As You Like It

The first, and one of the only, concrete references to the Forest of Arden in As You Like It appears in Act I, Scene I where Charles informs Oliver that the duke senior will inhabit it. Charles tells Oliver, “They say he is already in the Forest of Arden and a many merry men with him; and there they live like the old Robin Hood of England”. The Robin Hood reference makes note of the duke’s exile by the new duke Frederick, as Robin Hood was also exiled to a different, yet similar place of inhabitance (the Sherwood Forest). Charles continues his news with, “They say many young gentlemen flock to him every day and fleet the time carelessly, as they did in the golden world”. The reference to the golden world alludes to a time of fewer constrictions where laws didn’t exist and one lived free from modern responsibilities.

As You Like It’s production program goes into complementary descriptions of the forest by writing, “The forest speaks of freedom and the characters move from inhibition to exhibition, from restriction to a gentle wildness as the forest ripples its openheartedness out, ever out.” This exhibition is expressed through the freedom to love—the manifestation of this love and marriage, to which a sweeping majority of the characters partake in. The idea of freedom and time was also developed and portrayed in the production itself through particular staging effects.

Firstly, the square cut-out of dirt in the center of the stage appropriately represented the wrestling ring in the court. After the intermission, it became clear that the wooden floors meant to symbolize humanity and the restrictions of the court. Rosalind’s transformation into Ganymede mirrored the stage’s conversion from court to the Forest of Arden after this intermission as well. The articulately placed dirt square in the center of the stage surrounded by the pristine hardwood floors, symbolic of humanity’s restrictions, was spread to cover the entire stage. The alterations surely alluded to the transition from rules to freedom, from court to forest.

Another aspect of the stage that represented the forest were the towering wooden poles which did not seem to follow a set placement of any sort along the front of the stage, which is most likely representative of the organic patterns seen in a natural forest. Keeping true to nature through this aspect of the stage by staggering the poles was a wise staging decision, in my opinon. However, the more crowded rear part of the stage was  particularly more interesting as a viewer. The center of the floor was engineered as a rotating circle with similar tall wooden poles placed along the entire edge of the circle. I was under the impression that the contrast of the circle from the rectangular forefront of the stage represented different parts of the forest. This worked for me because it alluded to the vastness and utter magnitude of the Forest of Arden, which is something not easily portrayed on a stage with set parameters. The depicted size also helped the production achieve a sense of time and space, as the characters traveled through the forest and traversed the stage.

In addition to providing the allusion of distance, the rear circular portion of the stage also helped to exhibit time. I was captivated when the lights dimmed on the stage except for when strategically placed lighting shone on the wooden beams and the engineered circle began to rotate. The effect this had was one representative of night and day, the rise and setting of the sun, as the shadows of the poles shone on the floor. Ultimately, I saw it as a time lapse of a sunrise and sunset in real time, which was a highly effective way to distinguish between the changing of scenes and the passing of time.

In addition, the quickness of these shadows and the rotating circle lends itself back to the idea that Orlando presented in Act, 2, Scene 7 about the loss of time in the forest. Orlando apologizes to Duke Senior for putting on “the countenance of stern commandment” and admits to thinking that “all things had been savage here, But what’ever you are that in this desert inaccessible, under the shade of melancholy boughs, lose and neglect the creeping hours of time". The loss of time in the remote Forest of Arden shines through in this speech by Orlando, and is also expressed in the quickness of the shadows that represent the ability of time to escape the forest’s inhabitants.

Admittedly after reading the ‘Into the Woods’ piece by Jay Griffiths in the production’s program, with its heavy emphasis on the forest, I assumed the stage would be highly ornate and decorated. This both left me with a sense of excitement and a sense of worry. I was excited to see how Griffiths’ description of the forest would translate, but also feared an overelaborate stage would detract from the very essence of the play—the characters’ exchanges and dialogue. Griffiths attributes much to Arden by writing, “People thrive like trees in the forest: with a sense of sheer vivacity, the forest invites verve, encourage élan, the wordplay of many characters a verbal  ricochet in a forest which resounds with many voices—including it’s own”. So not only does Griffiths give the forest a voice, he also levels it with the voices of the characters. He continues with this idea of speech by writing, “For the forest is an actor in the play, it has a speaking part: there are ‘tongues in the tree, books in the running brooks, Sermons in stones, and good in everything.’” Comparing the presence of the forest to that of the actors, lent my expectations to envision an intensely staged production, which was not exactly what was delivered.

While the stage was not as ornate as I expected, ultimately I have to deem this a positive aspect of the production that I consider fell anything but flat. The production took full advantage of expressing the organic setting of a natural forest through various methods: the spreading of the dirt to represent the differences between court and Arden, the staggering of the wooden beams, and the various uses of the circular portion of the stage to signify distance and the passing of time. With expectations running high, sometimes less is indeed more and I consider this to be the case with Gregory Doran’s artistic decisions and staging choices made for As You Like It.

Stratford

Shakespeare’s life was spent between the bustling London and quaint Stratford-upon-Avon, having been born and spending his latest years in Stratford. After spending time in both London and Stratford, I noticed the immense differences between the two locations immediately. For one, the surroundings are polar opposites—with London being fantastically encroached with skyscrapers and the population alike, while Stratford is littered with lush greenery and picturesque storefronts. It’s not difficult to see why Shakespeare lived between the two.

With many of the British exhibits we’ve visited, the idea of wealth has shown through (specifically in paintings and portraiture). But I also noticed this theme becoming present in the home we toured today as a group, where Shakespeare spent the first 18 years of his life. When walking through the second-floor bedroom, the tour guide mentioned the painted canvas wall coverings as being both functional and aesthetically preferred. The harsh England winters, which were exponentially more frigid than they are today, demanded that families find ways of utilizing warmth. The wall coverings apparently helped to insulate homes, however they were not available to everyone. Our tour guide expressed that you were considered wealthy if you your family was able to hang these coverings in your home. Luckily for Shakespeare, his family was just that—very wealthy.

Our first tour guide, in the tanning portion of the home, expressed these sentiments by informing us that Shakespeare’s father was so wealthy that he could afford for William and Anne Hathaway to move in after Anne became pregnant. In addition, she explained the differences in the mittens and gloves that differentiated from class to class based on coloration and stitching. It wasn’t expressed which gloves Shakespeare preferred, but based on his status I would say he probably wore the most lavish.

He continued the material expression of this lifestyle and bought the New Place, which according to the exhibition was one of the largest houses in town. The home included orchards, barns, and fields—features of living outside of the city that London does not offer. The site was Shakespeare’s home for the last 19 years of his life until he died under its roof in 1616. Another example of wall art is present upon entering the home. A tapestry hangs over the immense open fireplace that dates from the 16^th century, according to our tour information.

Admittedly, the size and magnitude of The Knot Garden impressed me. Until I researched it, I wasn’t aware that it was created somewhat modernly. Despite this, the amount of land needed for this garden is indicative of how wealthy Shakespeare was when purchasing the home. The garden is Elizabethan style and is filled with seasonal flowers, many of which are mentioned in Shakespeare’s writings. Through Shakespeare’s first and last home, details and size undoubtedly illuminate how the wealthy may have lived in Stratford during Shakespeare’s time.

Macbeth Review

While the production of Macbeth at The Rose may have been experimental as a modern adaptation, some aspects of the play worked while others fell short. For these purposes, I would like to focus on aspects of the performance that worked for me as an audience member. Firstly, I wholly appreciated the stage effects, especially the lightning and dare I say, the music because they completed the eerie setting. Seeing Macbeth at The Globe and feeling unfulfilled with the lack of a darker, more macabre adaptation left me wanting something more than what I left with. The Rose provided these elements and exciting staging. In addition, sexuality was quite prevalent which added another layer of interest to the production.

From The Alchemist to Macbeth, the stage was truly transformed.  By taking The Rose’s size into consideration and virtually the entire use of the building made the production feel appropriately intimate, with some of the action taking place in the rear. These scenes particularly included those which did not directly involve Macbeth. The use of cell phones helped make this staging decision effective. Time and space was more clearly demonstrated for me in this production, as compared to The Globe’s adaptation. By providing a cast of only five, the use cell phones helped make this element of the play seem less monumental. For example, we are introduced to three distinct murderers in the text. This was not explicitly portrayed at The Rose. One would assume cutting such a vital element of the play would harm the text’s manifestation; however, I would argue against this. This inclusion proves Shakespeare’s Macbeth to be truly timeless, transcending the idea of space and time. Communicating through the use of cell phones conveyed the presence of the three murderers without us actually physically seeing them. For me, this added believability to the modern adaptation. Macbeth is clearly depicted as a powerful businessman who has means to carry out his wishes. This notion is highlighted with him not even having to meet the three murderers in person to obtain his wishes.

While Macbeth ordered Banquo dead, their exchanges and relationship were undoubtedly of interest to me. The play opened with the three witches, while cutting occurrences in Act 1, Scene 2. The scene that was skipped over presented King Duncan, Donalbain, Lennox, and a wounded captain, while picking up with Macbeth and Banquo. I’m not really sure as to the significance behind portraying Macbeth and Banquo as stumbling drunks, but after seeing the play in its entirety I’m going to point my finger towards comedic relief.  As I stated earlier, some aspects of the production worked while others did not. For me, Banquo taking photographs of Macbeth intoxicated on her camera phone did not translate as appropriate or conducive to the text. These actions seemed off to me, but I am assuming the company wanted to add comedic relief as well.

The first relationship concerning Macbeth that we are introduced to is his and Banquo’s. Whether elevated from the ale they were clearly drinking, it seemed as though a slight sexual tension between these two was being illuminated. However, aside from their staggering and slight touches in the beginning of the play, this was not explored any farther. Comparatively, I was surprised at the amount of sexuality in The Rose’s production. One scene that resonated with me comes from Act 1, Scene 5 where upon waiting for her husband, Lady Macbeth declares “you spirits That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here, And fill me from the crown to the toe top-full Of direst cruelty”.  The hooded figure, to which I attributed to representing darkness and evil, quite literally spreads Lady Macbeth’s legs and sensually moves around her. I thought the entire act simulated sex between Lady Macbeth and the darkness. In the text, Lady Macbeth wants to be removed of her femininity because to be female is to be on the gentle and side of the gender binary. In order to continue with her plan to execute the king, she must be anything but weak. This expression did not show through during the performance, but conversely it seemed like Lady Macbeth was asking to be consummated. From this, I took away the idea that to engage in sexual or sensual relations with the darkness would also fill her up with this same evil necessary to complete her intended deed.

The color scheme prompted by the staging added to the theme of sexuality as well. Everything was shown as monochromatic apart from the curtain, the sheet, and Lady Macbeth’s dress. I associate the color red with lust, so these objects reflected this same idea of lust as well. The red curtain closed off Macbeth and Lady Macbeth’s living quarters, thus enclosing it as an intimate haven. The sheet represented a bed, which obviously holds sexual associations. Finally, Lady Macbeth dressed in red made her an object of lust especially for Macbeth. Their sexually charged chemistry was undoubtedly overt, which is something I did not pick up on at The Globe either.

As a whole, the aspects that made the most impact from the performance on me as an audience member were staging aspects, relationships among some of the cast members, and the theme of sexuality.

Renaissance Clothing Regulations

During the Renaissance women were subject to many limitations within the patriarchal society, especially elite women in terms of their garments. These limitations led women to try to conform to both sides of the binary in their dress, as far as concealing and exploiting. Women’s bodies have been viewed as sinful with a necessity to be hidden since Adam and Eve in the story of the Garden of Eden, thus the idea of applying strict regulations on clothing was not born in the Renaissance. In fact, the seed was planted much earlier.

However, during the Renaissance regulations were enacted in the form of sumptuary laws. According to the reading for today ‘Controlling the Uncontrollable’, “The other concern was that letting anyone wear just anything must lead inexorably to moral decline. If you couldn't tell a milkmaid from a countess at a glance, the very fabric of society might unravel”. Women posed, and still arguably pose, a false threat to society through their sexuality. Layers are a way to counteract this assumption and cover up. Though layers were employed, they were not always practical as we saw in Jan Steen’s ‘A Woman at her Toilet’ while visiting the Queen’s Gallery today.  The audio guide described the sitter’s actions as being troublesome, for putting stockings on after all of her other garments draped her body proved to be a difficult task. Though unconventional, layers were a means of controlling Renaissance women and with this, distinctions between the treatment men and women widened.

Continuing with the idea of sumptuary laws, the same reading for today also describes the sumptuary laws as, “[attempting] to restrict the sumptuousness of dress in order to curb extravagance, protect fortunes, and make clear the necessary and appropriate distinctions between levels of society” (Control theUncontrollable). Instead of spending money on clothing and jewelry, the laws attempted to curb excessive expenses on women’s garments. However, ironically patriarchs used their wives to demonstrate their own wealth through these garbs. Playing on this idea, the idea of hiding and advertising through clothing was seen. Eleanora of Austria by Joos van Cleve exemplifies the luxury portrayed through expensive garbs. The fur, the jewels, the green bodice with gold thread, and jewels adorning her hair all allude to wealth. These touches further solidify the Queen of France’s status in society.

 

Despite regulations and double standards, early moderners found creative ways to subvert these rules. We learned about one of these techniques during our first church tour (at Westminster). Since churches were considered sanctuaries so women could enter them to elude an official enforcing regulations. While comical, the practice still worked. Through our readings, the gallery, and other tours we’ve participated in, it has become apparent what a large role clothing played in gender, among other distinctions.

Queen Elizabeth I

According to BBC, “Elizabeth was a different kind of Queen: quick-witted, clever and able to use feminine wiles to get her own way. Elizabeth could be as ruthless and calculating as any king before her but at the same time she was vain, sentimental and easily swayed by flattery” (Overview). An exemplification of this vanity is seen through her portraits, which were carefully vetted to make sure no physical flaws were revealed. The ‘Ditchley Portrait’ produced in 1592 is one example of how she manipulated her appearance through portraiture. When listening to the audio guide yesterday, it informed us that the painter, Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger, had a large task when completing this painting of Queen Elizabeth. He was to make her look young, while she was nearing 60. He was to smooth all wrinkles in her face and hands. Many copies of this painting exist and “in most, the queen’s features are considerably softened” (Paintings).

In addition, she was also dressed in low-cut garb, representative of younger women at the time. Another feature of the painting is highlighted through her stance over the globe with her feet on Oxfordshire. Standing over the globe emphasizes the time-honored belief that Elizabeth gave up the love of men for her country.Thus, Elizabeth’s choice of virginity disrupted the early modern gender system while securing Elizabeth as a model woman, if not a model for women. 

Elizabeth exploited her physical femininity and virginity as a political tool and justified her decision not to marry by casting herself as an unobtainable lady. In her speech concerning Parliament’s Request She Marry, in 1559, she states “And in the end this shall be for me sufficient, that a marble stone shall declare that a Queen, having reigned such a time, lived and died a virgin.” This statement alone seems as though she is using her virginity as a novelty and also for leverage.

Another instance where she verbalizes her position as a woman occurs in her Speech tothe Troops at Tillbury. She tells them, “I know I have the body but of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and of a king of England too”. She continues with, “I myself will take up arms, I myself will be your general, judge, and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field”. With this, she is exploring the juxtaposition of perceived female and male gender roles in war by being both weak and a protector of her soldiers.

Masculinity and femininity as themes are also present in portraits of her. For example, the portrait of Queen Elizabeth painted in 1575 by an unknown Netherlandish artist shows her looking cold and wearing a masculine doublet. However, she is also wearing a feminine lace ruff collar and pearls around her neck. Ultimately, speech and portraiture are just two of the ways Queen Elizabeth I exploited her patriarchal conceptions of gender.

St. Paul's Cathedral

While Westminster Abbey and St. Paul’s Cathedral share many aspects religiously and secularly, it is deeper within these ideas that we see their differences. Sixteen royal weddings have taken place at Westminster Abbey since its construction in 1245 under the urging of King Henry III. While Westminster Abbey does not list any on their official website as happening during the Renaissance, this is still an impressive list nonetheless.

With the original St. Paul’s being erected in 604, more than 600 years before Westminster, its sizeable difference in age also holds true for its seating capacity. The iconic Princess Diana and Charles chose to marry at St. Paul’s because they “were on a mission to become the people’s prince and princess”, according to a Time article. In other words, this meant that they needed seating for a spectacle. According to the same Time article, “St. Paul’s Cathedral can hold 3, 500 guests, [while Westminster’s] capacity is just 2,000”. With this, St. Paul’s is nearly twice as old as Westminster and possesses twice the capacity. This contrasting aspect of the churches could pose as the difference between an intimate gathering or more of an extravagant affair—a decision ultimately made by the royal couple.

As both churches stand for a symbol of celebration, they also symbolize mourning. Both Westminster Abbey and St. Paul’s served as final resting places for the royals and affluent people in the community and abroad. Nine monarchs were buried at Westminster during the Renaissance including Henry VII, Edward VI, Anne of Cleves, Henry VII, Queen Elizabeth, Mary (Queen of Scots), James I, Charles II, and Mary II. St. Paul’s is home to over 200 memorials in the crypt, however few people were actually interred there. As our brochure highlight, The Crypt is one of the top five places to visit while at St. Paul’s. Michael pointed out that the Crypt is the Cathedral’s foremost burial place where floors used to be plain earth where a simple stone was placed on top as a marker. Notable figures who are buried in the crypt are Vice Admiral Lord Horatio Nelson and Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. Others include: the poet John Donne; the painters Sir Anthony Van Dyck, Sir Joshua Reynolds, and Joseph Turner; the scientist Sir Alexander Fleming; and the architects Sir Christopher Wren and Sir Edwin Lutyens.

Despite plethora of figures buried here, the history behind Lord Nelson’s tomb is especially interesting to me when researching information for St. Paul’s because in it is highlighted Cardinal, whose quarters we saw at Hampton Court Palace. Nelson’s tomb was originally made for Cardinal Wolsley, who was the Lord Chancellor during Henry VIII reign in the early 16^th century. 

After Wolsley fell out of favor with King Henry VIII because he failed to secure an annulment of his wife Catherine of Aragon for Anne Boleyn. It is rumored that Anne Boleyn convinced Henry that Wolsely was deliberately slowing proceedings and with this he was arrested and stripped of his government office and property in 1529. His tomb was given to Lord Nelson and ironically Wolsey was buried elsewhere without even a marker.

From weddings to burials and political strife, both Westminster Abbey and St. Paul’s serve as religious and secular icons.

Windsor Castle

Windsor Castle has been home to the Sovereign for over 900 years and was built in the early eleventh century. The castle solidifies its state as being home to monarchs and even presently the Queen calls Windsor one of her three official residences. Accomplishing the feat of being the largest inhabited castle and the oldest in continuous use would not have been possible without preservation of the legacy throughout the centuries.

The fully working castle’s appearance does not look the same as we see it today, for many renovations have taken place since its initial construction. The architecture of the castle since the 14^th century has mirrored contemporary renditions and interpretations of previous traditions, thus aiding in keeping its initial legacy in tact.  Different design choices make up the varying buildings as the present castle is a result of phased building projects. As Gaby and Kaitlyn explained in their guidebook, Windsor Castle was “originally built in wooden form”; however, it was “rebuilt with stone 100 years after its original construction for fortifications”.

The idea of adding to the structure for longevity of the castle, mirrors the idea of adding specific structures in terms of dedication to preserve the longevity of the iconic people associated with the castle. St. George’s Chapel, which was dedicated to England’s patron Saint is a strong example of this. The souvenir guide points out that “The College of St. George was founded by Edward III in 1348 as a self-governing community of priests and laymen dedicated to daily prayer for the Sovereign and all the faithful, and so it remains”.  The legacy of these daily prayers remains on weekdays and Sundays with four services available every day.

Harry W. Blackburne, in his book The Romance of St. George’s Chapel, Windsor Castle, writes: “Was it that King Edward IV wanted to build a chapel to the greater glory of God which would be worthy of the Knights of the Garter, or because he, a Yorkist, wished to build even more beautiful than that of Eton, which had been the noble task of the Lancastrian King Henry VI?” (Romance). Binaries, such as the selfish and extravagant, are seen in other aspects of the castle’s history when we question whether or not the castle was a haven for sanctity or conflict.  

Oliver Cromwell capturing the castle in 1642 ultimately caused it to be reformed as a prison. Without research into status of the castle as a prison, I may not have ever known this information. Thus, the legacy has smoothed over this component of the past, which leaves us feeling as though the castle has always been the sacred, well-received place it is considered now. With a past so rich in change, it is not surprising that monarchs and icons have attempted to leave their mark on the castle through renovations and perceived histories. However, it is out job to explore the castle’s past and not just take it for what it is presently.