At 7pm tonight we’re having a showing at the Southern Theatre.
This will be a demonstration of our progress so far – including a performance of the rough draft of Act 1 and readings from Act 2. Followed by a discussion with the audience in which John (me) and Jon (not me) will talk about our process of approaching the play.
Today Jon has been guiding the actors through various ways to say “The King Is Dead”. We’re making a lot of discoveries about simplicity and clarity, and ways to use specificity and groups to give greater significance to the words. It’s interesting to discover what sort of stories naturally emerge from our perception of the delivery.
It’s a fascinating process of direct manipulation and audience feedback, which has rather naturally led to explorations of procession and ceremony.
Watching this work sparks several ideas in my mind about how we create realities on stage. It is inherently less critical that we mimic real life, or imitate the real way that the Medieval royal court functioned, but that we-the-artists create a believable reality that we-the-audience are willing to accept as the truth.
So, a lot of things have changed in the past couple months.
In light of the Southern Theater’s sudden financial restructuring, we’ve made the difficult decision to step back from a full production of The King Is Dead at this time.
We initially chose the Southern as a home for the work based upon both aesthetic and practical considerations. The aesthetic reasons are probably clear – it’s a beautiful venue with a rich history. The practical reasons were because of Jon Ferguson Theater’s successful history of working in that venue, and the considerable visibility and production support that the Southern could offer its artists. When word broke about the current crisis at the Southern Theater, we remained committed to producing the show at the Southern. But as the future of the venue became uncertain and the Southern has needed to pare back their production support, we did not feel that it was in our best interest as producers to proceed when there are so many uncertainties.
We initially considered moving the production to another venue, but could find no venue that was both appropriate and affordable within the timeframe we needed. Moreover, because The King Is Dead now faces increased fundraising challenges in light of the Southern’s situation, we felt it would be best to postpone the production until we could do it without scrambling – especially since such considerations would undoubtedly impact our ability to focus on the creation of the play.
We are looking to schedule a production of The King Is Dead in the spring of 2012, and are looking for a good home for the show where it will receive the support and visibility that it deserves. If you have already purchased tickets through the Southern Theater, we sincerely apologize for the cost and inconvenience. Your ticket will be honored when the production finally occurs.
In the meantime, we are having a Developmental Workshop from June 6 – 17, with a showing of The King Is Dead Production-In-Process on Saturday, June 18th at 7pm. The presentation will occur at the Southern Theater and donations will be taken at the door to support the future life of this project.
Thanks for your patience and understanding!
John Heimbuch, playwright
There’s this new movie coming out, Anonymous, which will give Shakespearean authorship hypothesists something to gad about for a few more years. You can watch the trailer here.
I respect that the story of Edward De Vere is extremely movie-worthy, and in retrospect it’s sort of surprising that it took this long for the Shakespeare authorship debate to make it to the screen. Personally, I can’t allow myself to believe that anyone other than William Shakespeare himself (and an occasional playwright collaborator) actually wrote the plays. Moreover, I’m actually sort of offended by the idea that others believe someone else wrote them — which probably says more about me than it does about the debate. Let me quickly summarize the history of the Shakespeare authorship debate:
After his death in 1616, Shakespeare’s works were collected and published all together as a single edition. This was something of an anomaly for the era, but it was undertaken by several members of the King’s Men who personally held the work in high regard (and if the introduction is any indication, also Shakespeare himself). These works were occasionally performed after his death, but had already ebbed out of popularity by the time the stages were shut down in 1640. After the restoration, Shakespeare’s works were occasionally performed – but they were hardly the preeminent gems of the English canon. It wasn’t until David Garrick staged a “Shakespeare Jubilee” in the mid-1700s that Shakespeare became the benchmark author for classical actors to strut their stuff. From then on Shakespeare rose steadily in the public esteem until the late 19th century when his works were considered the Greatest Plays in the English Language. The term Bardolatry was coined to describe this fervor. Shakespeare was regularly performed on stages across the English-speaking world. But notably, the obsession with Shakespeare was principally one of the middle classes, and used to some extent as a status symbol. Well-rounded families read Shakespeare together. Middle class families attended the theatre, and had debates about the different actors in the roles. The quality of a city was judged by whether it had a theatre suitable for touring players to perform in. Shakespeare nestled very nicely into the rise of the Victorian moral aesthetic and the growth of the middle class, and his influence can be found in many (or most) author’s works from that era.
It was in this fervent pro-Shakespeare environment that the authorship debate first emerged. In 1856 Putnam’s Monthly published the article by Delia Bacon called “William Shakspeare and His Plays; An Enquiry Concerning Them” which proposed Francis Bacon as the author of the work. Delia Bacon was not a trained scholar, and the academic community treated the work as something of a joke – but nevertheless the idea took hold. Francis Bacon was held in high esteem by the Victorian world, and other popular books at the time were attacking the authorship of the Bible and Homer’s The Odyssey. Delia Bacon’s article was followed by other works of pop-speculation. These works were repeatedly followed by criticism from the academic community for lazy scholarship, logical flaws, and false conclusions, but in the popular consciousness the genie was out of the bottle. Things probably reached their greatest head in 1893, when someone published a cipher-wheel claiming that he had decoded Francis Bacon’s autobiography WITHIN the complete works of William Shakespeare. (Turns out when you decode each letter separately you can get any result you want.) Trials were held to debate the authorship question, and all-in-all everything got a bit silly and out-of-control. Support for Bacon waned as the 19th century ended, and Edward De Vere was put forward as a golden calf to take his place.
In some ways, it was sort of inevitable. Shakespeare’s rise as English’ Greatest Author was a by-product of Victorian morality, so just as Darwin’s theories had assaulted the bible and Marx’ theories assaulted the imperialist class structure, it seems only natural that Shakespeare should also be put under attack. In many ways the debates are about social class. It is argued that a young traveling actor from the provinces could not have written the greatest works of the English language. It is unfathomable for some people to believe that a theatre manager without higher-university training, powerful connections, or a place in the court would have had the resources and ability to write such excellent plays through sheer practice and imagination.
But I have to believe that he could.
Met with John Heimbuch this morning to discuss final casting of the show. Had tea and fried eggs on toast with marmite. Drew a map chart of the characters in the court and where they land in terms of their status. This is helpful. For me. I think John liked it too. He said he did. But saying something and feeling something are two different things sometimes. At least I think so.
An extremely important element / relationship in the story evolved – a place for pure love amidst the brutal chaos. And I tend to tear up a little when I think of my army of soldiers as fodder. We will kill them all many times.
John and I agreed that an egg would be a big deal in this world and that the word cutpurse is a great one (not in this play though). Well maybe – John doesn’t want to take that off the table right now… I think we have bigger fish to fry.
From Medieval Warfare:
“The devastation of the countryside was a normal part of medieval warfare, and fire was the soldiers’ main tool in the work of havoc. A woman might have her house burned as retribution for failure to pay protection money to enemy garrisons, or for failure to pay taxes or levies to support ‘friendly’ garrisons, or by an invading army bent on provoking the defending army into giving battle, or by a defending army trying to create a wasteland in which the invaders could not operate.”
Later it says:
“…the direct inflicting of misery and harm on the enemy population was one of the three main tools in the hands of the medieval commander, along with battle and siege. This may seem surprising given the widespread modern idea of the late middle ages as a time of high chivalry, but the contradiction is a false one, for nothing in the late medieval conception of chivalry forbade direct attacks on the ‘civilian’ populace…”
Truly it was a glorious time.
