a performance-based research collective at the University of Alabama

“Look’d upon her with a [dramaturg’s] eye”: Artistic Agency, Characterization, and Plot

What might the early modern actors part look like for William Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing? What might cutting together these scripts, sometimes referred to as “role” or “cue,” illuminate about characters, plot, and the text as a whole? As dramaturgs, what should be considered when cutting for live performance? All of these questions have been considered by our team at Alabama Shakespeare Project (ASP), as we prepare for our upcoming production of MAAN.

Two of our team members, Candace Lilford, the dramaturg for this production, and Riley S. Stewart, the season research assistant, spent the last two weeks cutting together parts for performance, and had very similar observations about this process. We maintain that cutting together the parts provided new insights regarding characters, plot, and early modern performance practices, and these observations would not have been possible by simply treating MAAN as a text, rather than as script for performance.

In their book, Shakespeare in Parts (Oxford UP, 2007), Simon Palfrey and Tiffany Stern provide a critical framework for understanding early modern parts, while illuminating the multiplicity of possibilities contained within a part or roll.1 That the early modern actor would have received all of their lines via their part and had knowledge of their entrances and exits thanks to a backstage-plott makes sense in theory, but as contemporary students, it becomes clear how little information the early modern actor actually would have received.

Enter [1.1]
……………………………………………………………we will go together.
Exit
……………………………………………………………..upon your lordship.
Enter [2.1]
………………………………………………………………….…of thy tongue.
In faith, she’s too curst.
………………………………………………………………..make good room.
Put on MASK
……………………………………………………………….us to the banquet.
Exit
…………………………………………………………………here she comes.
Enter
…………………………………………………………………tell you my drift.
Exit

From 1.1 to 4.1, more than half of the play, Antonio’s part only contains one line, thus the rest of the text serves only to cue his entrances and exits. This cut of Antonio’s script seems to provide evidence to support Palfrey and Stern’s claim that, “the actor would often not know how long the gap in time or action is between one cue and the next” (120). The actor playing Antonio has no indication of the length of time from their entrance at the top of 1.1 to their exit at “we will go together,” thus the actor must constantly be aware of the scene they are in, so as not to “fall out,” or lose one’s place.

In addition to a lack of knowledge regarding the timing of their entrances and exits, actors playing Antonio would also not know who is in the scene with them, or what their scenes are about based on the part, being only an excerpt and containing only the lines they absolutely need to know. The challenges presented by this become exasperating when considering whether or not the early modern actor would have had a rehearsal period, as most elements contained within the world of the play would appear to be largely unknown, or untranslatable based purely on the script.

It seems then, that the part may act as a map for the actor as they explore the world of the play, and the sheer quantity of things left for the actor to discover about their character provides them with a form of artistic agency in performance that is difficult to gleam from purely close reading the text. Cutting together the parts, or “cue scripts,” illuminates how much is lost when dramatic texts are simply treated as texts, rather than a script for performance.

Seven scrolls arranged in a curve.
A selection of our re-created parts using dowels, printer paper, and hair ties.

There is great didactic value in cutting together cue scripts, as it forces the reader to quite literally “cut” the text into a puzzle, while reflecting on the pieces that are lost for each character. In addition to parts illuminating the degree of artistic agency the early modern actor may have had, they also have the ability to draw the “cutters,” or “play patchers,” focus to the importance of the subplots within the text, which are often unconsidered.

When first approaching the MAAN script, our team’s primary concern was length; we were initially most concerned with cutting scenes that we thought did not contribute significantly to the plot, in an effort to reduce our running time. This proved difficult however, as cutting plot points requires a meticulous examination of the text to ensure that no details are missed, as this can eliminate moments when certain characters are made privy to or “clock” key pieces of information that might inform motive.

Additionally, MAAN has many subplots to consider upon which the central conflict hangs. These became apparent when cutting together 1.1, especially when Don Pedro talks to Claudio about his plan to woo Hero. Prior to this critical plot point, the duo have an exchange after Benedick’s exit, but before they begin their matchmaking plans. The exchange is as follows: 

CLAUDIO. My liege, your highness now may do me good. Hath Leonato any son, my lord?
DON PEDRO. No child but Hero; she’s his only heir. / Dost thou affect her, Claudio?
CLAUDIO When you went onward on this ended action, / I look’d upon her with a soldier’s eye, / That liked, but had a rougher task in hand / Than to drive liking to the name of love: / But now I am return’d and that war-thoughts / Have left their places vacant, in their rooms / Come thronging soft and delicate desires, / All prompting me how fair young Hero is, / Saying, I liked her ere I went to wars.
DON PEDRO. Thou wilt be like a lover presently / And tire the hearer with a book of words. / If thou dost love fair Hero, cherish it, / And I will break with her and with her father, / And thou shalt have her. Was’t not to this end / That thou began’st to twist so fine a story?
CLAUDIO. How sweetly you do minister to love, / That know love’s grief by his complexion! / But lest my liking might too sudden seem, / I would have salved it with a longer treatise.

At first reading, it seems as though this exchange does little for the text and is ripe for trimming. The choice to keep this exchange, which we made at ASP, was predicated on the crucial character development it does for Claudio. Here, before confessing he has a romantic interest in Hero, he first enquires about her monied status. Is she an only child? Any brothers? If no, then Claudio stands to inherit everything through Hero from her father, the governor of Messina. It renders his character more complex, not only naively struck by love at first sight but motivated by an opportunity for wealth and by extension the ability to climb the social ladder of this community.

Cutting together this moment raised a plethora of questions regarding general editorial emendation, as the editor must consider the thematic focus of the text, the tone, and the ways in which the characters need to change across the work. The editor or dramaturg has to look at more than just plot then, as some scenes and lines may not add to the plot but they might need to be kept to maintain the play as a comedy or to ensure a character has develops logically and with discernible motives borne out by textual warrants.

In addition to thinking about plot, another approach our team at ASP took to cutting the script was to consider elements that had aged poorly, such as the racist or ableist lines in the original MAAN. Some examples include:

  • “If I do not love her, I am a Jew”
  • “If black, why, Nature, drawing of an antique, made a foul blot”
  • “I know that Deformed; a’ has been a vile thief this seven year”

In all these cases the marginalized community or group is used as an example of something undesirable, derogatory, or negative. While some previous productions have kept these elements for an artistic point, our production chose to prioritize equity rather than surprise playgoers with unsituated, uncontextualized derogatory statements that run the risk of reinforcing rather than problematizing stereotypes in this kind of performance situation. Likewise in our casting we used a what Ayanna Thompson calls “cross-cultural casting” approach that did not close off any roles to any individual based on race, age, experience, ability, gender, sex, or other factor of identity.[2]

Ultimately, cutting together our cue scripts for MAAN established the importance of being intimately familiar with the original text, as well as having a clearly established concept to which to cut. While this experience was time-consuming, it built a deeper understanding of the text,  providing us with a glimpse into the lives of early modern actors through one potential version of their source material and performance process.


Notes

  1. T. Stern and S. Palfrey, Shakespeare in Parts (Oxford University Press, 2007), DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199272051.001.0001.
  2. A. Thompson and L. Turchi, Teaching Shakespeare with Purpose: A Student-Centered Approach (Bloomsbury, 2016), 79, DOI: 10.5040/9781472599650.