English Productions of Measure for Measure on Stage and Screen: The Play’s Indeterminacy and the Authority of Performance Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the Department of English and Creative Writing Lancaster University March, 2016 Rachod Nusen Declaration I declare that this thesis is my own work, and has not been submitted in substantially the same form for the award of a higher degree elsewhere. Acknowledgements First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Professor Alison Findlay. Without her advice, kindness and patience, I would be completely lost. It is magical how she could help a man who knew so little about Shakespeare in performance to complete this thesis. I am forever indebted to her. I am also indebted to Dr. Liz Oakley-Brown, Professor Geraldine Harris, Dr. Karen Juers-Munby, Dr. Kamilla Elliott, Professor Hilary Hinds and Professor Stuart Hampton-Reeves for their helpful suggestions during the annual, upgrade, mock viva and viva panels. I would like to acknowledge the Shakespeare Centre Library and Archive, the National Theatre Archive, the Shakespeare’s Globe Library and Archives, the Theatre Collection at the University of Bristol, the National Art Library and the Folger Shakespeare Library on where many of my materials are based. Moreover, I am extremely grateful to Mr. Phil Willmott who gave me an opportunity to interview him. I also would like to take this opportunity to show my appreciation to Thailand’s Office of the Higher Education Commission for finically supporting my study and Chiang Mai Rajabhat University for allowing me to pursue it. Last but not least, I thank my family for their love and unyielding support. Without them, every success would mean nothing. Rachod Nusen March 2016 English Productions of Measure for Measure on Stage and Screen: The Play’s Indeterminacy and the Authority of Performance Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the Department of English and Creative Writing Lancaster University March, 2016 Rachod Nusen Abstract This thesis offers the first full study of English productions of Measure for Measure on stage and screen from the Jacobean period to the early twenty-first century, based on archival research examining primary sources such as prompt books, video recordings and photographs. Because of its ambiguity and open silences, Measure for Measure is an ideal text to demonstrate W. B. Worthen’s thesis that, in performance, meanings are produced through various theatrical factors which necessarily go beyond the text. In this thesis, I argue that the ambiguity of Measure for Measure maximises its potential in production to reflect social and political climates of the time, anticipate changes and shape spectators’ perceptions of difficult issues such as authority, morality and gender politics. This argument is supported through my investigation into archival research which reveals how social context influenced productions and how those productions, in turn, shaped future productions and society. The Introduction argues that Measure for Measure is an ideal text to demonstrate Worthen’s concepts that the ‘work’ is always absent, and that ‘Shakespeare’ and the words in the text are not the most important sources of meaning. There are many crucial gaps in the text that performances need to fill. The Introduction analyses space, audience, actor and scenography as important factors which shape meaning and effect. In the first chapter, I argue that, because of its indeterminacy, in the early modern period, Measure for Measure helped not only to reaffirm the absolute authority of the monarchy but also to cultivate scepticism towards it, and how spectators at Whitehall and the Globe read performances would have depended on the conditions of the playing venues, spectators’ social statuses, gender and religious beliefs. Chapter Two argues that, in adapting the text of Measure for Measure or transcoding it into a different, two-dimensional media of the screen, the adaptor sets himself up as a rival authority to that of Shakespeare and, in consequence, changes our perception of the ‘work’. The adaptations of Measure for Measure from the Restoration to the modern period, both on stage and on screen, are covered in this chapter. Chapter Three argues that performance spaces have a strong impact on playgoers’ reactions towards performances and the spectators’ attitudes towards the genre and issues of authority and morality. This chapter focuses on the ‘Elizabethan’ revival productions of William Poel, arguing that it contributed to the view of Measure for Measure as a ‘problem play’; the production by John Dove, which revived its reputation as a comedy, and modern touring productions. Chapter Four argues that productions of Measure for Measure from the Georgian period to the 1960s tried to solve the play’s ambiguous treatment of morality, authority, gender politics and ‘vulgarity’ and, in so doing, such productions reflected, anticipated and shaped not only ‘Shakespeare’ but also society. The final chapter argues that, as publicly-funded theatres, the Royal Shakespeare Company and the National Theatre have a commitment to speak to the nation and, due to their agendas and policies, the productions of Measure for Measure after 1970 at the National successfully engaged with contemporary issues of gender politics, racial equality and state power while the Royal Shakespeare Company largely failed to engage with these difficult issues. List of Illustrations Page Fig. 1. John Webb’s plan for Florimène (1635). 60 John H. Astington, English Court Theatre, 1558-1642 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), p. 181. Fig. 2. Introductory image of Vienna in Desmond Davis’s 125 Measure for Measure (1979). Desmond Davis, dir. Measure for Measure (BBC, 1979). Fig. 3. Christopher Strauli’s Claudio at his ‘Has he affections in him’. 126 Ibid. Fig. 4. Kate Nelligan’s Isabella during the first interview. 127 Ibid. Fig. 5. Shots from the second interview scene. 128 Ibid. Fig. 6. Ellis Jones’s Elbow at his ‘the house is a respected house’. 130 Ibid. Fig. 7. Frank Middlemass’s Pompey at his ‘I am as well acquainted here’. 130 Ibid. Fig. 8. The crowd cheered Escalus and Lucio to persecute 131 the ‘meddling friar’. Ibid. Fig. 9. Tim Pigott-Smith’s Angelo delivered his soliloquy to the mirror. 132 Ibid. Fig. 10. The beginning of the trial scene. 133 Ibid. Fig. 11. Theatrical stage in the trial scene. 134 Ibid. Fig. 12. Scene One in David Thacker’s Measure for Measure (1994). 136 David Thacker, dir. Measure for Measure (BBC, 1994). Fig. 13. Shots from Thacker’s trial scene. 137 Ibid. Fig. 14. Beginning shots in Bob Komar’s Measure for Measure (2006). 142 Bob Komar, dir. Measure for Measure (Press on Features and Lucky Strike, 2006). Fig. 15. Rogers’s Isabella at ‘Could great men thunder’. 143 Ibid. Fig. 16. Simon Brandon’s Claudio at ‘Death is a fearful thing’. 145 Ibid. Fig. 17. Komar’s trial scene. 145 Ibid. Fig. 18. Shot at Isabella’s ‘Most bounteous, sir’. 146 Ibid. Fig. 19. William Poel’s Measure for Measure, Royalty Theatre, 1893. 154 http://shakespeare.berkeley.edu/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core%3AShowItem &g2_itemId=15178&g2_imageViewsIndex=1 [accessed 4 May 2015]. Fig. 20. Platea and Locus on the New Globe stage. 166 http://theshakespeareblog.com/2012/12/discussing-the-evidence-for-shakespeares- theatre-andrew-gurr-stanley-wells-and-reg-foakes/ [accessed 4 May 2015]. Fig. 21. Mistress Overdone and her colleagues on the landing, 180 Tyrone Guthrie’s Measure for Measure, 1966. Tyrone Guthrie, Production Photographs, Measure for Measure, Touring Production, 1966-1967 (Theatre Collection, Bristol) BOV/P/000229). Fig. 22. Guthrie’s trial scene. 180 Ibid. Fig. 23. Nunn’s trial scene on the cobbled street beside the prison 186 with no wall, Measure for Measure, 1991. Nunn, Trevor, Black and White Productions Photos, Measure for Measure, Touring Production, 1991-1992 (Shakespeare Library Centre and Archive, Stratford) RSC/PR/3/1/1991/MEA1. Fig. 24. Bare space at the Cottesloe Theatre. 191 http://ntfuture.nationaltheatre.org.uk/news/work-continues-former-cottesloe- theatre [accessed 4 May 2015]. Fig. 25. Statue of Shakespeare in Westminster Abbey. 199 http://www.westminster-abbey.org/our-history/people/william-shakespeare [accessed 4 May 2015]. Fig. 26. Illustration of Shakespeare’s statue in Alexander Pope’s edition. 200 http://www.baumanrarebooks.com/rare-books/shakespeare-alexander- pope/works-of-shakespear/86175.aspx [accessed 4 May 2015]. Fig. 27. Advertisement of 7 March 1726 on Lincoln Inn’s Fields’s 201 Measure for Measure and an afterpiece. Daily Post, 7 March 1726. Fig. 28. The ‘haughty’ Yates as Isabella. 207 http://luna.folger.edu/luna/servlet/detail/FOLGERCM1~6~6~294446~122460:Mr s--Yates-in-the-character-of-Isab [accessed 4 May 2015]. Fig. 29. Sarah Siddons’s ‘sainted’ Isabella in a white dress. 214 http://www.steveartgallery.se/special/size-44564.html [accessed 4 May 2015]. Fig. 30. Interior of Sadler’s Wells. 230 Russell Jackson, Victorian Theatre: A New Mermaid Background Book (London: A&C Black, 1989), p. 263. Fig. 31. Painting of William Bridges-Adams’s set of Measure for Measure 241 in 1931 at the Memorial Temporary Theatre. William Bridges-Adams, Ordinary Files Photographs, Measure for Measure, Memorial Temporary Theatre, Stratford, 1931 (Shakespeare Library Centre and Archive, Stratford) RSC/PR/3/1/1931/MEA1. Fig. 32. Bridges-Adams’s trial scene. 241 Ibid. Fig. 33. Anthony Nicholls’s Duke in Anthony Quayle’s 244 Measure for Measure, 1956, Shakespeare Memorial Theatre. Anthony Quayle, Ordinary Files Photographs, Measure for Measure, Shakespeare Memorial Theatre, Stratford, 1956 (Shakespeare Library Centre and Archive, Stratford) RSC/PR/3/1/1956/MEA1. Fig. 34. Marius Goring’s repentant, ‘pathetic’ Angelo knelt to 245 Tom Fleming’s ‘stern’ Duke in the last scene in John Blatchley’s Measure for Measure, 1962, Royal Shakespeare Theatre.