University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties.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.