The 1800’s and 1900’s allowed for many different interpretations
of Shakespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice”.
During these times, people no longer followed Shakespeare’s scripts
exactly the way they were made. Lighting,
sound, sets, and props began to surface more than they had in the years
prior. These items became more available as the years
progressed and plays advanced to the point where imagination was not required
as much as before. People viewed this as both a positive and negative aspect
in theatre. Shakespeare texts do
not include a large amount of stage direction, so that is left for the interpretation
of the director. Some choose to direct/produce
the play in a simplistic manner, so as to keep it as true Shakespeare’s
original look as possible; however, others like to take advantage of the
resources available. Looking into
different productions of “The Merchant of Venice” will help to clarify some
character differences, as well as show how two different productions were
run.
Henry Irving produced “The Merchant of Venice” for the first time on
November 1, 1879. It was presented
at the Lyceum Theatre in London. The show ran for several seasons and for more
than 250 performances. The first time
Irving’s production was shown in America was on November 6, 1883, in New York. Special felicities of investiture
and detail in it were the pictures of the Place of St. Mark; the passing and
repassing of traders on the Rialto; the almost spectral gondolas, gliding
along a shadowy canal; the opulent variety of the scenes in Portia’s House,
at Belmont; the use of clashing cymbals, making wild, Oriental music, to signalize
the arrival and departure of the Prince of Morocco (Winter 176).
There were many simplistic styles in Irving’s
productions of this play that added exceptional characteristics. The statements said above indicate some of the
small details that Irving
put
in, whether it was a piece of the set or another prop that added some extra
charm.
Irving decided to remove
some text out of Shakespeare’s original version for the purposes of creating
a certain atmosphere for the audience, as well as to better the understanding
of the main points in the play. Though
Irving removed some scenes
along with pieces of text, he also added a scene as well. The added scene was of Shylock returning home
by lamplight in Act 2 and knocking on the door of his empty house—just once,
in Irving’s performance, which was highly moving, though later some actors
allowed the moment to degenerate into a frenzy of despair (Wells 68). According to Irving, his removal of words allowed the play
to progress for the better. Also,
the fact that Irving
acted as Shylock in his productions allowed him to express some of the characteristics
felt within the play first-hand to the audience. This gave him more involvement, rather than
staying behind the scenes; thus bringing the audience into his interpretation
of the characters’ world. Irving was, perhaps, an
actor above all. According to Gordon
Cross, “it is true that he was ‘always Irving’
in the sense that his strong
personality could be seen in every character, but this detracts nothing
from his greatness as an artist” (13).
As with any Shakespeare play, it was difficult for this performance
to stand true to Shakespeare’s original text of “The Merchant of Venice”,
especially because of the removal of some words and scenes; however, many,
though not all, would agree that Irving’s
production was thorough in its interpretation.
Others would say that “some, though by no means all, of its rightful
belongings had been restored” (Speaight 61).
As said above, there have been changes made to the script, but those
changes were intended by Irving
to add rather than detract the audience’s attention from the play.
An important relationship emphasized in this production and many other
productions of this play was that of the relationship between Portia and Shylock. Though they were only in one scene together,
this scene was the climax and most important part of the play in Irving
’s version. As previously mentioned, Henry Irving played
Shylock, while Ellen Terry played Portia.
Many audience saw her portrayal as parallel
to what Shakespeare would have intended for the stage performance of the
character. Henry James differed from
those opinions by saying, “she giggled too much, ‘too free and familiar,
too osculatory, in her relations with Bassanio’, patting and stroking him
when he had chosen the right casket” (Speaight 62).
James also felt that she did not show him enough art, but showed
too much nature in her acting (Speaight 62).
Another production of “The Merchant of Venice” was directed by John
Barton and designed by Christopher Morley.
This production opened in Stratford
at The Other Place in 1978, and moved to London
a year later. The character of Shylock
was portrayed
by Patrick Stewart. To him, the role
was not challenging enough because he had been playing it for years prior
to its opening at Stratford. Stewart also mentioned, “Shylock is a curious
role, in that its fame and reputation are quite out of proportion with his
share of the lines. He appears in
only five scenes and two of these are very brief.
There have been occasions when producers and actors-managers, reacting
perhaps to the feeling that the part needed ‘expanding’, have added a sixth
scene” (Stewart 13). Here, Stewart
takes the opportunity to mention Irving’s
production, and how well he felt that Irving
approached Shylock’s reappearance for the last scene. He says, “Irving played it very tastefully” (Stewart 13).
Stewart appreciated adding a scene to help further character development,
though he did not mention if Barton added it in his production.
Stewart’s final comments on playing Shylock were, “it is said that
an actor must love the character he plays – however unpleasant.
I loved Shylock and know that it was a privilege to be given an insight
into such a life” (28).
John Barton envisioned “The Merchant of Venice” as having a melancholy
feel and, in fact, he interpreted it that way to the audience. According to Barton, music was another important
aspect to unify the play. Also it
was important that this production should restore and equal balance between
Bassanio, Shylock, and Portia (Stewart 14).
Once again, John Barton directed and Christopher Morley designed
“The Merchant of Venice” in 1981. The
play took place in London. Playing the role of Portia was Sinead Cusack,
who, when first asked to be in the play, turned down the role. Her reasoning was that she did not relate with
the character and that each time she saw it at the theatre, she did not
appreciate the way the role of Portia was played. After giving it much
thought, she decided to go through with the role, hoping to give it a new
spin. Cusack mentioned how important it was to her
that she could identify correctly with Shylock (30). As said in other reviews on “The Merchant of
Venice”, Cusack mentioned that Portia and Shylock’s relationship was brief,
but formed the climax of the play (30).
Though her relationship with Shylock was significant, Cusack felt
that it was necessary for her to have a connection with Bassanio. The two characters needed to look comfortable
together, since they were husband and wife in the play. Cusack viewed process as an important aspect
when preparing to perform a play. She
said, “John Barton was interesting to work with because he did not allow
the cast to assemble and discuss the play as a whole” (Cusack 32). Cusack also felt that his was challenging and,
in fact, a drawback in John’s rehearsal process (32). Barton had his own plans for each scene and
often did not want to conform to others’ opinions. There were many challenges as well as learned
experiences that Cusack faced as an actress for Barton.
The literature on the explanation of the set and overall atmosphere
of the 1981 play illustrated that Barton kept the same ideas of melancholy
and a gloomy feel. Also, Cusack mentioned
that she inherited a rain coat from the previous production (33). John appeared satisfied with previous productions,
and aside from having some different actors from his prior production; he
seemed to have stuck with many of his past ideas. One thing that was not mentioned in Barton’s
previous production was that Portia had to sing a song.
Cusack mentioned that she did not recall Portia singing in Shakespeare’s
original text; however, Barton required her to do so. Eventually, Cusack realized that Barton’s reasoning
for having her do so was to appear drudge up memories from Portia’s past
(Cusack 36).
Irving’s production seemed
overall, to be looked upon as a close rendition to Shakespeare’s script. According to Speaight, “though there were scenes
that he removed and a scene that he added, most of the audience could relate
well with it” (61). It is hard to
generalize an audience for a play because each person has his/her own opinion
of it. There were others that saw Irving’s
production as far-off from Shakespeare’s; however, by viewing the literature
on it; one can gain the knowledge that his productions were very successful.
The success of the play was, in fact, what kept it running season after
season, for over 250 shows.
When thinking in terms of actors, Barton appeared not to have identified
as well with his actors as Irving
did. When asked to comment, some of
the actors mentioned some flaws on his behalf as a director. An interesting point to note is that perhaps
Irving identified well with
his actors because he was an actor himself. Also, when researching the two plays, one must
consider the time period. There may
have been more restrictions in the 1800’s, when Irving’s
play was produced; as opposed to Barton’s play, which was directed in the
1900’s. Barton may have had more directions to go,
so there was more room for opinions on the behalf of the audience, as well
as the actors.
In conclusion, Irving and Barton both had significant and noteworthy
performances with long runs. This
makes one wonder how two completely different productions can receive similar
reactions from an audience. Perhaps
they each fit their time period well or maybe it was the status of the well-known
actors in each production. Regardless, it is interesting to consider what
constitutes a successful play, especially since both of these productions
had different approaches that both audiences appreciated overall.
Brockbank,
Philip, ed. Players of Shakespeare. Great
Britain: University Press, 1986.
Brown,
John Russell, ed. The Arden Shakespeare: The Merchant of Venice. New York: Methuen
& Co. Ltd, 1981.
Brown,
John Russell. William Shakespeare: Writing for Performance. New
York:
St. Martin’s Press, 1996.
Crosse,
Gordon. Shakespearean Playgoing: 1890-1952. Great Britain:
A.R.
Mowbray & Co. Limited in the City of Oxford,
1953.
Holderness,
Graham. Shakespeare: The Merchant of Venice. England:
Clays Ltd, 1993.
Lyon,
John. Twayne’s New Critical Introductions
to Shakesepeare: The Merchant ofVenice. Boston:
Twayne Publishers, division of G. K. Hall & Co., 1988.
Speaight,
Robert. Shakespeare on the Stage. Boston:
Little, Brown and Company, 1973.
Wells,
Stanley. The Oxford
Shakespeare: The Merchant of Venice.
New
York: Oxford
University Press, 1993.
Winter,
William. Shakespeare on the Stage. New
York: Moffat, Yard, and Company,1911.