I mentioned in my last entry that three actors play all the roles in our version of The Tempest. The breakdown of the parts are as follows:
David Sinaiko – Prospero, Alonso, Stephano
Donell Hill – Ferdinand, Caliban, Antonio
Caitlyn Louchard – Miranda, Ariel, Gonzalo, Sebastian, Trinculo
The first scene with the Boatswain we have staged as a kind of collage of voices, and Adrian and Francisco’s lines have been redistributed amongst the other lords.
Our director, Rob Melrose, is working with the concept that there are three meta-roles – Prospero, Ferdinand, and Miranda – and that the other doubled characters may be understood as fragments of their personalities and psyches or how they are perceived by another character. Other three-actor productions, such as the London Globe’s 2005 Tempest, have used a similar conceits to ground their actors (in their case, Prospero, Caliban, and Ariel instead of Prospero, Miranda, and Ferdinand). Critics like Marjorie Garber have noted that the, with the abundance of similarities between the sets of characters, that the story may be reduced to a story involving certain key figures or types.
With this understanding, the actors change characters not simply when there is a need manifested by the plot (i.e. it’s now time for the Stephano scene, so the actor playing Prospero has to turn into Stephano), but when there is a need created within the meta-character (Prospero is turning into Stephano because something in the last scene has triggered the Stephano aspect of his conscience).
To give an example: we begin the first scene between the shipwrecked lords with Alonso drinking from a bottle out of despair from the loss of his son. By the time this scene comes to a close, Alonso has drunk so much that the Stephano aspect is able to appear. Stephano and Alonso share many of the same defining traits as Prospero – they are, each in their own way, leaders and masters, but with varying levels of sophistication and mastery. In the case of Ariel and Miranda, the first instance of the change is manifested when, after Prospero lulls Miranda to sleep, he awakens the latent Ariel personality within her almost by means of a kind hypnosis. In some instances, we need to get a little creative with the narrative. Sebastian and Gonzalo cannot be onstage at the same time, so the Sebastian aspect only awakes when Gonzalo is asleep.
It may appear from my account that we are taking quite a bit of liberty with the text. True enough, our production is not as strict as a more “traditional” interpretation (whatever that means), but I feel that a lot of the logic we have created for the transition between characters is more for the benefit of the actors than the audience. When they are able to make sense of why they change characters, the audience can make sense of the transitions as well. Once again, we are not trying to force a new narrative down the audience’s throats that warps The Tempest, we are telling the story of the play.
The actors have all taken great pains to significantly differentiate the characters through their voice and physicality and those choices, with the aid of certain costume choices (glasses for Ferdinand, sunglasses for Antonio, etc.), but, with the same three actors playing all the roles, it is impossible to dupe the audience into believing that the characters are entirely distinct. Shakespeare was undoubtedly conscious of these similarities when he wrote the play, and if those similarities are expressed so clearly with three actors, we would be doing ourselves a disservice by trying to mask it.
-Bennett Fisher, Dramaturg
Cutting Ball Theatre’s production of William Shakespeare’s The Tempest opens November 5 at the Exit on Taylor in San Francisco. More info at www.cuttingball.com
When I talked briefly with Rob about the production last summer, I came away with the impression that the three meta-roles — Prospero, Ferdinand, & Miranda — might hold the stage in their own personas throughout, and swallow up the best lines of Caliban, Ariel, et al. The transformative process you outline here seems much more practical, & perhaps will better communicate what gets shared across these three roles. Can we call them Owner, Daughter, & Rival? The sharing of the roles of Ferdinand & Antonio can emphasize how much Prospero stands to lose with his daughter. I wonder if that doubling might do what Auden’s poem does as well: make Antonio more important to the play. He’s arguably the point of origin for the whole two-generational game, but he so often gets swept under the nonhumans and the father-daughter story.
I also like having Miranda become Ariel in her sleep in the middle of 1.2. I’m puzzling about how that might change the way we understand the “full fathom five” song (about which I’ve written & puzzled over for years), & may post on that later. Ian Baucom has nicely called the song “the anthem of postmodernity.”
Prospero as Stephano is always implicit in productions — he’s a drunk usurper, with sack as his magic book, etc — but by making it explicit you’ll also make Prospero sing. That’s an interesting moment to imagine on stage. So much of P’s on-stage power comes from his ability to withdraw & operate through agents, whether his daughter or his two not-quite human slaves. When he bursts into sea-chanty doggerel — “The master, the swabber, the boatswain, and I…” — maybe he blows his cover?
I think this is so intriguing and has the potential to reveal so much of the undertones in the play. It seems like the production will really bring to the foreground what the relationships are between some of these characters, especially Ferdinand/Caliban and Ariel/Miranda. And of course there are inter-relationships here — how does this inform Prospero’s relationship with Ariel? with Miranda? with Gonzalo? Why is it important for us to recognize these relationships?
Steve, I’m also really interested how this complicates the role of Antonio — which is actually the role I would myself most like to play. He does so often get swept aside in favor of the larger storylines. I actually find him the most interesting figure, especially considering his silence at the end of the play. Ben, how does the final scene get staged with so many of these characters present, but only three actors in the company? I think Antonio’s silence is quite profound; it’s so noticeable in its absence. I would be concerned that it might be minimized in this case simply because there may not be a body there to be silent.
A nice point about Antonio’s (Iago-like) silence at the end being hard enough to play on a crowded stage, & perhaps it might get swallowed up in the three-person performance. The Ferdinand/Caliban/Antonio actor will have to play all three moments — Ferdinand’s joy, Antonio’s silence, Caliban’s submission — at once. Does the dramatic conceit insist that these are somehow the same, or at least that they look the same (ie, passive & silent)?
I find this really intriguing as well. Obviously the play takes on a much more psychological dimension which I didn’t think consider. I wonder how much of the morphing into a meta-character would be about utility/power, the need to display or tap into a different personality, versus the psychological need to deal with emotions and the memories that other characters will evoke. I think this enlarges the scope of the play in terms of control and recognizing the other, or one’s self in the other.
I also think about the character morphing in terms of your project, David, about Shakespeare & Keats’s “Grecian Urn.” The challenge & pleasures of juxtaposing two quite different works of literature might be comparable to these character-melds. What does Keats’s unheard, imaginative fantasy illuminate about Shakespeare’s nuts-and-bolts theater of moving bodies & fripperies?
It is interesting that I was meaning to write about the relationships/similarities between Caliban & Ferdinand and Ariel & Miranda, which would actually answer your very question, Tara.
Caliban & Ferdinand are paired as binaries since they are both potential sutiors for Miranda, an idea that critics have explored through the years and we may have explored in class. Caliban is regarded as a potential for pairing with Miranda as he is the male human (or quasi-human) on the island that can complete her need as a being to marry. His alleged rape of Miranda raises the question of his suitability for her. Prospero & Miranda seem disgusted by the idea of his copulation with her since he is a savage of the conventionally inferior race, his claimed act of attempted rape exemplifying his savagery. Ferdinand, on the other hand, is the perfect match for Miranda, and Prospero puts him through a painstaking test for his suitability. In the test, Prospero treats him almost as a slave, but he is able and willing to live up to his order in the way that Caliban is not. In the end, Ferdinand proves to be a success in his suitability for Miranda, of the supposedly superior race and of royal birth, both which match Miranda and are contrary to Caliban. Shakespeare posits the two males as opposites in the play, the worst and best matches for Miranda. Thus, the production company could be illustrating that the worst turned to the best are shown in sequence in the play.
As for Ariel and Miranda, I would like to discuss an idea, which I believe I had actually mentioned in this class. Ariel & Miranda are two beings who stand as the children of Prospero, carrying on his legacy. Ariel is an airy spirit who carries out the tasks, which the magician, Prospero most cherishes, magic. He is just able to execute magic through the command of Prospero. Thus, Ariel stands as a child to the magician of Prospero, the most important self of Prospero. It is also important to note that Prospero treats Ariel much different than Caliban. Although they are both under his service, Prospero seems to have more love and respect for Ariel, almost like a father, which is reciprocated by Ariel. By the ending of the play, Propsero grants Ariel his freedom, much like he does for Miranda by releasing her from his discipline to marriage.
Overall, I marvel that Cutting Ball Theatre made excellent decisions for the multiple casting.