In the past few years, Shakespeare scholarship has benefitted from an unusually active two-way exchange between actors, directors, designers, and established scholars and teachers, all embracing their respective disciplines. Such... more
In the past few years, Shakespeare scholarship has benefitted from an unusually active two-way exchange between actors, directors, designers, and established scholars and teachers, all embracing their respective disciplines. Such theatrical and scholarly interactivity influences Shakespeare research and pedagogy. This seminar considers the impact of theatre practitioners on Shakespeare scholarship, and of Shakespeare scholars and teachers on theatre and film production, and invites discussion about the benefits of such cross-pollination and creative collaboration. It also questions the perceived ease with which practitioners transition into academe, as well as certain performance-industry suspicion towards academics who do the reverse. Paper topics could include: the impact of performance research on Shakespeare scholarship; the history of academic/actor cross-pollination from the early modern period to the present; the pedagogical impact of practitioner/scholar interchange in the classroom; the significance of early modern theatre reproductions (Globe, Blackfriars, etc.) as sites of practice-based experimentation; the importance of practice-based techniques in the production of Shakespeare MOOCs; the role of the dramaturg in establishing a middle ground between scholarship and practice. This seminar offers an opportunity for extended dialogue between Shakespeareans, of whatever persuasion, who make the journey “to the other side” of the practitioner/scholar divide.
The 2013 Oregon Shakespeare Festival’s King Lear presented a dual problem for any reviewer. With two actors sharing the principal role, which performance represented the director’s vision and which should be considered first? Bill Rauch’s... more
The 2013 Oregon Shakespeare Festival’s King Lear presented a dual problem for any reviewer. With two actors sharing the principal role, which performance represented the director’s vision and which should be considered first? Bill Rauch’s intention, to explore Lear’s multifaceted character through two distinctive performers, seems counter to demands for consistency inherent in any repertory production. An unforeseen outcome for this forced duality was its affect on the production’s powerfully envisioned Cordelia, whose character shifted subtly in response to the different Lears. To interrogate and complement this schizophrenic theatrical moment, two academics collaborate on a combined review of two separate performances.
