Pages

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

"The Tempest": High-Quality Elizabethan Entertainment

I was really fascinated by what we discussed in class, that the romance plays were more for aristocratic entertainment than for any type of quality literature. Low on plot and high in the fantastic, Shakespeare knew how to play to an audience. I prepared to read The Tempest by finding pictures and videos of productions done of this play, to try and get an idea for how it might have been performed. I think if I get a grasp on how its supposed to look, the tone and feel of the play will already be set when I read it. Here are a few of my favorite production pictures:




It's really clear to me after looking through these pictures exactly how performance-oriented this play is. The bright colors and costumes, the elaborate sets, and the dramatic lighting all give an idea of how Shakespeare may have had it performed in the Globe.

One last thing: did anyone know about the new film adaptation of the The Tempest that came out last year? I think it looks really good. Interesting that Prospero is played by a woman. Here's the trailer:



What do you all think of it? It's funny to me that the reviews echoed how Dr. Burton described the romances:

Entertainment Weekly, Lisa Schwarzbaum
"...spectacle oriented ..." 

New York Post, Lou Lumenick
"...a surprisingly unengaging and charmless fantasy ..."

I'm trying to find showings nearby. but so far no luck. Let me know if you happen upon any!

Comments (11)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
I'm looking forward to seeing that movie. Julie Taymor is all about spectacle, she is the one responsible for the Broadway version of the Lion King, the one with the huge puppets, she did Across the Universe, and is currently directing the new Spiderman Broadway play, which is infamous for it's spectacle.
But if there's ever a director who should be doing a production of The Tempest, it's a director who understands how to do spectacle right, how to make it impressive and wonderful without overpowering the story.
1 reply · active 737 weeks ago
I agree. The trailer definitely makes it seem more on the spectacle side, but they also use Shakespeare's language, so there might be a happy medieum there.
Excellent! I like the pictures you posted. I should do some looking around for pictures myself. I really want to see this movie, too, so if I find any showings I'll let you know. The idea of a female Prospero could be fodder for several blog posts.
These pictures are so helpful! Did they all come from the same production?
And is the movie out on DVD yet? Because if it is, we should all have a movie night. Just a suggestion.
1 reply · active 737 weeks ago
No, they came from different productions, and clearly with many different interpretations, haha. And i think the movie only came out a couple of months ago, but apparently is not showing anywhere. I'm definitely up for a movie night if we can find a showing nearby!
oh wow, that looks incredible! i really do think it's brilliant that they chose helen mirren to play prospero! it all looks very fantastical and visually engaging. even in the bevington intro to the winter's tale, it spoke of how shakespeare "flaunts the improbability of his story" and that he sometimes tried to bring a live bear on the stage of the production for twt. very interesting. i want to look further in to what was really happening on the theater's stage when these romances were first produced.
The pictures are great. I would be interested to see your connection with them after you read the play. Shakespeare knew how to reach different audiences, or at least different interests with his different genres.
I think that its a great idea to go check out pictures of the play to get you ready to read it.. great input. One thing that your post made me think of is Caras blog (care-a not cara mind you) called "he wrote plays ... you know like tv w/o the box". With regards to Shakespeare romances, its almost like he really did write something like the idea of tv by really using visual entertainment more than "any type of quality literature." I think part of Shakespeare's and play's brilliance in general is that they marry great pro's with visual beauty. In Shakespeare's Romantic plays I think the visual aspects are more in the forefront and it still has "quality literature"? The problem with that for me is that when I go to a play I bring a cup that's filled with a fire hose:) ... great post really got me thinking.
Okay, I'll admit that I'm a huge fan of spectacle. I know it's "low-brow" of me but that's why I've always loved musicals and crazy trippy movies: for their colorful spangled fantastical nature. It's just stinkin' entertaining. I read "The Tragical History of Dr. Faustus" by Christopher Marlowe last semester and it was chock full of this sort of thing. It also involved sorcery and apparently they would use things like fireworks attached to the actors' costumes to create the magic. There's a bit where Dr. Faustus asks his little Satanic helper, Mephistopheles, for a wife and he conjures him up a woman who is supposed to have something akin to sparklers all over her. Unfortunately Faustus wants the best of both worlds in having evil magical powers but a virtuous wife. The sparklers are supposed to point out her womanly features, meaning she's kind of trampy, so he angrily yells "a plague on her for a hot whore!" It's pretty great. If you get a copy of that movie I want to watch it!
I remember going to the local high school when I was in elementary school to see The Tempest performed and all I can remember is the scenery! I thought about that a lot as I've been reading the play and enjoyed this post and the comments. THanks!
Thanks for sharing.

Post a new comment

Comments by