The experience I had at Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre was like no other. The first time I saw a play at this theatre for Mother Courage I was quite literally left speechless. Afterwards at lunch, Emmy, Reese, and I all couldn’t stop talking about the experience and just how amazing it felt. With this being said, if I felt this way at Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre when watching just any play, I knew watching an actual Shakespeare play, nonetheless one of the most celebrated of his works (and my first Shakespeare play), would be an unfathomable and amazing experience.
I took professor Mark Scott’s Introduction to Shakespeare class this past spring semester, so we had actually discussed Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre and how it was during Shakespeare’s time. Because of this, as soon as the actors started interacting with the audience and the play was clearly beginning, I immediately imagined how similar this probably was to how it would have been during Shakespeare’s time. We learned in class that Shakespeare’s Globe was built how it was with mostly standing-room only because the actors interacted with the audience often back then as well. Obviously, the amount of interaction would depend on the audience themself, as well as the type of play. For A Midsummer Night’s Dream, because it is a comedy, the interaction with the audience I imagine would have been pretty similar to the interaction we experienced ourselves on Thursday.
To be completely honest, our experience was exactly what I expected/dreamed of and much more. I felt very properly immersed in the culture of Shakespeare. I feel if I had seen this play anywhere else, especially in contemporary America, it would simply just not feel the same. I probably would have chuckled a bit because Shakespeare can be pretty funny at times by himself without the help of the actors. But, I certainly would not have been so immersed, and literally involved with the show as I was. One of the elements I believe has stayed the same from performances in Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre during his time is the amount of over-explanation and repetition within the actual play. During Shakespeare’s time, the audience was much less polite, and really did not pay very close attention to the actors. The crowds back then were far less silent and far less interested in the play’s plotlines. Because of this, Shakespeare wrote in such a way that would help keep the audience either involved/interested or at least helped them keep a moderate idea of the play’s plotline. This resulted in repetitive lines or seemingly obvious ideas being plainly stated outloud, allowing for little nuance to be required in order to understand. It’s kind of similar to how shows nowadays have actors say what their characters are doing over and over again because the current audience is too busy scrolling to understand what is going on.
In terms of differences, I think the biggest difference is the audience in general. The theatre etiquette has changed drastically since Shakespeare’s time. Audiences now give actors respect by being quiet and fully paying attention. I’m not sure what else would be much different. I feel like, for the most part, at least with the big things, it’s all still the same. I think that’s the point of this theatre, to keep Shakespeare’s theatre culture alive. Overall this experience was just as I expected it to be and 100 times better at the same time. The experience was also heightened with my new Shakespearean flower crown and my “Dream Big” stamp!
Adieu!
- Jill Qualls
Theatre in London U of A 