Even though my „September blog“ is already complete, I decided to put this in first. It is kind of a scanty review about the new production of “Othello” by the RSC which I have just seen in the cinema (on Sept. 14th). The reason is that, apart from its having been totally exciting, I saw something I have always “dreamed” of being able to see in a Shakespeare play, and which I thought would be the summit of what I consider my “Shakespeare experience”. And now I actually SAW it! And it might be a good “prologue” to what otherwise would have been my September blog, although that will not even be about Shakespeare.
How to begin … Of course I’ll leave the greatest for
last, but the first totally exciting thing – which should in fact be a matter
of course but is still very rarely seen in a Shakespeare play – was that all
the actors were acting ALL THE TIME they were on stage. Like film actors acting
all the time they are on camera – but of course they are only on camera when they
are supposed to be seen. We would be very much taken aback if we saw a film
actor just “pause” with acting as they do on the stage all the time. But in a
Shakespeare play you have to define every movement, every action and reaction,
when two actors are talking for five minutes and maybe six actors are on the stage.
And what they are doing has to make sense as well. This must be incredibly
difficult and, at the same time, you cannot afford to distract the attention
from what is just going on when, for example, Iago is acting one of his long
monologues, and the other actors remain on the stage. It is a daring thing to
do but worked really well. I was satisfied to see this because I had always
thought it ought to be like this but didn’t know if it was possible. And you
can even see how important it is to explore the dynamic qualities of these
plays even more than it is usually done. How important the “action” – in the
most literal sense – is in this play. Because it is a violent maelstrom that
Iago is creating all by himself. And you have not only to see but to feel it –
in a literal sense. Be drawn into the movement. I think this has even been one
of the main attractions of this play for me, which I hadn’t been able to
understand completely until I saw this. A stellar achievement by all the
actors, and the director, in the first place!
“Othello” has never been one of my favourite plays by
Shakespeare – even though one of my favourite “parts” of all the plays is in
it: the “action” between Iago and Othello – which I always thought to be one of
the most subtle and intricate things Shakespeare has written. (I MEAN “thought”
– because, until I had seen this, I didn’t “know”!) And because they really
understood this and made it the centre of the play – that is: not just Iago
plotting successfully to destroy Othello, which was the part I have always
understood, and enjoyed, but the COMPLETE relationship! – I was “in the right
play” from the beginning. - It hadn’t been one of my least favourite plays
either – even though one of the scenes I dislike most in all the plays is in
there: the scene where Othello kills Desdemona. But, as they managed to make
complete sense of ALL the relationships in this play, even this scene came off
as something not entirely pathetic. In fact, it is rather a good scene if you
can make sense of everything that is in it.
And they really made sense of almost everything that
is in this play! This probably doesn’t sound like the biggest praise of all times,
but it (almost) is. Because in any production of any Shakespeare play there are
these (usually) rather long moments, or even scenes, where you can see that
they are just going through with them, or are covering up with some scheme or
other that they don’t know what this moment is about. And it would be a miracle
if this wasn’t so because there is so much that Shakespeare has written “into”
these plays that never all the issues can be addressed, and that it would be
too much to deal with if somebody did. But in this case these moments were
minimal, and this is in fact one of the highest general praises about a
production I can think of!
And the reason for this is the third thing I had
always wanted to see but never saw quite in the same way, at least not in any
Shakespeare play: that (almost) ALL the characters, their relationships and
their personal issues were treated as equally important. And that means that
every scene and every moment is “full of life”, and that the dynamic structure
of the play develops quite naturally “from within” the characters. The first
mesmerizing thing for me was the way Brian Protheroe is playing Brabantio – a
character that is hardly ever seen as important. Which, of course, is a fatal
misunderstanding! At least he was the first actor being able to convince me
that within this play called “Othello” there is another play called “Brabantio”
which is a tragedy consisting of three short scenes. This might be something I
have never before seen in quite the same way, and which convinces me that I
haven’t yet seen ten percent of what might be possible to do with these plays
if there were more actors who think it worthwhile to do significant work like
this on such a “small” part! (If I had money I think I’d create a special prize
for something like this!)
There are two really “tricky” parts in this play, I
think: Othello and Desdemona. Meaning that it is really, really difficult to
get them right. Whereas there is one part that always comes out kind of “right”
when played by a competent actor – which is Iago. What really surprised me was
that Desdemona isn’t difficult at all – if you approach this character in the
right way. Even though I disliked the way Joanna Vanderham is dealing with
Shakespeare’s text I was more than delighted with the acting. There is a fatal
handicap for women on stage which appears even more obviously in Shakespeare,
probably because it is so important for these complex sentences to “come out”
clear and distinct. But women’s voices only very rarely have the volume to “fill”
a big stage. The only way to deal with this appears to be shouting every
sentence at the top of your voice, which Joanna Vanderham does, even though she
appears to have a strong and clear voice, and which makes every sentence come
out exactly the same. This is usually how I become unpleasantly aware every
time in a Shakespeare play how loud you have to say these sentences on a stage.
And how this influences the acting. As it is really important that women don’t
sound weak compared to men, which makes them automatically appear “smaller”
and less important, as an actress, you
always have to manage this balancing act between being loud and clear enough
and acting “naturally” and convincingly – much more than male actors have to.
And the way Joanna Vanderham is dealing with this dilemma is quite an
achievement. She knows EXACTLY what every single sentence means and where
Desdemona stands at every single moment, to what she reacts and what her
reaction must be. And she “translates” every sentence ENTIRELY into body and
face “language”. I don’t know if this works as well if you are actually in the
theatre, because you have to be quite close to the stage, and even then you
don’t see the faces as well as we do in the cinema. But at least the cinema
audience had the full outcome of this considerable effort. This is another one
of my wishes granted – number four already, I think: this degree of precision
as to what every single one of these sentences and moments means – emotionally,
and as to what just happens in the play - which I found in almost all the
characters, and which is why this production comes so close to my ideal about
how Shakespeare should be acted in our time.
What Desdemona is especially important for is of
course the issue – or issues – about men and women, which I found intriguing
already reading the play, but which weren’t addressed in an interesting way in
any of the very few productions I know. I won’t even start on this because
there will scarcely be an end to it, but I was especially pleased that
Desdemona “works” so much better when she is perceived as a strong woman who is
full of life, and loves life, not as somebody who is obedient and subdued –
which she SO OBVIOUSLY is not! – As she is the one who completely doesn’t get
what is happening, her tragedy is kind of “short” and bitter. That she
subordinates herself so completely to Othello, and appears to pity him instead
of hating him for dealing with her like this, isn’t because of her desperately trying
to be an obedient wife. It is because she fell in love “for life”, and knew
Othello did as well. And then her husband is turning against her, and she has
no idea why, or what to make of the change. Until the end, she has no idea at
all!
Whereas Desdemona is rather simple and obvious, if you
are able to “get behind” that curtain of prejudices which, as I realized, had
kind of “removed” the play from me, Othello is REALLY difficult to approach. I found
it interesting that Hugh Quarshie, as reported, wasn’t that keen on playing
Othello in the first place. I am very glad that he did because this production
might not have “happened” otherwise or, in any case, wouldn’t have been that
good. Because this is the first Othello I saw that is exactly “right” for the
part. And unlike Iago – for whom I have lately seen three actors as different
as can be, and all of them very convincing in their own way - Bob Hoskins (in
the old BBC version from the late seventies), Kenneth Branagh and Lucian Msamati
– it is quite important in my opinion for Othello to meet certain requirements,
even about appearance, to make the play work. And Hugh Quarshie is the first
Othello I saw who meets all these “basic” requirements. He is definitely
middle-aged - which would be the contemporary euphemism for “declined into the
vale of years”, and which in my opinion is much more important for the tragedy
to unfold than that he is black – but can still be perceived as attractive, not
only physically, but generally as a “male” who commands the respect and
obedience of others. And he is of course an extremely competent actor who can
go through everything Othello is going through with “dignity”. At least you
always think you want to see this: the remaining human dignity in a character
that is completely “destroyed” during the process of the play. But this might
exactly be the point where we go wrong, and why Othello is one of these
characters that never really “work” …
Of course, as always when I start writing, I first
discover what I have observed seeing the play, and about the character of
Othello there is a lot I first discovered seeing this production, partly
because it was the only thing I wasn’t quite satisfied with. So, as usual, this
will become much longer than I thought it would. - The most obvious problem
about playing Othello, which might have been an issue in this case as well, is
that “Othello” is usually seen as a “racist” play. And of this structure of
prejudices the character of Othello is the centre. I don’t think that I ever
saw “Othello” as a racist play, but I was very aware of this structure of
prejudices. I discovered this when I had a short moment of revulsion learning
they had cast a black actor for Iago. Which didn’t have anything to do with
racist prejudices on my part – I hope! – but with the fact that I dislike it
when they change basic structures which I think are material to the play. And
this was a great lesson this production taught me – maybe even the most
interesting thing about Shakespeare I have learned seeing it: that what we
consider to be the basic structure of the play might still be the structure of
OUR OWN prejudices!
This was so interesting for me, of course, because it
is one of the basic things about reading: that what we detect as structure,
even on a basic level, in a text, is the structure of our own “texts” in the
first place. And there is always a basic structure of prejudices involved – at
least in any text we care for. But this doesn’t automatically imply that we are
wrong! And this is one of the things I like best about the RSC productions:
that they are usually so very careful about what Shakespeare “put into” his
plays, that they have a real regard for this and are really trying not to
“override” these structures with a structure of contemporary prejudices.
Because of this I found it so interesting that they made a workshop first and
tested how Iago being played by a black actor would change the “live” structure
of the play. Obviously, a black actor worked great, which I will cover when I’ll
come to Iago. But the really clever thing that was achieved, I think, was that
it slightly dislodged the COMPLETE structure of prejudices which is “holding
this play together”, and made it break free, in a sense, so that it became
possible to play with other issues which are even more material for the story
to work, and which are usually “blocked” or distorted by exactly this received
structure of prejudices.
And the character of Othello in particular has been
completely freed of these “fetters”, as I see it. At least I held it to be a
“received” opinion that Othello, deep inside, suffers of low self-esteem, and
that this is the reason why his strong relationship with Desdemona can be
destroyed so easily by Iago. I realize now that I had always considered this to
be bullshit – respectively: not founded anywhere in the play! – but that I had
always reserved judgement about this because I had no better explanation. And I
was very satisfied that this production finally “proved” that this IS in fact
bullshit! And this entails that “Othello” isn’t, at it’s center, a “racist”
play. It is in fact material for Othello’s fate that he is an outsider, not
mainly because he is black, but much more because he is the leader of a
mercenary army, very important and useful as long as his service is needed, but
easily discarded when there is no need for it any more. It is not that these
race issues aren’t addressed in the play, but they are not as central to any
human issues in the play as this common prejudice suggests, which is obviously
derived from racist social structures in the US we think we know so much about.
In fact this was an interesting lesson about how contemporary prejudices become
“embedded” in those plays, and can be “dislodged” if you really take EVERYTHING
that is in the text seriously! (They took up the race issue in a much more
interesting way in the scene where Michael Cassio is getting drunk. When I
re-read “Othello” before seeing the play I wondered what might be “behind” this
exchange between Cassio and Iago, and had no clue. And they delivered a very
shrewed - and entertaining! - version of it, even though the adhering prejudices
got a bit shifted about!)
So, this matter of discomfort about the character of
Othello had been very successfully dealt with – with great benefit for the
play, I think. But there are even two other reasons I became aware of that
might make Othello one of the least attractive parts for an actor to play. The
less important one is about what every actor deeply dislikes – no matter what
he might say about it. Because if you are going to play Othello you know that
this will be bone-breaking work – emotionally! – and in the end people might
not even see it because everybody is looking at Iago! It is the most difficult
thing to go to these extremes of raw, totally “un-subtle” emotions without
overdoing it. And then, if you really do, the audience might still not like you,
or might still be disgusted - and is probably still looking at Iago!
Somehow I think that every actor who ever played
Othello is deeply conscious of this. But of course, as a professional, you will
be able to overcome this discomfort and concentrate on the challenge ahead –
which is huge! And of course, by this time, you will have convinced yourself
that playing this part is something you want because it is still a prestigious
part - and because it is impossible to do this kind of work if you don’t like
it. But still there might be, unconsciously, some part of it you REALLY don’t
like. - And I don’t want to make a “criticism” of what I am going to say. Hugh
Quarshie was still the best Othello I have seen, and especially the part when
the first suspicion of Desdemona’s unfaithfulness “dawns” on him, and is
growing roots really deep inside him, is great. And I may be totally wrong of
course, but I had the impression that, deep inside, he “is holding back”, or is
taking the liberty to reserve his judgment about this character. And it isn’t
important if I am right or wrong, because, anyway, this impression brought me
to a much deeper level of understanding of what Othello’s tragedy really is
about. This happened when I considered the ending of the play – the part where
Othello takes his own life - which I had found disgusting every time I read it
probably BECAUSE he is making this kind of eulogy for himself, in a desperate
attempt to preserve his dignity. I know that this is rather unfair, and I don’t
even know why I am feeling this way. But looking closely into this scene I
discovered what it really is about – and what I have never seen being “acted”. (Might
be because it is kind of impossible to act!) When Othello is preparing to take
his own life he is telling this story about a Turk he has killed. And this was
for him a moment he remembers that he had been totally disgusted by another
human being and had relished killing him. I had taken this for some kind of
ruse – to sidetrack the “audience” – or a prompter for himself, both of which
it might be. But what he really is saying with these lines and his action is
quite extreme and convinced me that “Othello” is one of these plays, like
“Lear” or “Hamlet”, that, on their deepest level, are about NOTHING:
“I am NOTHING! You made me NOTHING! So, I’d better be
dead.”
And this is exactly the place where very few people –
and probably actors – would want to go. Because this would mean to really
comprehend what somebody is feeling who is going to kill himself. And the
interesting thing about it Shakespeare has written into this scene is that the
attempt to preserve his “dignity” has failed. That he has stopped lying to himself
then.
So, this would be a great place for leading over to my
next blog – which will not be about Shakespeare but about Schiller and his
concept of “serious playing” – but of course it is impossible to leave this
without saying something about Iago. And, in fact, the best way to get rid of
the “unpleasantness”, every time I have seen or read it, was to pretend that
the play is not about Othello but about Iago – as it very well might be! In any
case this production made me fully aware why Iago had always been one of my
favourite Shakespearean characters – apart from his being extremely intelligent,
somehow on a level “above” the others, and, at the same time, taken for granted
and unappreciated, which appears to be a “structure” that always “does it” for
me. Certainly not somebody I would want to be, but quite certainly a part I
would very much want to play if I was a male actor. But the main reason for
liking this character so much might even be found elsewhere. It might be that
Shakespeare has written some of his most beautiful lines for this character.
And this might as well mean something? - As much as I had enjoyed reading
“Othello” aloud – almost exclusively because of Iago’s lines! – I would never
have experienced how beautiful this text really is if I hadn’t listened to
Lucian Msamati speaking it. As he had the opportunity to show as well, he is
very musical, and the way he spoke these lines was like nothing I have ever
heard. (I just had a “flashback” when I was at the gym and became completely
relaxed, and suddenly remembered this sensation just for a split-second – which
felt as if the sun had just risen inside me. Maybe the main reason I am already
looking forward to the dvd …)
I had a fainter impression of this already seeing the
film version with Kenneth Branagh as Iago, when I became aware of how
“conscious” he was of the language, how much he relished these lines. But there
was very little text left, as compared to the theatre version. And, compared to
Lucian Msamati’s Iago, there was very little “acting” as well. It was still
convincing, beautiful and satisfying, but, compared to what I saw in the RSC
production, there was very little effort to make sense of who Iago is, why he
is doing all this, and, especially, how what he is doing affects HIM. And that
is what really overwhelmed me, in this case, and made me so very grateful,
because I had always thought that this must be possible: not just to say these
lines beautifully, but to “get” almost everything “out of them”, all that
treasure that you constantly find reading them, displayed on the stage. And in
this case I could see very clearly how this became possible. The first thing
was that they made a great effort to think about how Iago came to be who he is
at the beginning of the play, and that they made this shift – having a coloured
actor play Iago – which gives him additional motivation and brings him closer
to Othello – which was entirely a good idea. Because it highlights parallel
structures in the two characters that became really significant as to what
motivates Iagos actions. I cannot investigate this as much as I’d like because
this would become much too long. Basically, Iago is motivated by jilted love
for Othello – real jealousy! – which certainly is disputable, and which even
now I don’t like that much. But it gives the actor an extensive and deep
emotional background “from” which he can say these lines. And this is what I
think is so difficult, but what I always thought must be possible: that you can
make sense of everything that is in this text as to what it means –
emotionally, if there is an emotional content, but even more as a “speech act”.
As something that is just HAPPENING, and has an immediate effect – on others,
but on yourself as well! And this is where Lucian Msamati is just incredible.
As far as I can see, he has a really unusual “method” of dealing with this
text, which makes it so beautiful, but, at the same time, so clear as to what is
just happening with Iago the moment he says this. I compared it to singing,
which is a weak comparison, but not entirely misplaced, because singing
minimizes the distance between the act of expression and the feelings
expressed. And this is what happens, not only on an emotional level, but
especially on the level of “action”. Which was even more significant – as the
thing I had always wanted to see so much and now finally saw: That it is
possible to say these lines as if what they are about is just happening at this
moment – and has an immediate effect on YOU. And this, I think, is what made
THIS Iago so great and so really different: Even though he is the one who
unleashes all this violence and atrocity he is not “on top of it”. He is a part
of it, and, in the end, it is getting the better of him and he is hurt by it as
well. Maybe HE is able to preserve his “dignity” – because he is past caring
what people are thinking about him. He is laughing at the end, but it is an
entirely joyless laughter. Maybe he has just come to understand the irony of
having succeeded and having destroyed himself in the process?
As I just realized, this is a great way to close this
“chapter” on Shakespeare – temporarily,
I hope. Because what I had witnessed made me able to explain why I think
that Shakespeare is still the greatest playwright of all times. And why I am usually
entertained by watching his plays, whereas I am constantly bored with contemporary
plays. Because in them people are JUST talking. And “just talking” for me is
the most boring thing in the world. In fact it is the only situation where I am
bored “out of my mind” because in any other boring situation I can stay “inside
my mind”, where I am never bored. I know that this is some personal defect in
me, because this is what people do, and are obviously so fond of: just talking.
This is probably why I am so deeply amused by my favourite quote from “House of
Cards”. When Frank Underwood says that “… a great man said that everything in
life is about sex. Except sex. Sex is about power.” Independently of how much
“literal” truth there is in this outside the “Frank Underwood universe”, it is
obviously a structure that greatly appeals to me. As I obviously feel that
everything in life ought to be “about” something. Which is, as exemplified by
the quote, patently absurd when it comes to real life. But still the things
that are “about” something in real life are much more fun, and I still think
that, at least “outside real life”, things ought to be “about” something. And
this is what I am feeling about Shakespeare: that everything he wrote is
“about” something, even if I cannot find out what it is. But sometimes other
people can, for me, especially actors and directors of course. And this
production has been the best proof I ever had that I am right – even about the
“way” I thought this has to be done. But of course you need highly trained,
incredibly imaginative and dedicated professionals to make it happen.
By the way, this time I loved the curtain calls!
NOBODY was smiling - or just a little, probably from relief. There was such
tension built up during the play that it cannot be dispelled like that within
moments. And then, after the first complete “curtain”, it was Lucian Msamati
who entered the stage first(!), then Hugh Quarshie, and Lucian Msamati gave him
a bear hug – to which Hugh Quarshie didn’t react AT ALL! - It might of course
have been something personal or momentary, but I don’t think so. I think the
actors were still (unconsciously) acting parts of their characters here. And
even though there is so much in this relationship, in the play it is never
fully “disclosed”. But I remembered then that Othello, in this production,
appears to have no personal relationship with Iago AT ALL! It is as if Iago, not
as his ancient but as a human being, doesn’t exist for him. Whereas for Iago
Othello is extremely important in an ominous way – that might be, or might have
been, love? And Iago might even be “right” about feeling that he is a human
being entitled to be appreciated, especially by someone he has been so useful
to in the past? At least we have a really strong motivation here, on his part,
to reduce Othello to what Iago already experienced himself to be: NOTHING.