. The BBC Shakespeare Plays: Making the Televised Canon Susan Willis, The University of North Carolina Press, 1991. Shakespeare on Screen: An International Filmography and Videography Kenneth S. Rothwell, Neil Schuman Pub., 1991. Still in Movement: Shakespeare on Screen Lorne M. Buchman, Oxford University Press, 1991. Shakespeare Observed: Studies in Performance on Stage and Screen Samuel Crowl, Ohio University Press, 1992. Shakespeare and the Moving Image: The Plays on Film and Television Anthony Davies & Stanley Wells, eds., Cambridge University Press, 1994.
    [Show full text]
  • “Revenge in Shakespeare's Plays”
    “REVENGE IN SHAKESPEARE’S PLAYS” “MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING” – LECTURE/CLASS WRITTEN: In the second half of 1598 or 99 -- no later because the role of Dogberry was sometimes replaced by the name of “Will Kemp”, the actor who always played the role; Kemp left the Lord Chamberlain’s Men in 1599. AGE: 34-35 Years Old (B.1564-D.1616) CHRONO: Seventh in the line of Comedies after “The Two Gentlemen of Verona”, “The Comedy of Errors”, “Taming of the Shrew”, “Love’s Labours Lost”, “A Midsummer’s Night’s Dream”, “The Merchant of Venice”. QUARTO: A Quarto edition of the play appeared in 1600. GENRE: “Tragicomic” SOURCE: “Completely and entirely unhistorical” VERSION: The play is “Shakespeare’s earliest version of the more serious story of the man who mistakenly believes his partner has been unfaithful to him”. (“Othello” for one.) SUCCESS: There are no records of early performances but there are “allusions to its success.” HIGHLIGHT: The comedy was revived in 1613 for a Court performance at Whitehall before King James, his daughter Princess Elizabeth and her new husband in May 1613. AFTER: Oddly, the play was “performed only sporadically until David Garrick’s acclaimed revival in 1748”. CRITICS: 1891 – A.B. Walkley: “a composite picture of the multifarious, seething, fermenting life, the polychromatic phantasmagoria of the Renaissance.” 1905 – George Bernard Shaw: “a hopeless story, pleasing only to lovers of the illustrated police papers BENEDICTS: Anthony Quayle, John Gielgud, Michael Redgrave, Donald Sinden BEATRICES: Peggy Ashcroft, Margaret Leighton, Judi Dench, Maggie Smith RECENT: There was “a boost in recent fortunes with the well-received 1993 film version directed by Kenneth Branagh and starring Branagh and Emma Thompson.” SETTING: Messina in northeastern Sicily at the narrow strait separating Sicily from Italy.
    [Show full text]
  • Shakespeare, William Shakespeare
    Shakespeare, William Shakespeare. Julius Caesar The Shakespeare Ralph Richardson, Anthony SRS Caedmon 3 VG/ Text Recording Society; Quayle, John Mills, Alan Bates, 230 Discs VG+ Howard Sackler, dir. Michael Gwynn Anthony And The Shakespeare Anthony Quayle, Pamela Brown, SRS Caedmon 3 VG+ Text Cleopatra Recording Society; Paul Daneman, Jack Gwillim 235 Discs Howard Sackler, dir. Great Scenes The Shakespeare Anthony Quayle, Pamela Brown, TC- Caedmon 1 VG/ Text from Recording Society; Paul Daneman, Jack Gwillim 1183 Disc VG+ Anthony And Howard Sackler, dir. Cleopatra Titus The Shakespeare Anthony Quayle, Maxine SRS Caedmon 3 VG+ Text Andronicus Recording Society; Audley, Michael Horden, Colin 227 Discs Howard Sackler, dir. Blakely, Charles Gray Pericles The Shakespeare Paul Scofield, Felix Aylmer, Judi SRS Caedmon 3 VG+ Text Recording Society; Dench, Miriam Karlin, Charles 237 Discs Howard Sackler, dir. Gray Cymbeline The Shakespeare Claire Bloom, Boris Karloff, SRS- Caedmon 3 VG+ Text Recording Society; Pamela Brown, John Fraser, M- Discs Howard Sackler, dir. Alan Dobie 236 The Comedy The Shakespeare Alec McCowen, Anna Massey, SRS Caedmon 2 VG+ Text Of Errors Recording Society; Harry H. Corbett, Finlay Currie 205- Discs Howard Sackler, dir. S Venus And The Shakespeare Claire Bloom, Max Adrian SRS Caedmon 2 VG+ Text Adonis and A Recording Society; 240 Discs Lover's Howard Sackler, dir. Complaint Troylus And The Shakespeare Diane Cilento, Jeremy Brett, SRS Caedmon 3 VG+ Text Cressida Recording Society; Cyril Cusack, Max Adrian 234 Discs Howard Sackler, dir. King Richard The Shakespeare John Gielgud, Keith Michell and SRS Caedmon 3 VG+ Text II Recording Society; Leo McKern 216 Discs Peter Wood, dir.
    [Show full text]
  • Newsletter 19/06 DIGITAL EDITION Nr
    ISSN 1610-2606 ISSN 1610-2606 newsletter 19/06 DIGITAL EDITION Nr. 190 - September 2006 Michael J. Fox Christopher Lloyd LASER HOTLINE - Inh. Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Wolfram Hannemann, MBKS - Talstr. 3 - 70825 K o r n t a l Fon: 0711-832188 - Fax: 0711-8380518 - E-Mail: [email protected] - Web: www.laserhotline.de Newsletter 19/06 (Nr. 190) September 2006 editorial Hallo Laserdisc- und DVD-Fans, sein, mit der man alle Fans, die bereits ein lich zum 22. Bond-Film wird es bestimmt liebe Filmfreunde! Vorgängermodell teuer erworben haben, wieder ein nettes Köfferchen geben. Dann Was gibt es Neues aus Deutschland, den ärgern wird. Schick verpackt in einem ed- möglicherweise ja schon in komplett hoch- USA und Japan in Sachen DVD? Der vor- len Aktenkoffer präsentiert man alle 20 auflösender Form. Zur Stunde steht für den liegende Newsletter verrät es Ihnen. Wie offiziellen Bond-Abenteuer als jeweils 2- am 13. November 2006 in den Handel ge- versprochen haben wir in der neuen Ausga- DVD-Set mit bild- und tonmäßig komplett langenden Aktenkoffer noch kein Preis be wieder alle drei Länder untergebracht. restaurierten Fassungen. In der entspre- fest. Wer sich einen solchen sichern möch- Mit dem Nachteil, dass wieder einmal für chenden Presseerklärung heisst es dazu: te, der sollte aber nicht zögern und sein Grafiken kaum Platz ist. Dieses Mal ”Zweieinhalb Jahre arbeitete das MGM- Exemplar am besten noch heute vorbestel- mussten wir sogar auf Cover-Abbildungen Team unter Leitung von Filmrestaurateur len. Und wer nur an einzelnen Titeln inter- in der BRD-Sparte verzichten. Der John Lowry und anderen Visionären von essiert ist, den wird es freuen, dass es die Newsletter mag dadurch vielleicht etwas DTS Digital Images, dem Marktführer der Bond-Filme nicht nur als Komplettpaket ”trocken” wirken, bietet aber trotzdem den digitalen Filmrestauration, an der komplet- geben wird, sondern auch gleichzeitig als von unseren Lesern geschätzten ten Bildrestauration und peppte zudem alle einzeln erhältliche 2-DVD-Sets.
    [Show full text]
  • Roy Williams Has Been Quoted in the Guardian Saying: "We Only Ever Get
    Comedy, drama and black Britain – An interview with Paulette Randall Eva Ulrike Pirker British theatre director Paulette Randall once said about herself and her work, "I'm not a politician, and I never set out to be one. What I do believe is that if we are in the business of theatre, of art, of creating, then that has to be at the forefront. The product, the play, has to be paramount."1 A look at her creative output, however, shows her political engagement in place – not so much in the sense of taking a proffered side, but certainly in the sense of insisting on participation in the public debate. To name just a few of her recent projects: Her 2003 production of Urban Afro Saxons at the Theatre Royal Stratford East was a timely intervention in the public debate about Britishness. The staging of James Baldwin's Blues for Mr Charlie (2004) at the Tricycle Theatre provided a thought-provoking viewing experience for a British audience in the wake of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry. For the Trycicle and Talawa Theatre Company, Randall has staged four of August Wilson's plays. Her most recent theatre project was a production of Mustapha Matura's adaptation of Chekhov's Three Sisters at the Birmingham Repertory Theatre in 2006.2 However, Paulette Randall also has a professional life outside the theatre, where she makes her impact on the landscape of British sitcoms as a television producer. The following interview focuses not so much on specific productions, but more generally on her views on television, Britain's theatre culture, and the representations of Britain's diverse society.
    [Show full text]
  • HOBA Newsletter 2015
    Heath Old Boys Association Newsletter Summer 2015 Another special year very year is special at The Crossley Heath School but 2014 has been particularly memorable. E Looking back over 2014, this has been a year of heritage, history and tradition as we celebrated 150 years of education in the Crossley and Porter building. But, of course, our present-day school has another strong thread of history because in 1985, Crossley and Porter merged with Heath Grammar School, founded by Dr John Favour, Vicar of Halifax, in 1600. During the course of 2014, I have learned so much about Friday, 25 September 2015 Reunion Dinner at the origins of the school and feel even more strongly Heath RUFC, West Vale, Halifax 6.45pm AGM that I am a custodian, here for a short period of time, 7 for 7.45pm Reunion Dinner playing my part in keeping the school secure for the Dress: Lounge suits/smart casual. future. £17 per person payable to HOBA via Jon Hamera Mob: 07770 697176/Duncan Turner. The birthday gave us a wonderful opportunity to come aClick on the magenta text for the link or email address. together as a community and enjoy many activities. I shall always remember climbing the precarious stairs In a world where it seems harder than ever for children into the clock tower and actually writing my name on to be happy, where bullying is inescapable because of the wall alongside the names of Head Boys from the social media, where Childline gets more calls of distress past. We have deposited a time capsule in the tower, than ever before — as a school we have an important hidden from view, which we hope will be discovered role to play.
    [Show full text]
  • Theatre Archive Project Archive
    University of Sheffield Library. Special Collections and Archives Ref: MS 349 Title: Theatre Archive Project: Archive Scope: A collection of interviews on CD-ROM with those visiting or working in the theatre between 1945 and 1968, created by the Theatre Archive Project (British Library and De Montfort University); also copies of some correspondence Dates: 1958-2008 Level: Fonds Extent: 3 boxes Name of creator: Theatre Archive Project Administrative / biographical history: Beginning in 2003, the Theatre Archive Project is a major reinvestigation of British theatre history between 1945 and 1968, from the perspectives of both the members of the audience and those working in the theatre at the time. It encompasses both the post-war theatre archives held by the British Library, and also their post-1968 scripts collection. In addition, many oral history interviews have been carried out with visitors and theatre practitioners. The Project began at the University of Sheffield and later transferred to De Montfort University. The archive at Sheffield contains 170 CD-ROMs of interviews with theatre workers and audience members, including Glenda Jackson, Brian Rix, Susan Engel and Michael Frayn. There is also a collection of copies of correspondence between Gyorgy Lengyel and Michel and Suria Saint Denis, and between Gyorgy Lengyel and Sir John Gielgud, dating from 1958 to 1999. Related collections: De Montfort University Library Source: Deposited by Theatre Archive Project staff, 2005-2009 System of arrangement: As received Subjects: Theatre Conditions of access: Available to all researchers, by appointment Restrictions: None Copyright: According to document Finding aids: Listed MS 349 THEATRE ARCHIVE PROJECT: ARCHIVE 349/1 Interviews on CD-ROM (Alphabetical listing) Interviewee Abstract Interviewer Date of Interview Disc no.
    [Show full text]