Week 6 Your Production

Titus Andronicus

Titus Andronicus was one of William Shakespeare's first tragedies and was probably his bloodies play. It was believed to have been written between 1588 and 1593 and was supposed to be a collaboration with George Peele. It can definitely be described as a revenge play which was very popular with the audience of that time and throughout the 16th Century.


The play is set within the latter days of the Roman Empire and is also set in Rome. The play tells the story of a general named Titus Andronicus who gets wrapped up in a cycle of revenge and bloody gore with Tamora the Queen of Goths and her secret lover Aaron the Moor. 


The first showing of the play was January 24th 1594 however a more contemporary showing of the play was done in 2012 at the Globe Theatre in London and was directed by Tang Shu-wing. It was renamed Titus Andronicus 2.0. The style of the play was very minimalistic. For example, instead of Lavinia having blood gushing out from her limbs when she is amputated she wears a pair of red gloves to symbolise this happening and instead of having her tongue cut out her lipstick is smeared from her lips. The staging also was very simplistic and this was done 'to release the energies of the classical text'. All but one of the cast originated from Singapore and this was unusual to see in a London Theatre. I feel like it would have been a very smart decision to alter the original style of Titus Andronicus and make it more simplistic because it still has the same amount of emotion and it still impacts the audience in a moving way however it just gets rid of the surplus gore and violence. I feel like this way the focus is put more on the sadness of Lavinia's mutilation and the emotion of the story. I think the grey colouring of the costume is purposefully meant to suggest gloom and death and contrast against the red blood that Lavinia shed's. This obviously draws more attention to the sadness of her circumstances which I think the director was aiming for.

In our production of Titus Andronicus I played the character Aaron.  At first I assumed that this would be a different role than I had played before seeing as Aaron is the villain of the play. I felt that I would have quite a big responsibility to maintain my character throughout the piece and make it believable to the audience that I could be the one that caused so much pain and chaos. I feel that at first I definitely didn’t have the confidence to pull it off because it would be a very masculine and masochistic role and I have no experience in playing a male role and would have difficulties in being able to relate to someone that wished to cause so much pain and hurt. After reading through the play I realised that I would be able to portray my character well if I could understand my character well. This would mean looking at my character’s given circumstances, exploring and discovering what my character is motivated to do and why. A good way of doing this was through asking myself Stanislavsky’s Seven Questions. This resulted in me discovering things about my character that I had no idea would have impacted him. These were the seven questions I had to ask myself as my character Aaron:

1. Who am I?

2. Where am I?

3. When?

4. What do I want?

5. Why do I want this?

6. How will I achieve this?

7. What must I overcome?

I first did some research into Aaron to help me understand who he was and where he came from. There were many websites and ways of researching this on the internet but I also found out a lot more about Aaron by reading the play and looking at how he responds to certain things characters say and why he might respond that way.

I feel that Aaron is the catalyst for the majority of the wrong doings that happen in the play. He is the main cause for suffering and revenge and the most interesting thing about him is that he is completely unrepentable about it even when he is being told that he is to be starved to death. There is a part of me that likes the fact that he was so defiant because it shows how strong-minded he is despite the fact that he isn’t using this skill for good. I would definitely describe him as being cunning and a methodical thinker. A lot of the time he is plotting and scheming and a lot of the time I had to play the action ‘to plot’ especially at the beginning of our production. He is driven by revenge and also jealousy although the latter is a theme that I think is often neglected. I feel that jealousy is a big part of Aaron’s character. I believe that for a lot of his life he has looked at the power and wealth that others have obtained and has wanted the same for himself. Jealousy may have played a big part in his desire to destroy Titus because I feel that Aaron may have thought about how Titus was partly responsible for the death of over 20 of his sons however he is still respected and loved by the people of Rome. It is interesting that Aaron never really admits to exactly why he has hurt so many but does explicitly say that he takes a lot of pleasure in it. I think it is also interesting that he is so vocal about the fact that he has enjoyed every moment of it as he says on more than one occasion that he is only sorry that he couldn’t do more evil things. His defiance may affect the audience in that it might be shocking or it might be something that makes him likeable in that he is so evil that it is almost amusing or on the other hand people may feel sympathy for Aaron in that he is so unbelievably unwell.

I feel like a big part of Aaron's characteristics are portrayed through his interactions with the other characters. For example, when Aaron speaks to Nurse he is disrespectful and rude. In our production I made the choice to emphasise my consonants when speaking to the nurse in order to seem even more bitter and rude.  Dissimilarly, at times when Aaron speaks to Chiron and Demetrius he speaks with a much more paternal and friendly tone in order to befriend them and manipulate them into doing what he wants them to do.

When the play first showed in 1594 there wouldn’t have been any black people around to perform as Aaron and so a white male would instead paint black shoe polish or burnt cork onto his face in order to appear black. In more recent productions Aaron has not been played as a black man. For example, in the production performed at the Globe in 2012, Aaron was played by an Asian actor. In other productions Aaron has been played by a black man but more focus has been put on the racial themes of the play for example in the 70’s in a contemporary adaptation Aaron was presented with a gorilla mask on his face.

I am happy with the way I portrayed Aaron.  A difficult scene to do would have been the scene in which Aaron is brought on stage with his child and presented to Lucius and his army. This is because before this scene Aaron is seemingly quite proud and arrogant however in this scene as soon as he is brought on it was important to make it clear to the audience that Aaron was beginning to lose power. I felt that I needed to show this through my facial expressions. I wanted to make it seem like I was trying to keep on a brave face and maintain my defiance however I wanted to make it clear that Aaron was threatened in this position and feels like he is losing despite all of his efforts to be rich and almighty.

I think that I did a good job of making it evident to the audience that Aaron is a complex and challenged character but I feel that my end speech should have been actioned more thoroughly because looking back I feel that Aaron may have found his sentencing to death a little bit amusing because in his mind his death would not undo all of the bad things that he had caused to happen and therefore he doesn’t understand why Lucius and his army cannot see that Aaron has won. I feel that Aaron would also find this amusing. I feel that if I had actioned it more I would have perhaps noticed Aaron’s potential amusement.

Week 5 Shakespeare Today

One contemporary Shakespeare show I have seen was first shown in 2011 at The Young Vic and it starred the well-known actor Michael Sheen. The show was very successful and I particularly enjoyed Sheen’s performance. The recurrent theme of Hamlet is madness and this was powerfully emphasized from the beginning as the audience members are led down a maze of narrow hospital- like corridors which was reminiscent of an asylum and this staging created a strong sense of fore boding as the audience were made to feel as though as they were walking into an asylum and almost becoming inmate themselves. This was a sort of pre-show but I believe that most producers of the plays in Shakespeare’s time would rather stick to the original play then provoke the audience into questioning the themes of the play before it begins in this way. The set was very eerie and dark which added to the atmosphere and stimulated the imagination creating a sense of had the effect of drawing us in and creating the illusion of claustrophobia and that there was no escape. I feel like the only way the director of a play in Shakespeare’s time would be able to create this eerie and dark effect would be too only show the play at night because there was no electricity to create shadows with the lighting. The costumes were stylised and contemporary dress which gave the theme of insanity a modern relevance because of the staging which compelled us as audience members to relate to the characters more effectively. This would be quite similar to the original performance of the play because the actors would have worn the contemporary clothes at the time of the performance .Through Sheen’s performance he was able  to conveyed the  disturbed mind of the character both through his physical characterisation (shaking, twitching) and diverse vocal delivery. Contemporary music was played during the play in order to encourage the audience to suggest when the play is set and create a sense of nostalgia. Although there most probably would have been music that was contemporary to the time back when the play was originally performed it would most likely have been more significant to the audience to listen to the lyrics because back then the lyrics would have been written by Shakespeare himself and so would have been significant to the story-telling of the play.

Another Shakespeare play I have seen which can be classed as a contemporary version was the play A Midsummer Night’s Dream at The Globe Theatre this year. I thought the show was extremely good. It was very modern and full of surprises making it very exciting to watch. The comedy was extremely significant to the play and in some sections of the play this was to both make the audience laugh and also to establish the relationship between the characters and this was done very effectively. In the original Shakespeare performances comedy was a tool that also was used to make the audience laugh however by using comedy to establish the characters relationships, the director makes the characters and their passions and desires more significant to the audience meaning the audience are more able to connect with the characters because they see them as real people with dreams and relationships. Another contemporary device was that they used a different culture’s music via a live band to create a fantastical and ethereal atmosphere to engage the audience and pull them in to the fantastical world of the play. This was a good technique to use however back when the play was originally showed in theatre despite the fact that they would have had a live band they probably wouldn’t have anyone in the band who could play instruments that originated from India. They most probably would have played music in the play but it was probably folk music that originated from the place it was being shown. One thing that the producers of the play chose to do was to change the gender of some of the characters meaning a gay relationship occurred during the play. This made it much more interesting to watch. I had never seen a Shakespeare play be so representative of homosexuality and it was refreshing to see this. Obviously this wouldn’t have occurred back when A Midsummer Night’s Dream first was shown because homosexuality would have been frowned upon in society and so they wouldn’t have liked to have seen it in a play. In addition the director made the choice to change the ethnicity of a few of the characters so that Hermia and Helena were Asian and Demetrius was black. Again this definitely worked to modernise the play as it meant that the play could have been set in modern day England. It also made the story more relatable because as audience members we all know people that are black, white or Asian. This obviously wouldn’t have occurred when the play was first shown because at the time black and Asian people would have been scarce at the time and also would have probably been again frowned upon in society. Other performing arts such as puppetry made their appearance during the show. This was something very new to see and also very intriguing to watch and this was another device to engage the audience which I believe it successfully did. The play was also extremely interactive meaning that at some point an audience member was made to eat a character’s banana and another audience member was made to help a character out of her shoes. This was very engaging and made great comedic moments of the play. It meant there was almost a friendly relationship between the characters and the audiences. During the time that A Midsummer Night’s Dream first was shown the majority of the interaction between the Shakespearean actors and the audience would have been via asides to the audiences.

Week 4 Theatre's, Actors And Acting in Shakespeares Time

A playhouse was a small, private indoor hall and were open to anyone however were more popular amongst the richer people and therefore had a more select audience. The audience capacity  

The audience capacity was about 500 people. Playhouses were thought to be much more helpful to actors as they enabled actors to have an all year round profession as they were indoors and wouldn't be effected by the unpredictable English weather. Playhouses also allowed for luxury and comfort for courtiers and noblemen when watching plays and this encouraged an audience of wealthy and powerful people. The first playhouse, the Red Lion, was built in 1567 by John Brayne. 

There were two different types of playhouses: outdoor playhouses and indoor playhouses and they both were different therefore attracted different audiences.

All outdoor playhouses had a central yard , a raised stage that jutted out into the yard, a roof over the stage, which the actors called ‘the heavens’, a tiring house which was a place behind the stage with a backstage area, where actors dressed and waited to come on-stage. There was also galleried seating all around the yard, on several levels, which was roofed.


Playhouses drew big audiences, but they weren't popular with everyone and because the officials who ran the City of London thought that playhouses were noisy and disruptive, and attracted thieves and other ‘undesirable’ people it was decided that playhouses should be built on sites outside the control of city officials and this meant outside the city wall. The south bank of the River Thames was outside the city and already had animal baiting arenas, brothels and taverns where people could buy food and drink so people already went there for entertainment.

The experience of being an actor then differs from the experience today because most young male actors would have been expected to play women in the all male casts as women were not allowed to perform on stage. Also comic characters such as the nurse in Romeo & Juliet would have been played by a comic actor or a clown. In addition, costumes were normally the main spectacle of the play rather than the actors story-telling ability.

The actors would have had to also be good singers and musicians in order to sing songs and play music written within the play.

The stages in the playhouses in Shakespeare's day had very little scenery apart from props and objects needed due to the plot and exits and entrances where visible to the audiences. The stages were a lot smaller giving the actors less space for fighting scenes or crowds.

Playhouses were sometimes built by businessmen who had money to spare, while the acting companies did not. The businessman would rent some land, built a playhouse and leased it to acting companies for a certain amount of years. Most playhouses were made from bricks with timber-framed walls and the roofs were made from thatch or tile.