Erin Stokes 2005
In terms of women directing Shakespeare and the outcomes gender plays, it is notably argued that women directors tend to feminize their productions. But is this really the case? The methods employed in directing any theatrical piece differ from director to director, and therefore, would most definitely differ between the sexes.
The Judith Shakespeare Company in New York, founded by Joanne Zipay, “combines a dedication to language and historical context, with re-examination of women’s roles in classical theatre” (Wolper, 8). Zipay has stated, in various interviews, that she “wanted to address the issues of gender, and finding opportunities for women in a variety of different ways (JSC-Panel Discussion). Zipay has continuously cast women in roles that one would not expect to see a woman play, and has gone as far as reversing the gender roles in Shakespeare’s plays. The number of women in theatre is dismal, and Zipay’s art allows for greater access to the classical roles many women dream about playing.
Zipay states, “it just takes a little bit of imagination, to imagine that a woman can play a soldier, a minister, a government official…”(JSC-Panel Discussion). The success of the Judith Shakespeare Company proves that Zipay’s imagination has paid off.
In looking at the ways women choose to present their productions, one of the aspects of Measure for Measure, which should be addressed, is the use, and misuse of the ‘prostitutes’. According to Michael Friedman, “20th century theatrical productions of Measure for Measure have tended to fill the void of the ‘missing prostitutes’ by granting the prostitutes a concrete physical presence on the stage” (Friedman). Friedman furthers this by saying that “it can be argued that, by giving this neglected and exploited female population a theatrical incarnation, a performance of the play draws attention to the plight of these women and thereby accomplishes some aspects of a feminist agenda” (Friedman). This is interesting when looking at Joan Robbins, the Director of Theatre at the University of Scranton, who produced Measure for Measure during the 1995-96 season. Robbins believes that her “political orientation inevitably colors the performance choices made in her productions” (Friedman). Robbins states that she chose to include Measure for Measure “because it deals with current issues, like sexual harassment and unwed motherhood, relevant to contemporary women” (Friedman). Like Kim Durban, Robbins’ production was critiqued as being a feminist production.
Durban produced Round Heads and Pointy Heads which is based on Measure for Measure. Durban chose to have Isabella, who in “one version of the play is raped” (JSC) be on-stage during the “big scene at the end, where all the men are very happy, and drinking, and having a banquet” (JSC). Durban’s Isabella doesn’t’ have any lines during this scene, but her presence on stage speaks volumes about the injustices she has suffered.
Durban’s choice stands out as the most striking in that the victim/heroine is presented in such a light. Isabella, though without lines, is given the most powerful moment on the stage as she stands among the men who are ‘living it up’. Although I have not had the pleasure to see, first hand, a live production of Measure for Measure, it is in this staging that I can only imagine a woman could direct. The softness, as well as the hurt and anger expressed by Isabella is not, per say, something only a woman can feel, but I would say it is something that a woman could envision playing at the same time in such a situation. The idea of the prostitutes in the beginning of the play also speaks volumes with regard to the era that the play was written in. regardless of the setting the director chooses to set the play in, these women easily traverse throughout time to any century. Of all the directors I have come across, not one has opted to delete these working women from the play. Just as Isabella, the working women have a great impact on the play and the virtues Shakespeare was writing about.
Although neither director has blatantly stated it, it comes as no surprise that they do not view their work as being of a feminist viewpoint. Women have the tendency to look beyond the written word to something much deeper. Ms. Calhoun, who participated in the Panel Discussion, just “looks for the sex in it (play)…what is sensuous about the play, how the character must have felt…(JSC). It is this deeper look into the lines of the play that really set apart a male director’s version from a woman’s. It is unbearably difficult to determine who does a better job at directing Shakespeare, but it is without a doubt, important that women are involved.
In speaking at the Panel Discussion, Maxine Kern pointed out that the “statistics on women directors right now is that, of all the directing work done, less that 20% work has done, and is presently being directed by women. That statistic has been unchanged for the last twenty years”(JSC). With the growth of companies like the Judith Shakespeare Company, and directors like Zipay, Calhoun, Conrad, and Robbins, they are leading, and will continue to lead and pave the way for women to take on the challenge, not only of directing theatre, but of directing Shakespeare.
In order to be fair, it is important to shed some light on the men who have directed Measure for Measure. In his book, On Directing Shakespeare, Ralph Berry points out that Measure for Measure has become a play for today’s times. (Berry,16) “Every director I conversed with expressed a special interest in it yet until a generation ago it had virtually no stage history whatever” (Berry, 16). Berry wrote this in 1977 and since then, many directors have taken on the challenge of staging Measure for Measure. Jonathan Miller, who “set his production in the Vienna of the 1930’s” (Berry, 22), Robin Phillips’ which was “set in the Vienna of 1912” (Berry, 22), Barb Crowly who designed the production for the Royal Shakespeare Company in 1983 (Rutter, 105).
In Berry’s interview with Robin Phillips, Phillips states that Measure for Measure is a ‘very strong play for the misuse, or the rights of women. By that I don’t mean that I think it’s a Women’s Lib play. But there are questions posed that suggest these problems, that are very much on our minds. These questions which are in the forefront of our minds, the front pages of our newspapers’ (Berry, 92). How interesting this is! This is exactly what prompted Joan Robbins to stage her production of Measure for Measure!
As one of the ‘little known plays’ of Shakespeare’s, Measure for Measure is making waves throughout the theatre as more and more directors take on the challenge of this work. The strength of the female director comes through in her choices, as does the male directors, but it is through the eyes of the female that the social problems are fully addressed. This in itself does not demand a feminist showing, or associate the company or director with a feminist group. What this does is allow for a new approach to understanding Shakespeare and the time in which his works were written.
“History happens, and it changes people,
partly because history is recorded
and remembered” (Berry, 22).
Works Cited
Berry, Ralph. On Directing Shakespeare. London: Croom Helm Ltd., 1977
Friedman, Michael. Prostitution and the Feminist appropriation of Measure for Measure On the Stage. http://www.holycross.edu/departments/theatre/projects/isp/measure/essays/1_2_prostit
Haskins, Michael R. “Much Ado About Acting.” USD Magazine Summer 1997: 8
Judith Shakespeare Company Expanding the Presence of Women Directors: A Panel Discussion 12/10/00 http://www.judithshakespeare.org/main_pd_transcript2.htm
Rutter, Carol Chillington. Enter the Body: Women and Representation on Shakespeare’s Stage. London: Routledge, 2001. Shakespeare, William. Measure for Measure.
Greenblatt, Stephen. The Norton Shakespeare, Based on the Oxford Edition. New York: W.W. Norton and Company, Inc., 1997.