Shakespeare's Globe Theatre. One of the oldest theaters in London: history

Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine

Kirovograd National Technical University

"Shakespeare Theater"

Performed

Art. gr. ENM-08

Fomichenko A.V.

I checked

Kolomiets E.B.

Kirovograd 2010

The Globe Theatre, one of London's oldest theatres, is located on the south bank of the Thames.

The glorious history of Shakespeare's Globe Theater began in 1599, when in London, which was distinguished by its great love for theatrical art, public theater buildings were built one after another. During the construction of the Globe, building materials were used that were left over from the dismantled building of the very first public theater in London (it was called the “Theatre”). The owners of the building, a troupe of famous English actors, the Burbages, had their land lease expired; So they decided to rebuild the theater in a new location. The leading playwright of the troupe, William Shakespeare, who by 1599 had become one of the shareholders of Burbage's "Lord Chamberlain's Men" theater, was undoubtedly involved in this decision.

The name of this troupe is associated with the work of Shakespeare - his dramatic and acting activities. It was the production of works by Shakespeare and other playwrights of the Renaissance that made this theater one of the most important centers of cultural life in the country. It was at this time (from the 16th century) that performing arts turned from amateur to professional. Troupes of actors arise, initially leading a wandering existence. They move from city to city, giving performances at fairs and in hotel yards. Patronage began to develop. Representatives of wealthy aristocratic families accepted actors as part of their servants - this gave them an official social position, albeit an extremely low one.

Actors were considered servants of some nobleman. This position of the actors was recorded in the names of the troupes - “Lord Chamberlain’s Servants”, “Lord Admiral’s Servants”, “Lord Handson’s Servants”. When James I came to the throne, the right to patronize troupes was granted only to members of the royal family. Accordingly, the troupes were renamed "Servants of His Majesty the King" or "Servants of His Highness the Crown Prince", etc.

Theater in England from the very beginning was formed as a private enterprise, run by entrepreneurs. They built theater buildings that they rented out to acting troupes. For this, the owner received a large share of the fees from the performances. But there were also acting partnerships on shares. The life of the troupe in which Shakespeare was a member was built on such principles. Not all the actors in the troupe were shareholders - the poorer actors were on salary and did not participate in the division of income. This was the situation for actors in supporting roles and teenagers playing female roles. Each troupe had its own playwrights who wrote plays for it.

The authors' connection with the theater was very close. It was the author who explained to the actors how to stage the play. The financial situation of playwrights who worked for entrepreneurs and lived only on literary earnings was quite difficult. The actor-shareholder and playwright Shakespeare was able to achieve more favorable conditions for his work. In addition, he had patrons. He received significant sums from the Earl of Southampton. But in general, the playwright’s work was poorly valued and poorly paid. Banquet halls in the palaces of the king and the nobility, hotel courtyards, as well as areas for bear baiting and cockfights also served as venues for theatrical performances.

Special theater premises appeared in the last quarter of the 16th century. The construction of permanent theaters was started by James Burbage, who in 1576 built a room for theatrical performances, which he called the “Theater”.

In London, from the end of the 16th century, there were three types of theaters - court, private and public. They differed in the composition of the audience, in their structure, repertoire and playing style. Theaters for the general public were built in London mainly outside the City, that is, outside the jurisdiction of the London municipality, which was explained by the Puritan spirit of the bourgeoisie, which was hostile to theater in general. City theaters were of two types. These theaters had no roof. In most cases they were round in shape.

The Globe Theater was octagonal. Its auditorium was an oval area surrounded by a high wall, along the inner side of which there were boxes for the aristocracy. Above them there was a gallery for wealthy citizens. Spectators stood around three sides of the site. Some privileged spectators sat on the stage itself. The theater could accommodate up to 2000 (3000, according to various sources) people. Everyone was charged upon entry. Those who wanted to take seats in the gallery paid extra for this, as did the spectators sitting on the stage. The latter had to pay the most. The performances were performed in daylight, without intermissions and almost without decorations. The stage had no curtain. Its distinctive feature was a strongly protruding proscenium and a balcony in the back - the so-called upper stage, where the action of the play also took place.

The stage jutted out into the auditorium - the audience surrounded it on three sides. Behind the stage there were artistic restrooms and storage areas for props and costumes. The stage was a platform about one meter high above the floor of the auditorium. From the artistic room there was an entrance under the stage, where there was a hatch through which “ghosts” appeared (for example, the shadow of Hamlet’s father) and where sinners destined for hell fell (like Faust in Marlowe’s tragedy). The proscenium was empty. Tables, chairs, etc. were brought here as needed, but for the most part the stage of the English theater was free of props.

The stage was divided into three parts: front, back and top. There were three doors at the back where the actors entered and exited. There was a balcony above the back stage - in Shakespeare's chronicles, characters appeared on the balcony and were assumed to be on the castle wall. The upper stage was a tribune or depicted Juliet's bedroom. Above the upper stage there was a structure called a “hut”. It was shaped like a house. There were one or two windows here, which served for those scenes where, during the course of the action, the characters talked from the window, like Juliet in the second act of the tragedy.

When a performance began in the theater, a flag was hung on the roof of the hut - it was far visible and served as an identification sign that a performance was being given in the theater. In the 20th century, more than once directors would return to the principles of the poor and ascetic theater of Shakespeare's time, even to the point of experimenting with seating spectators on stage.

There were very few painted sets at the Globus Theater. The theater helped the viewer understand what was happening by hanging, for example, signs with inscriptions - with the name of the play, indicating the location of the action. Much in this theater was conventional - the same place depicted now one part of the field, now another, now the area in front of the building, now the room inside it. Mainly from the speeches of the heroes, the audience judged the change in the scene of action.

The external poverty of the theater required the audience to actively perceive the performance - playwrights, including Shakespeare, relied on the imagination of the audience.

For example, Shakespeare's play "Henry V" contained images of the palaces of the English and French kings, battles and battles of two large armies. They couldn’t show this on stage, so Shakespeare directly addressed the audience:

Forgive me, gentlemen, if my mind is weak.

I decided on such pitiful stages

Depict such a tall object!

Like here, where the roosters just have time to fight,

Contain the plains of France? Or get bored

Here in the wooden "O" there are at least some helmets,

Causing a thunderstorm near Agincourt?

Forgive me!

But if there are numbers nearby

There are millions in a tiny space

It is possible to depict, then allow me

And to us, insignificant zeros in the total,

Multiply the power of imagination in you!

Imagine what's inside these walls

Two powerful states are concluded...

Fill up all our shortcomings

With your imagination...

The theater nurtured the imagination of the public, trusted it, and it did not demand the complete materialization of everything that it heard from the lips of the actors. It can also be argued that the acting art of the era stood at a great height. All of Shakespeare's brilliant dramaturgy would remain unappreciated if the actors were not able to convey it to the audience.

However, such simplicity of morals fully corresponded to the rules of etiquette of that time, and the Globe Theater very soon became one of the main cultural centers of England: all the plays of William Shakespeare and other outstanding playwrights of the Renaissance were staged on its stage.

Shakespeare's plays demanded naturalness from the actor, when every passion must know its limits and conform every action to speech.

The theater was one of the favorite entertainments of that time, despite the fact that the Puritans, whose religion prohibited any entertainment, categorically opposed theatrical art.

However, in 1613, during the premiere of Shakespeare's Henry VIII, a fire broke out in the theater: a spark from a stage cannon shot hit the thatched roof above the back of the stage. Historical evidence states that there were no casualties in the fire, but the building burned to the ground. The end of the “first Globe” symbolically marked a change in literary and theatrical eras: around this time, William Shakespeare stopped writing plays.

Letter about the fire at Globus

“Now I will entertain you with the story of what happened this week at Bankside. His Majesty's actors were performing a new play called All is True (Henry VIII), representing the highlights of the reign of Henry VIII. The production was decorated with extraordinary pomp, and even the stage covering was amazingly beautiful. Knights of the Order of George and the Garter, guards in embroidered uniforms and so on - everything was more than enough to make greatness recognizable, if not ridiculous.

So, King Henry arranges a mask in the house of Cardinal Wolsey: he appears on stage, several shots of welcome are heard. One of the bullets apparently got stuck in the scenery - and then everything happened.

At first, only a small smoke was visible, to which the audience, captivated by what was happening on stage, did not pay any attention; but after a split second the fire spread to the roof and began to spread rapidly, destroying the entire building to the ground in less than an hour. Yes, those were disastrous moments for this solid building, where only wood, straw and a few rags burned. True, one of the men’s trousers caught fire, and he could easily have been fried, but he (thank heavens!) guessed in time to put out the flames with ale from a bottle.”

Sir Henry Wotton

Soon the building was rebuilt, this time from stone; the thatched ceiling above the deep part of the stage was replaced with tiles. Burbage's troupe continued to play at the "second Globe" until 1642, when the Puritan Parliament and Lord Protector Cromwell issued a decree closing all theaters and prohibiting all theatrical entertainment.

In 1644, the empty “second Globe” was rebuilt into premises for rent. The history of the theater was interrupted for more than three centuries.

The idea of ​​a modern reconstruction of the Globe Theater belongs, oddly enough, not to the British, but to the American actor, director and producer Sam Wanamaker. He came to London for the first time in 1949, and for about twenty years, together with his like-minded people, he collected materials about the theaters of the Elizabethan era bit by bit. By 1970, Wanamaker had founded the Shakespeare Globe Trust to rebuild the lost theater and create an educational center and permanent exhibition space. Work on this project continued for more than 25 years; Wanamaker himself died in 1993, almost four years before the opening of the reconstructed Globe.

The guideline for the reconstruction of the theater was the excavated fragments of the foundation of the old Globe, as well as the nearby Rose Theater, where Shakespeare’s plays were staged in “pre-Globe” times.

The new building was built from green oak wood, processed in accordance with the traditions of the 16th century. and is located almost in the same place as before - the new one is 300 meters away from the old Globus. Careful reconstruction of the appearance is combined with modern technical equipment of the building.

The new Globe opened in 1997 under the name Shakespeare's Globe Theatre. Since, according to historical realities, the new building was built without a roof, performances are held in it only in spring and summer. However, tours of London's oldest theater, the Globe, are conducted daily. Already in this century, next to the restored Globe, a theme park museum dedicated to Shakespeare was opened. It houses the world's largest exhibition dedicated to the great playwright; A variety of themed entertainment events are organized for visitors: here you can try to write a sonnet yourself; watch a sword fight, and even take part in a production of a Shakespeare play.

Morality plays and interludes (a transitional form from morality play to farce) to the main theatrical genres - tragedy and comedy. The second is the end of the 16th century. and the beginning of the 17th century, until the death of Shakespeare in 1616 - the highest flowering of the English theater of the Renaissance. The third - from the death of Shakespeare in 1616 to the closure of theaters by the Puritan authorities in 1642 - marks the crisis and decline of the English theater. English theater countdown...

It did not favor the development of tragedy and comedy; pastoral became a favorite genre. She brought respite from worldly worries. She created the appearance of the desired harmony. At its peak, the theater found itself in England. The theater of the English Renaissance is Shakespeare and his brilliant entourage: Marlowe, Greene, Beaumont, Fletcher, Champion, Nash, Ben Jonson. But all these last names belong to their century...

Shakespeare's theater and its influence on Russian theater

William Shakespeare (UK), author of 11 tragedies and 17 comedies. His works have been called “outdated” at different times and in different countries, but for almost four hundred years now their stories have remained in demand, surviving generations and eras. The secret of Shakespeare's plays is in the stories themselves, which remain interesting precisely because they reflect eternal themes: human passions, aspirations and weaknesses. That is, everything that has not changed throughout the history of mankind, that does not depend in any way on technical progress and the development of nanotechnology.

During Shakespeare's lifetime, his plays were performed by the Lord Chamberlain's Men troupe, which played at the Globe Theater in London. The productions at the Globe were very popular. They were characterized by a complete lack of decoration. This made it possible to greatly reduce the performance time: the acts changed one after another quite quickly, since there was no need to disassemble and assemble the scenery. Spectators were notified of a change in the location of the action by a sign with an inscription. Another important detail: the Globe actors on stage were dressed the same as their contemporaries. After many centuries in different countries, directors, staging Shakespeare's plays, will dress the troupe in modern clothes as a spectacular technique. But there will still be a lot of time before that happens.

Until the mid-19th century, Shakespeare's works were translated into Russian not from the original, but through French classical adaptations (Jean-François Ducis, 1733–1816). The most famous author in Russia at that time was A. Sumarokov, to whom the first mention of Shakespeare belongs, which dates back to 1748: “Shakespeare, an English tragedian and comedian, in whom there is a lot of both very bad and very good. He died on the 23rd day of April, in 1616, in his 53rd century.” Sumarokov, just like Dussy, was more of an interpreter than a translator: he took liberties in the plot, in the dialogue, and even in the plot. It is enough to mention only the fact that in his version Hamlet does not die, but marries Ophelia. In general, in those years, following the example of Dussy, Russian writers did not publish translations of Shakespeare’s plays, but their own versions of his plots. They were called: “Othello” by Velyaminov, “Lear” by Gnedich, “Hamlet” by Viskovatov.

Interest in Shakespeare in Russia grew sharply after 1825: the Decembrist uprising changed the mood in society as a whole. Progressive minds of that time longed for changes in the government system. At that time, folklore, the everyday life of peasants, their simple morals, and most importantly, oral traditions, traditions, and legends became increasingly fashionable. However, the “English” Shakespeare himself often looked for his plots in the tales of antiquity. And many Russian writers, armed with the example of Shakespeare, who drew the plots of his dramas from folk tales, also turned their attention to folklore, and, following the example of the British classic, began to recreate the plots of ancient oral traditions in their literary works. He is considered the best Shakespearean player of that era. In the middle of the 19th century, Shakespeare began to be translated into Russian from the original. Among the Russian translators of Shakespeare were the Decembrists: Kuchelbecker and Bestuzhev. The first “Complete Collection of Shakespeare's Dramatic Works Translated by Russian Writers” was published in several volumes in 1865–68. and was subsequently reprinted many times.

Over the years, Shakespeare's popularity on the Russian stage grew. The performances "Richard III" and "Othello" in translations by Bryansky and Panaev attracted the attention of Russian audiences to the plays of the English playwright. Much has been written about Shakespeare, and many translations have appeared, of varying quality. About the fashion for Shakespeare in these years, Gogol wrote: “Not to mention Russian writers, a reviewer, no matter what empty book he talks about, will certainly begin with Shakespeare, whom he has not read at all. But it has become fashionable to talk about Shakespeare - so, give us Shakespeare ". During the period, a lot of new translations appeared, “Romeo and Julia” translated by M. Katkov, “King Lear” and “Coriolanus” translated by V. Karatygin, “The Merchant of Venice” translated by N. Pavlov, “Timon of Athens” were performed on stage. translated by N. Polevoy and “The Comedy of Errors” translated by Ketcher.

But mass fashion, which increases quantity, usually has a bad effect on quality, unfortunately, the same happened with Shakespeare's plays at that time. This is what Nekrasov wrote about this: “Coriolanus” in the form in which it is played, in reading, will disappoint you, mislead you and, God forbid, make you doubt Shakespeare... No, no! I specifically warn you that it is not Shakespeare’s fault... Wait, maybe soon we will have a complete translation of “Coriolanus”, correct, clear, elegant, then you will see how far the current “Coriolanus” is from Shakespeare’s.”

But interest in Shakespearean productions only grew. The most famous of the first theatrical productions of Shakespeare's plays in Russia is the tragedy "Hamlet" in translation. Only ten years have passed since the Decembrist uprising. Part of society secretly sympathized with the high impulse of the rebels, while part, on the contrary, considered activities aimed at changing power in the country extremely dangerous.

In 1837, the play was staged simultaneously in Moscow and St. Petersburg. The main role was played by and. Polevoy's translation was quite free; it was more in line with the sentiments of his contemporaries than with the original text. But this is precisely what made the play very popular and caused a lot of reviews. Mochalov also played other Shakespearean characters: Romeo, Richard III, King Lear and Othello. But it was the role of the Danish prince that brought the artist the greatest success. The memory of her has survived to this day. thanks to V. Belinsky’s article “Hamlet, Shakespeare’s drama. Mochalov in the role of Hamlet” published in 1838. According to Belinsky's definition, in this Hamlet there was more acting interpretation than the author's intention. But Mochalov’s rebel Hamlet, filled with pathos, corresponded to the sentiments of other contemporaries. This was a man who had not come to terms with the reality around him, and who challenged it, feeling his own doom in advance, and yet did not retreat, and expressed his protest, knowing full well how dangerous it was. Other Shakespearean heroes performed by Mochalov were as pathetic as the Prince of Denmark. However, Mochalov was an actor of mood. He relied on the muse and impulses of inspiration, which is why in the same performances performed at different times, the same characters could “sound” differently.

Karatygin's Hamlet was not like that at all. Of the Shakespearean roles, Karatygin played Othello, Hamlet, Lear and Coriolanus. Unlike the impulsive Mochalov, he was more technical, rational, his characters less reflected the current mood of society, but they brought the viewer closer to the Eternal. Belinsky, comparing these two performers, wrote: “Mochalov’s play, in my opinion, is sometimes a revelation of the mystery, the essence of stage art, but it is often an insult to it. Karatygin’s play, in my opinion, is the norm of the external side of art, and it is always true himself, never deceives the viewer, completely giving him what he expected, and even more... Mochalov always falls when his volcanic inspiration leaves him, because he has nothing to rely on except his inspiration... Karatygin for every role takes on boldly and confidently, because his success does not depend on the luck of inspiration, but on a strict study of the role... Both of these artists represent two opposite sides, two extremes of art..."

Mochalov's Hamlet was a protest against the existing state structure. It was a bold, albeit veiled challenge, which was very popular in circles sympathetic to the Decembrist views. And the official censorship could not come to terms with this state of affairs. Thus, in 1840, Henry IV and The Comedy of Errors were banned from production, in 1845, Julius Caesar, in 1851, Richard III, and in 1853, Cymbeline. "Macbeth" was admitted to the Russian stage in 1860, and then with large cuts. The translation of "A Midsummer Night's Dream" made by Ap. was also banned. Grigoriev.

A major role in the popularization of Shakespeare's tragedies at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries was played by touring actors: M. Dalsky, M. Ivanov-Kozelsky, P. Samoilov, P. Orlenev, the Adelgeim brothers, N. Rossov and others. They were characterized by a passionate manner of acting and the portrayal of strong emotions, which was in great demand, especially among provincial spectators. Artists P. Samoilov and P. Orlenev cultivated a morbid psychologism in their playing, for which they were nicknamed “neurasthenics.” But, despite this and a number of other shortcomings, the playing of guest performers was very popular due to its shocking nature and due to the fact that it was in fashion high passions and accentuated expression included.It was during this period that the idea of ​​Shakespeare as a playwright was formed in Russia, in whose plays the central place is occupied by the character, and not by the intrigue of the plot as a whole.

By 1855, only six of the 37 canonical ones remained untranslated. The first complete collection of Shakespeare's works, edited by N. Nekrasov and N. Gerbel, was published.

In 1903, a production of Danchenko and “Julius Caesar” appeared on the stage of the Art Theater. These were times when a new theater was being born, the theater of realism, and it was not so easy for Stanislavsky to find new ways of expression for Shakespearean performances, which were still famous for their intensity of emotions. Here is the production of “Julius Caesar,” according to

Nemirovich-Danchenko could be called “Rome in the Age of Julius”

Caesar" - the play paid a lot of attention to historical details and believability. And Stanislavsky noted that "the production was done not so much in terms of Shakespeare's tragedy, but in the historical and everyday plan... Our acting internal work turned out to be weaker than the external production.." Herself The theme of the play was relevant at the time, and the production was a great success.

The main role was played by V. Kachalov. Theater critics wrote: “In Julius Caesar, Kachalov reveals the problem of power deprived of popular support... Kachalov played a dictator, cut off from the people, hiding his anxieties and suspicions from everyone, a dictator making himself a “demigod”, withdrawn in his loneliness and therefore doomed to death."

A little later, Hamlet appeared on the same stage. The main character was played by the same Kachalov. “He is tragic in his powerlessness to change the world, in his historical hopelessness. He understands the futility of his feat, but at the same time he obeys the inner duty that pushes him to heroism, he is completely overwhelmed by longing for a better life, which he knows he can live to see. not destined..."

In the first years after the revolution, Shakespeare did not lose his relevance. On the contrary, for a long time many lovers of the playwright’s plays looked for consonance with their aspirations in his works. And now, the long-awaited changes have come. The reality turned out to be far from favorable: there is devastation everywhere, and it takes time and effort to build a new life. Society needs to rethink life values, society is looking for new guidelines.

In 1919, work on Shakespeare's plays began at the Bolshoi Drama Theater in Petrograd. Over the course of several years, a number of significant performances were created. As a rule, this was a romantic interpretation. At the same time, at the Moscow Maly Theater, the old generation of luminaries of the Russian stage interpreted some of Shakespeare's characters in a new way. They wrote about one of the productions of the Maly Theater: “When, after a twenty-year break in the Soviet years, she again performed the role of Margarita, since 1897 she had constantly played with Yermolova in Richard III, very successfully defined this new thing, brought by the great actress to the old role, as a tragedy fallen power"<"Мастера театра в образах

Shakespeare", p. 131.>

There were also productions of Shakespeare in the then popular formalist genre. As examples, we can name the performances “Macbeth” of the Central Educational Theater (Moscow, 1922), “Romeo and Juliet”, performed by the Chamber Theater (1921, directed by A. Tairov, starring A. Koonen and N. Tsereteli), " Hamlet" staged on the stage of the Theatre. Evg. Vakhtangov (1932).

There were also artistic merits in two other productions from the early years of the Soviet period. One of them is “King Lear” at the First Studio of the Moscow Art Theater, directed by B. Sushkevich, with Pevtsov in the title role. In this production, the ethical task of destroying the personality of the despot was voiced; an attempt was presented to reveal the tragedy of the old king as a symbol of the collapse of individualism.

The Moscow Art Theater interpretation of Hamlet in 1924 turned out to be very consonant with modern times, and one might say prophetic for the Soviet intelligentsia. Chekhov's Hamlet is an honest and principled man, confused in the face of reality, which he could neither understand nor accept.

In 1930 he staged “Othello,” which opened a new page in the history of Russian Shakespearean drama. This was a fundamentally new interpretation of the tragedy. “For Stanislavsky, the conflict of the tragedy “Othello” lies in the collision of two “romantics” - Othello and Desdemona - with the world of Venice, where cold calculation reigns, with the world of predatory individualism and “private interest.” Before Stanislavsky, the cause of the tragedy was considered exclusively in the rampant “wild African passions."

This was not only a new word in Shakespeare, but also determined the vector of development for Russian theater as a whole. Subsequently, Soviet directors, not only using the example of Shakespeare's plays, tried to give depth and new meaning to the simplest plot, and examined simple human relationships not separately, but against the backdrop of social and historical processes.

“Stanislavsky not only opposes the romantic tradition of interpreting Shakespeare, which seems to him one-sided and outdated.

Creating his concept of the image of Othello, Stanislavsky also argues with the most significant features of the interpretation of Shakespearean images by the outstanding realist tragedians of the late 19th century."

Work on the production took a long time: Othello appeared on stage in the 1934/35 season. This theater season became the starting point for a new, classical Soviet reading of Shakespeare's plays, with their principles of socialist humanism.

A. Ostuzhev moved away from the classical tradition of performing Othello, as explosive and overly emotional. “He is no longer so much an epic as a lyrical Othello. This is not a flame, not the heat of passions, but the warmth of the soul, sincerity, soul.”

Ostuzhevsky Othello is a humanist, a man with high ideals. His marriage with Desdemona is also a kind of ideal of humanism: she marries him for love, despising public opinion. We should not forget that the play was staged at a time when the concept of social classes and the “old world” was abolished in Russia. But in the “old world” marriages were concluded with an indispensable consideration of the social status of the future spouses: much depended on the bride’s dowry, on her origin, health and countless other factors. And now mass propaganda glorified the height of feelings that could overcome any prejudices. In Soviet morality, a person was valuable in himself, as an individual, and in the context of new values, the performance looked very, very modern. Even the sad scene of Desdemona’s death was interpreted in a new way: if earlier Othello killed in a fit of blind rage, now it was a cold action, not murder, but a real execution, punishment, a cruel, but completely sober and balanced decision.

Against this background, the image of Iago takes on a tinge of special deceit: he is not just plotting intrigues, but is trying to crush Othello’s ideals and force him to accept his harsh reality.

Having learned about Iago's deception and the injustice of Desdemona's murder, Othello commits judgment against himself. Ostuzhev’s biography gives a brilliant and accurate assessment of this performance: “Ostuzhev played the tragedy of his hero as the tragedy of a humanist who believed too early that evil had been destroyed. Just when it seemed to him that he was delivering the final blow to evil, punishing the “traitor” Desdemona, he himself became an instrument of evil. The dialectics of Shakespeare’s tragedy, which reflected the contradictions of the Renaissance, were revealed by Ostuzhev with brilliant depth.”

New moods in society were also reflected in the interpretation of another Shakespearean tragedy, King Lear. In his article “My work on King Lear,” actor S. Mikhoels wrote: “We know what ideology is,” said S. Mikhoels, “what a correct, correctly directed view is. You and I already know that this pair of eyes is woven from the same fabric as the brain, that a person stares his eyes, these pieces of brain, into the world in order to realize it, and we know how tragic death is,

when the vision grows dim and when these pieces of the brain, as if in a distorting mirror, imagine the whole world, a person bumps into a wall and breaks his head. This is the philosophical concept."

In the tragedy of King Lear, the theme of the struggle between good and evil was now raised. “Comprehension of the world reveals to his Lear the truth that one cannot defeat evil with a good wish, embodied in the image of Cordelia. The pathos of his knowledge is also the pathos of change. The will to knowledge is also the will to overcome. Anger “against cruel hearts” is anger against “the reasons that give rise to cruel hearts,” the critic wrote.

Shakespeare in the Land of the Soviets began to sound new, his plots were turned to more and more often. The most prominent names on the Soviet stage: A. Khorava, A. Vasadze, V. Vagharshyan, A. Polyakov, N. Mordvinov, V. Dudnikov, P. Molchanov, A. Khidoyatov, M. Kasymov, A. Alekperov, A. Ovchinnikov . Of the directors who staged Shakespeare, Evgeniy and Vakhtangov should be noted. A special achievement was the play "Twelfth Night" at the Moscow Art Theater II (1934). This performance developed the motives put forward during the studio production of the comedy in 1917 with the participation of K. Stanislavsky; it went down in history as one of the best examples of production. Shakespeare's comedies increasingly took on the color of new realities. Every year it sounded stronger. Shakespeare's heroes on the Soviet stage ridiculed not just the eternal vices of humanity, but primarily greed, bigotry, etc., condemned by the new red morality.

Particularly interesting in this regard was the interpretation of “The Taming of the Shrew” (Red Army Theatre, director A. Popov). The process of women's emancipation was proceeding at a rapid pace in the country; they entered production and became people's deputies; official propaganda tirelessly compared the position of Soviet and “old regime” women. In this regard, The Taming of the Shrew became a hymn to gender equality.

In 1944, even before the end of the Great Patriotic War, a large festival of Shakespearean performances took place in Armenia. Productions of Hamlet and Othello were proposed for discussion. The idea was that one director's production should be watched twice: with two different leading actors. Hamlet was played by famous Armenian artists V. Vagharshyan and G. Janibekyan. Othello G. Janibekyan and G. Nersesyan. It turned out that even the scope of one director’s reading can be expanded by the vision of actors playing completely different characters in one character

After Stalin's death, times changed greatly throughout the country. This affected both theatrical art and Shakespearean productions. In 1954, a production of “Hamlet” directed by G. Kozintsev appeared on the stage of the Leningrad State Drama Theater named after Pushkin. At the same time, the same tragedy is staged in Moscow, in the theater named after. Vl. Mayakovsky (director N. Okhlopkov). In Leningrad Hamlet was played by Bruno Freundlich, in Moscow by E. Samoilov. Both deliveries had a strong tragic note. Critics described it as “the tragedy of an honest man, a thinking individual in conditions of the terrible power of evil and injustice.” And this was not surprising: in fact, the Hamlets of the 50s expressed everything that had accumulated in the souls of conscientious citizens of the USSR during the era of repression. This is a new Hamlet - not a hero who won a moral victory despite physical defeat, not a winner who threw all his strength into an unequal struggle, as was the case in the productions of the 30s. This is a man who doubts, who is constrained under unbearable pressure, and who knows in advance that he is doomed. Hamlet read his monologues against the backdrop of castle walls, reminiscent of prison dungeons, or against the backdrop of a jagged fence: through the scenery, a variety of directors showed the atmosphere of pressure in which the whole country was located.

Hamlet of the 50s is faced with something that is bigger and stronger than him - just like the actors who played him. The apotheosis of this doom was Hamlet, played on the stage of the Vakhatngov Theater by M. Astaganov in 1958. This was a man who knew in advance everything that awaited him ahead, and nevertheless, dared to take a step towards his inevitable death: as many honest people did in those years. In the same 50s, a critic’s definition appeared: “Hamlet” is a mirror into which each era looks at itself and, in the light of its own specific historical experience, interprets in its own way each figure in the play and, first of all, Hamlet himself.”

But the Generalissimo did not like this tragedy, preferring Othello to it. And therefore, in the Stalin era, Hamlet was not staged so often. After Stalin's death, the story of the Prince of Denmark became more popular among directors. The theme of despotism was also heard in “Macbeth” at the Maly Theater (Macbeth - M. Tsarev, Lady Macbeth - E. Gogoleva, staged by K. Zubov, 1955). “Othello” also sounded new thanks to the appearance of the Ossetian actor V. Thapsaev. It was believed that Thapsaev managed to add to his Othello the features of Hamlet with his search for justice and pathos. Thapsaev was considered the best performer of this role in that era.

And in the theater. The Mossovet revived the Turandot tradition of embodying Shakespearean comedies, when the line between the stage and the hall was blurred. The first such production was “The Merry Wives of Windsor” (1957) by Y. Zavadsky. Moreover, in the foyer of the theater, a lively medieval fair awaited the audience.

But of course, the most significant in the history of Soviet Shakespearean drama was Hamlet performed by V. Vysotsky on the stage of the Moscow Comedy and Drama Theater, better known as the Taganka Theater.

And again Hamlet, this time through the mouth of Vysotsky, spoke on behalf of the entire people. And again, the well-known monologues, heard many times from the stage, conveyed the thoughts and emotions of an entire generation. Yu. Lyubimov's production was innovative: a minimum of scenery, instead of characteristic costumes, the actors wore black sweaters. The performance was considered innovative, but oddly enough, it was closer to the style of the Globe Theater than all other productions. Lyubimov's Hamlet was a tremendous success and is still memorable to this day. Perhaps because Vysotsky himself was perceived by many even off stage as Hamlet, a man who tried to go alone against a system that was rotten through and through. The premiere of Hamlet at the Taganka Theater took place on November 19, 1971. Vysotsky was 34. Vysotsky himself valued this role very highly, and for a long time sought it from Lyubimov. It’s interesting how he himself wrote about his Hamlet: “He broke out of the world that surrounds him - he is highly educated, maybe gentle. But he needs to act using the methods of the society that disgusts him, from which he has broken away. So he stands with one foot there, and the other here." “Highly educated, maybe soft” - wasn’t that what the intelligentsia of those years were like? But this soft and highly educated intelligentsia was in eternal conflict with the apparatus of officials who were more cynical, firmer , more down-to-earth, and communicating with whom you also had to stand “with one foot there." And here’s another from the memories: “I don’t play the Prince of Denmark. I try to give a modern person. Yes, maybe myself. But what a difficult path it was "Lyubimov tried just one scene with Hamlet's father in nineteen versions! He made me open up completely when it seemed there was nowhere else to go."

In the 2000s and to this day, theatrical interpretations of Shakespeare have acquired a new character. Modern man finds himself on the verge of a revaluation of values. The old values ​​on which he was raised were subjected to great doubt, which was strengthened by the fact that in the new realities a person was left without the tools of survival, without the qualities necessary for survival. A situation arose in which the viewer himself found himself in the role of Hamlet - faced with a choice and full of doubts. Modern man often has difficulty understanding the rules of the changed reality and the new rules of interpersonal relations.

All this was reflected in Shakespeare's productions. Increasingly, they are carried out with elements of the absurd, and often are completely consistent in this genre. Let's consider the trend using the example of three performances: “Richard III” (theater “Satyricon”, directed by Yu. Butusov, 2004), “Antony and Cleopatra” (theater “Svoremennik”, directed by K. Serebryannikov, 2006) and “Hamlet” ( Alexandrovsky Theatre, directed by V. Fokin, 2010).

Noble impulses and spiritual quests are forgotten. Society learns to survive, and Shakespeare’s heroes learn to survive along with it.

In the role of Richard III - Konstantin Raikin. His character, hunched over and with a scary face, seems to enjoy his ugliness and the fear that he instills in people. The play uses a Shakespearean technique: the same actors play several roles. The stage is decorated with giant objects: huge chairs and tables, next to which the heroes seem small, out of place and out of their world. Richard's brutal murders and other crimes are carried out without pathos, in an atmosphere reminiscent of a cheerful booth. At the end of the play, before his own death, Richard evokes in the viewer a feeling of pity and the inevitability of retribution for all his actions.

The events of the play “Antony and Cleopatra” are transferred to the present day and the characters are dressed in modern costumes, however, the director himself explains this as a tribute to the tradition of playing Shakespeare in modern settings. Here is a quote from the critic: “In Sovremennik they play not a love tragedy, but a geopolitical conflict complicated by personal feelings. The Egyptian queen Cleopatra (Chulpan Khamatova) is the capricious East, the Roman triumvir Octavius ​​Caesar (Ivan Stebunov) and his entourage in private costumes could pass for the rational West, if not for the tricks of people from the special services (Octavius ​​also has Putin’s intonations towards the end ). Anthony (Sergei Shakurov) is a completely confused federal commander. The surroundings are extremely updated. In the first act, barbed wire twisted in rings is stretched along the backdrop, the second is completely played out in the gym of a school (obviously in Beslan) with writing on the smoke-filled walls and a basketball hoop. The Arabic language tutorial is periodically included in the soundtrack. Bearded separatist Pompey (Artur Smolyaninov), dressed as a Chechen militant, brandishing a Kalashnikov, holds a video conference with federal Roman authorities. In the finale, Cleopatra in gypsy rags crawls in front of Caesar, singing with a Caucasian-bazaar-station accent. Perhaps stop, there are enough examples.” In the final scene, Cleopatra is brought a mirror instead of the legendary box with a snake. Cleopatra kisses her own reflection and falls dead.

And finally - a new Hamlet performed by D. Lysenkov. The famous monologue is pronounced not just with irony, but with antics and mockery. “With some kind of actorly malice and irritation, Lysenkov pronounces Shakespeare’s words, which over many centuries have been worn out by brother artists of all times and peoples. And this monologue also became chatter. Words words words"<Ольга Галахова, «Duel of Hamlet and Gertrude in St. Petersburg"

Weekend: April 30 - May 3, 2010>. There is not a single character in the play with human qualities. Embittered Hamlet is surrounded by scoundrels and traitors. The real mastermind behind his murder is his own mother. Hamlet is dying, and the world he leaves is unlikely to survive. This is the director’s new answer to the eternal question “To be or not to be.”

It’s not difficult to guess what Hamlet or Othello will be like in ten years. Their images depend on current realities, on what the future society will need. Shakespeare's plots, taken from folklore or historical chronicles, existed long before the birth of the author, and they will survive us.

“Two epistles”, St. Petersburg, 1748, p. 9, 28

M. Zagorsky, Shakespeare in Russia. - "Shakespearean Collection 1947", pp. 86-87

Vl. I. Nemirovich-Danchenko, From the past, M., 1936, p. 203

My life in art, Op., vol. 1, p. 265

P. Markov, Theatrical portraits, M.-L. 1939, p. 112

, “Kachalov in tragic roles” p. 305

K. Stanislavsky. "Shakespearean Collection 1958", page 369.

Yu. Yuzovsky, Image and era. On Shakespearean Themes, 1947, p. 59

"Ostuzhev - Othello". Sat., M. VTO, 1938; L. Khodorkovskaya and A. Klinchin, Ostuzhev

Shakespearean actor. "Shakespearean Collection 1958", pp. 313-363

S. Mikhoels. Modern

scenic revelation of Shakespeare's tragic images. "Shakespearean Collection 1958", pp. 469-470

Yu. Yuzovsky. Image and era. On Shakespearean Themes, 1947, pp. 78-189

B. Emelyanov, Shakespeare's tragedies on the Soviet stage. "Shakespearean Collection 1958", page 411

Firstly, it was distinguished by the special location and design of the stage, which resembled either a trapezoid or an oval and protruded deep into the stalls. This created the illusion of a square performance, during which the actors, surrounded on all sides by spectators, performed on ordinary carts. This effect was enhanced by the absence of a theater curtain, which is familiar to modern spectators. On the stage itself, as a rule, there were hatches, from which actors appeared from time to time, playing the roles of ghosts or other fantastic creatures. There were practically no decorations, but a mandatory element of the stage design was the balcony, on which a wide variety of actions took place (remember the scene on the balcony from the tragedy “Romeo and Juliet” you studied in 8th grade).

Secondly, the Shakespearean theater was characterized by a special performing style. The actors often improvised and responded to audience jokes. Much attention was paid to the production of the voice, the sound of which should resemble music. To relieve the tension of the audience after scenes of great dramatic tension, jesters appeared on the stage.

As in antiquity, female roles in the theater of Shakespeare's time were performed exclusively by young men.

The troupe, of which Shakespeare was an actor, built a large theater building for their performances, which went down in history under the name “Globe”. It was decorated with a sign with the words that became an aphorism: “The whole world is acting.” The performances of this troupe were very successful, its actors were invited to play at the court of kings, and in 1603 it was awarded the honorary title of “Royal Servants.” This became possible largely thanks to its talented playwright, who from 1599 also became a co-owner of the theater. “Almost without the help of scenery, relying only on the power of imagination that Shakespeare awakened in the audience, he could make them see in the empty space of the stage a whole universe - distant and near countries, from Italy to Bermuda, the past and present of humanity - from the Ancient Rome to England in the 16th century."

Theatrical activity allowed Shakespeare to save money and buy property in London and his native Stratford, where he returned permanently around 1613. It was in this town that the great poet was destined to find his final refuge, whose genius so shocked the world that it still makes its best minds think about the question: “Was there Shakespeare?” After all, not only no manuscripts have been preserved, but not even a line written by his hand. The most significant reason for doubt was a strange will, discovered a century and a half after the poet’s death. It did not contain a single fact indicating that its author had anything to do with literature. As a result of the analysis of this document, many scientists got the impression that it was compiled by the most ordinary city dweller. Such assumptions were supported by other evidence, for example, about Shakespeare’s lack of education. This contributed to the emergence of the so-called "Shakespearean question" the essence of which lies in doubt: was the Stratford-upon-Avon native William Shakespeare the author of the works published under his name? Material from the site

Researchers who answer this question in the negative name more than 30 contenders for the high right to be considered the creator of unsurpassed literary masterpieces. The names of such famous Englishmen as Queen Elizabeth I, the thinker Francis Bacon, the playwright Christopher Marlowe, the Earls of Derby, Oxford and Rutland are most common. Russian literary critic I. Shaitanov notes: “Every year a new sensation appears. However, today it can be said that Stratford-upon-Avon townsman and London actor William Shakespeare (although his life is indeed shrouded in mystery) remains the most likely contender, far superior to the rest. And his plays, fortunately, which have survived to this day, are immeasurably more fascinating than any detective guesses about their authorship.”

The first Shakespeare Theater was short-lived, about fourteen years, and burned to the ground when the theater's cannon misfired, igniting the wooden beams and the thatched roof above the stage. This time there were no casualties: the flames only hit the trousers of one of the spectators, who quickly put out the fire.

Shakespeare's Globe Theater is located in the capital of Great Britain, London, on the south bank of the Thames, near the Millennium Bridge, at 21 New Globe Walk, Bankside, London SE1 9DT. On the geographical map this temple of Melpomene can be found at the following coordinates: 51° 30′ 30″ N. latitude, 0° 5′ 50″w. d.

Despite the fact that this theater is quite young (the construction of the building was completed in 1997), the history of its existence goes back more than three hundred years and consists of three stages with a significant break:

1. The first theater was built by the actors of the Lord Chamberlain's Men troupe, to which William Shakespeare belonged, in 1599. This temple of Melpomene did not last long and in the summer of 1613 it completely burned down during a fire;
2. Despite significant damage, the building was rebuilt within a year, and the theater functioned in it until 1642, after which it was dismantled by the Puritans who came to power;
3. The modern theater, created according to descriptions and the remains of the building’s foundation discovered during archaeological excavations, was erected in the late nineties of the last century, two hundred meters from the location of the very first building.

The very first theater

It is interesting that the owners of the new theater were almost all the actors of the Lord Chamberlain's Men troupe: the Burbage brothers, Richard and Cuthbert each owned 25% of the shares, and the share of Shakespeare, Hemings, Philips and Pope was 12.5% ​​each. Over time, the shares were partially sold, the number of shareholders increased, and the share of the actors decreased (for example, Shakespeare, as a result of various financial transactions, was left with only eight percent of the shares).

The fact that the Birdbage brothers owned the majority of the shares is no coincidence: during the construction of the theater, wooden elements of the first London theater, which belonged to their father and was built on rented land in 1576, were used. When the lease expired, the owner of the land where the theater was located raised the rent so much that it turned out to be more profitable to dismantle the building, transport it to a new location and reassemble it again.

The new theater became popular almost immediately: the name of William Shakespeare, the famous playwright, actor and co-owner of the theater, did its job - almost all of his dramatic works were staged in this temple of Melpomene. The actors were not fixated on Shakespeare alone, and therefore on the theatrical stage of the Globe one could see plays by other famous playwrights of that period. Unfortunately, the new building did not last long: in July 1613, during the premiere of Shakespeare's play Henry XVIII, it was destroyed by fire.

External description of the first theater

Near the entrance to the building there was a sculpture of Atlas, on whose shoulders there was a globe surrounded by a ribbon (it was thanks to him that the new theater got its name). On the ribbon of the globe one could read: “The whole world is a theater.”

The walls of the new building accommodated about 3 thousand spectators. In shape, it resembled a somewhat elongated amphitheater (29.6 by 31.1 meters), had three floors, and the roof was only above the stage. Due to the lack of lighting, performances took place only during the day, without intermissions, using a minimal amount of scenery (they were successfully replaced by signs with the words “Forest”, “Palace”, “Field”, etc.)

Near the walls of the first floor there were loggias for aristocrats, above them there were galleries for rich Londoners (seats were installed here). All other seats were standing room, and some especially privileged spectators were allowed to be directly on the stage. Interesting fact: there was a platform near the stage where undemanding Londoners could pay one penny to watch the performance while standing.

The width of the stage was thirteen meters, the depth was about eight, it rose one and a half meters above the floor and protruded somewhat forward. There was a hatch in the floor through which the performers were able to climb onto the stage from the basement (researchers also assume the presence of other hatches around the stage).

At the back of the stage there was an upper platform on which the musicians were located, and if the script required it, the ghost of Hamlet’s father appeared or Juliet stood during an explanation with Romeo. Above this platform there was a “House”, in the windows of which artists were shown.

The thatched roof, the “heaven,” located above the stage, was supported by thick columns installed on the sides (researchers admit that a cloudy sky could well be depicted on the ceiling). This roof was also provided with a hatch through which the actors used ropes and cables to descend.

Second theater

The burnt theater in London was restored quite quickly and opened to the public in June 1614. Considering the sad history of the previous building, the new building was built of stone. True, this time the London theater was not lucky either. The Puritans just came to power, who, declaring that everything connected with theatrical activity was sinful, immoral and vicious, closed the Globe in 1642, and two years later completely dismantled it, building instead apartment buildings - multi-apartment residential premises for rental.

Thus, the exact location of the theater was unknown for many centuries until its foundations were discovered under one of the parking lots on Park Street in the late 1980s.

Modern "Globe"

The history of London's Globe Theater did not end there: 350 years later, on the initiative of the American actor Sam Wanamaker, it was decided to revive the Shakespearean theater - and in 1997, the new building opened its doors to the public. It was located two hundred meters from the old building, it was built according to restored drawings from the times of the first “Globe”, and during its construction technologies of the 17th century were used.

For example, the plaster was made from a mixture of lime, sand and goat's hair, and the roof, which was installed only over the stage and over the seating, was covered with thatch.

Thus, the Shakespeare Theater was the first building with a thatched roof, which was allowed to be installed in the city after the fire that occurred in London in the middle of the 17th century. It was decided to abandon the installation of electric lighting, which could be used during performances, and therefore all theatrical performances take place only during the day in the warm season, from May to September.

Although the theater is designed for 3 thousand spectators, due to security reasons, no more than 1,300 people can attend the performance. The hall has 700 standing seats, and in order for the audience to fully experience the spirit of the Elizabethan era, the etiquette rules of Shakespeare's times are allowed in the theater. This means that everyone who does not like the acting has the right to express their attitude by whistling and dissatisfied exclamations.

Life out of season

Despite the fact that you can attend a performance at the Globe Theater only from May to September (the rest of the time the troupe is on tour), tourists who come to London “out of season” should not despair too much: excursions are held here every day. In addition, near the theater there is a park museum dedicated to the great playwright. It houses the largest exhibition in the world dedicated to William Shakespeare, and also provides various activities: you can try to write a poem yourself, watch sword fights, and even actively participate in the production of a play.

A hall for three thousand people, a hole instead of a roof and a standing stall in theaters of the 16th–17th centuries

Theater "Theater"

The first public theater building in London appeared in 1576
outside the city limits, in Shoreditch. It was built by James Burbage
in the image of a hotel courtyard, where traveling troupes used to give performances—made of wood, with accessible galleries and secluded areas for the privileged public, as well as dressing rooms and artistic rooms. Burbage was confident that people would come to see plays at the Playhouse, even if they had to cross fields to get there. A year later, Henry Lanman built The Curtain Theater 200 yards away, and instead of the expected competition, a partnership arose between them: lighter plays were staged at Lanman's Theater, and serious plays were staged at the Theater. Over time, several more theaters grew nearby: The Rose, The Swan and others.

In 1598, the owner of the land on which the Theater was located increased the rent, and the building was dismantled, and the building material was used to build a new theater on the other side of the Thames, called the Globe.

Swan Theater

The only image of the interior of the Swan Theater (1595-1632) that has survived from the time of Shakespeare is not even de Witt’s drawing itself, but a copy of it by his friend Arend van Buechel. The artist’s memories remain that the “Swan”, along with the “Rose”, was a theater of remarkable beauty, could accommodate three thousand spectators, was “built from flint stones fastened with lime, of which there are a lot in England, supported by wooden columns, which were so skillfully painted to resemble marble , which can deceive the most sophisticated eye, and is close in shape to a Roman building.”

The reconstruction is based on the memoirs of Wenceslaus Hollar from 1635
about the Globe as it was built after the fire. Some information: the theater could accommodate up to three thousand spectators; all performances were held from two
until five in the evening - the lighting was natural; the cheapest tickets gave the viewer the opportunity to only stand in the pit, the more expensive tickets gave the right to a chair in the amphitheater; the start of the performance was announced by the sound of a trumpet and the raising of a flag; there was no portal arch separating the stage from the auditorium and stage workers.

London panorama

This is London as it was depicted by the Czech engraver Wenceslas Hollar, who lived in England for many years and recorded how the city changed in the intervals between frequent fires. In the panorama of 1647, the Globe, demolished in 1644, is depicted as a round three-story building (on the left side of the panorama) in the leafy Bankside area, far from the City.