“One of the bloodiest incidents in New York’s history, the so-called Astor Place riot of May 10, 1849, was ignited by a long-simmering grudge between the two leading Shakespearean actors of the age, [William Macready and Edwin Forrest]…. The Shakespeare Riots recounts the story of this momentous night, its two larger-than-life protagonists, and the myriad of political and cultural currents that fueled the violence…. Nigel Cliff weaves a spellbinding saga of soaring passions, huge egos, and venal corruption.”
–Adapted from editor’s remarks on The Shakespeare Riots
6 comments:
Shakespearean actors were celebrities in their own right in the 19th century. The theater industry boomed in a prosperous young country, and Shakespeare’s works enjoyed frequent stagings. Perhaps this inspired a sense of ownership among theatergoers not only for the works, but for the actors. Or would it happen in a different way, such as in chat rooms or in angry entries on facebook/myspace?
Or, was this battle more about the former colony breaking away from England and establishing itself as an independent (and, in the minds of the time, superior) country, using acting as a catalyst for the bloody demonstration?
The Shakespeare Riots is an accurate account of the tensions between the United States and Britain during the 19th century, and how this translated into competition between actors of the era. Nigel Cliff writes as a storyteller; his voice so novel-esque that you forget you are reading a nonfiction account of a historical event, until you see his plentiful footnotes. Cliff gives a thorough account of the lives of the two actors, William Charles Macready (English) and Edwin Forrest (American), the events of the time, and the place Shakespeare and actors took in each society’s life. Cliff reveales how each Macready and Forrest developed their different acting techniques, as well as how the styles were accepted not only by each nation but each class as well. The Motherland, still feeling the sting of the United States’ independence, is reluctant to accept American actors in the roles of their native Shakespeare. Americans, finding Englishmen to be pretentious and stiff (especially after opening their arms to Charles Dickens, only for him to make a mockery of Americans in a guidebook which he penned upon his return to England), are suspicious of men from across the ocean. All of this culminates into a boiling pot of pride, which overflows onto the streets of New York City, sending thousands of men and women into a frenzy and ultimately leading to the death of dozens. I believe the most powerful point Cliff made during his narrative was to show how Shakespeare transformed from a man of the people, to the writer of elitist, upper-class art; the date that marked this revolution, May 10, 1849 – the day of the Astor Place riot.
There is an interesting issue that came up as I read this book. People began to re-write Shakespeare to make everything clear and the endings happy. Cliff suggests that that doesnt leave anything for the reader to do. One doesn't want all the interpretation done for one. My thought or perhaps question has to do with interpretations--operas being among them. Is an opera such as Handel's an interpretation of Julius Caesar and Anthony and Cleopatra--or is it really something entirely different?
A great thought! Giulio Cesare in Egitto is, in fact, something entirely different in that it is not based on the tragedy of Julius Caesar or the high-profile relationship Cleopatra had with Antony (both covered in Shakespeare plays). At the time of its composition in 1724, Shakespeare’s plays were still relatively new, and among composers, plagiarizing one’s own work or someone else’s was commonplace (as it also was in Shakespeare’s day). We can probably assume that Handel felt free to recycle material as he wished, even after its very successful premiere, as he made at least three revisions for the opera’s revivals a few years later. History dictates that these two characters don’t meet with a happy ending – whereas Handel’s Giulio Cesare and Cleopatra do. Musically, there are probably a few tunes or bits of tunes that you'd hear elsewhere in Handel's works. Opera has always embraced the embellishments of re-telling and the suspension of disbelief. It’s the combination of “recycled” and “retelling” of Caesar and Cleopatra that makes Giulio Cesare such a compelling operatic work.
--Deb, Glimmerglass Marketing Director, and Brittany, Gllimmerglass Director of Public Relations.
I've enjoyed reading both books, which gave fascinating background. Is anyone now interested in discussing two relevant plays: "Measure for Measure" and "The Taming of the Shrew"? I'm particularly interested in the former and in Wagner's version of it. Another question: where can I find a libretto for "Das Liebesverbot"? I managed to get a recording, but haven't been able to dig up a libretto. I'd like to see how closely Wagner stayed with the Shakespeare play.
You can find the libretto at:
http://opera.stanford.edu/Wagner/Liebesverbot/libretto.html and there is a 3 page synopsis written by Wagner himself at: http://opera.stanford.edu/Wagner/Liebesverbot/sysnopsis.html
Constancecv
Post a Comment