Reimagining Shakespeare’s Playhouse: Early Modern Staging Conventions in the Twentieth Century by Joe Falocco (review)

Early in Reimagining Shakespeare’s Playhouse, Joe Falocco clearly states his primary goal: to analyze the work of twentieth-century directors who “looked backward” to Elizabethan stage conventions “in a progressive attempt to address the challenges” of producing Shakespeare today (1). His use of the word “progressive” is deliberate and indicates the author’s critical position in response to those who would characterize the current use of Elizabethan stage conventions as “regressive” or “essentialist.” Falocco is mostly successful in his endeavor; his exploration of the work of selected directors from William Poel to Mark Rylance serves as an interesting survey to those new to the field, although much of the territory Falocco covers will be familiar to readers already knowledgeable about twentieth-century Shakespeare theatrical production.

Falocco’s introduction succinctly outlines the challenges of producing live theater in an age of film and video. Early in the twentieth century, the spectacular ruled the stage; however, rising costs made this lavishly pictorial production style impractical for most theaters. Further, the development of motion pictures made it clear to most managers and directors that live theater could not compete with the realism available to this new medium; thus, their challenge became how to stage Shakespeare in a way that offered an experience distinct from film while being at the same time cost effective. For some, the answer was an “Elizabethan” approach, one that for Falocco remains a valid option today: “My hope throughout this study is that, by illustrating the imperfect but significant achievements of the Elizabethan movement in the twentieth century, I might encourage scholars and practitioners to continue exploring early modern practices in the new millennium” (6).

Clearly, this text will be most useful to those who are interested in the history of Shakespeare in performance, including those who produce, direct, and perform in Shakespeare productions. Falocco offers chapters on the work of William Poel, Harley Granville-Barker, Nugent Monck, and Tyrone Guthrie before ending the study with a look at London’s new Globe and the work of its first artistic director, Mark Rylance. In his conclusion, Falocco advocates Elizabethan practices, particularly “a permanent architectural set, universal lighting, and the placement of the audience in a deep-thrust configuration” (173) as strategies not only for reducing production costs but also for increasing opportunities for active audience participation.

Falocco’s study appears at a timely moment. During these dark days of economic constriction, many venues for the arts are struggling to cut production costs and maintain ticket prices at levels that will keep audience members returning despite less expensive entertainment alternatives. Practical options such as those Falocco expounds should indeed be arrows in the creative quivers of every director and producer. Insofar as Falocco is urging merely the continued exploration of these options, most readers will find little reason to object or disagree. As a cohesive artistic philosophy, though, there are multiple inconsistencies in an “Elizabethan” approach; for instance, there remains much about early modern stage conventions that we simply do not know (as Falocco’s chapter on the new Globe amply illustrates). Even if we knew everything, we could not reconstruct a key element, the Elizabethan and Jacobean audiences. Because of these two conditions, any argument for the use of Elizabethan stage conventions will always be selective, taking into account both what we don’t know about the Elizabethan stage and audiences and what we do know about our own. On this last point, for instance, Falocco argues for some specific stage practices, especially the thrust configuration, but not for others, such as all-male casting (Falocco is far from unique in this). Even the conventions Falocco specifically advocates have drawbacks: it is the rare artistic director these days who would consent to a permanent architectural set, for instance, and if a theater already has the equipment needed for variable lighting, there is little reason to deny its use...