Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Sarah Siddons, theatre voices and recorded memory
- Playing with Shakespeare’s play: Branagh’s Love’s Labour’s Lost
- Bottom and the gramophone: Media, class and comedy in Michael Hoffman’s A Midsummer Night's Dream
- Maurice Evans’s Richard II on Stage, Television and (Almost) Film
- Richard II on the Screen
- ‘Where Lies Your Text?’: Twelfth Night in American Sign Language Translation
- ‘This uncivil and unjust extent against thy peace’: Tim supple’s Twelfth Night, or what violence will
- ‘There’s no such thing’: nothing and nakedness in Polanski’s Macbeth
- Ghosts and mirrors: the gaze in film Hamlets
- ‘Ben, it’s a terrible thing to hate your mother’: mind control in Hamlet and The Manchurian Candidate
- Channelling the ghosts: the Wooster Group’s remediation of the 1964 Electronovision Hamlet
- Listening to Prospero’s Books
- Lend Me Your Ears: Sampling BBC Radio Shakespeare
- An Age of Kings and The ‘Normal American’
- Shakespeare and British Television
- A Local Habitation and a Name: Television and Shakespeare
- Paying attention in Shakespeare parody: from Tom Stoppard to YouTube
- Madagascan will: cinematic Shakespeares / transnational exchanges
- Still life? Anthropocentrism and the fly in Titus Andronicus and Volpone
- Riddling q1: Hamlet’s mill and the trickster
- ‘Speak, that I may see thee’: Shakespeare characters and common words
- Who do the people love?
- A Partial Theory of Original Practice
- Shakespeare Performances in England, 2007
- Professional Shakespeare productions in the British Isles, January–December 2006
- The Year's Contributions to Shakespearian Study 1 Critical studies
- 2 Shakespeare in performance
- 3a Editions and textual studies
- 3b Editions and textual studies: The RSC Complete Works
- Index to Volume 61
Channelling the ghosts: the Wooster Group’s remediation of the 1964 Electronovision Hamlet
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 November 2008
- Frontmatter
- Sarah Siddons, theatre voices and recorded memory
- Playing with Shakespeare’s play: Branagh’s Love’s Labour’s Lost
- Bottom and the gramophone: Media, class and comedy in Michael Hoffman’s A Midsummer Night's Dream
- Maurice Evans’s Richard II on Stage, Television and (Almost) Film
- Richard II on the Screen
- ‘Where Lies Your Text?’: Twelfth Night in American Sign Language Translation
- ‘This uncivil and unjust extent against thy peace’: Tim supple’s Twelfth Night, or what violence will
- ‘There’s no such thing’: nothing and nakedness in Polanski’s Macbeth
- Ghosts and mirrors: the gaze in film Hamlets
- ‘Ben, it’s a terrible thing to hate your mother’: mind control in Hamlet and The Manchurian Candidate
- Channelling the ghosts: the Wooster Group’s remediation of the 1964 Electronovision Hamlet
- Listening to Prospero’s Books
- Lend Me Your Ears: Sampling BBC Radio Shakespeare
- An Age of Kings and The ‘Normal American’
- Shakespeare and British Television
- A Local Habitation and a Name: Television and Shakespeare
- Paying attention in Shakespeare parody: from Tom Stoppard to YouTube
- Madagascan will: cinematic Shakespeares / transnational exchanges
- Still life? Anthropocentrism and the fly in Titus Andronicus and Volpone
- Riddling q1: Hamlet’s mill and the trickster
- ‘Speak, that I may see thee’: Shakespeare characters and common words
- Who do the people love?
- A Partial Theory of Original Practice
- Shakespeare Performances in England, 2007
- Professional Shakespeare productions in the British Isles, January–December 2006
- The Year's Contributions to Shakespearian Study 1 Critical studies
- 2 Shakespeare in performance
- 3a Editions and textual studies
- 3b Editions and textual studies: The RSC Complete Works
- Index to Volume 61
Summary
‘THE PARTICULAR INTENSITY AND NERVES OF THIS’
In early February 1964 when the buzz around the scandalous affair between Richard Burton and American screen goddess Elizabeth Taylor was at a fever-pitch, a new Broadway-bound production of Hamlet began to take shape in Toronto under the direction of the already legendary John Gielgud and starring Burton in his third go-round in the title role. Rehearsals with a uniformly accomplished supporting cast of British and American actors – which included such then and later-to-become stage-luminaries as Hume Cronyn, George Rose and John Cullum – proceeded at a speedy clip, though not without distractions prompted by occasional sightings of Ms Taylor. Sources indicate that Burton accepted instruction from Gielgud in an understatedly deferential manner – amicably trading anecdotes with him about fellow stage-legends, Ralph Richardson and ‘Larry’ Olivier – but seldom followed the old master’s directives, much less seemed to work very hard at mastering his lines. Although the cast uniformly evinced respect and admiration for Gielgud – who seemed to know all their parts by heart and could rehearse them backwards and forwards – they also found themselves at sea without a rudder as opening night beckoned, lacking any determinate sense of an overarching concept or sustained interpretive focus for the production itself. Seriously professional to a fault, the cast was often bewildered by the variability of Gielgud’s daily notes and directives, which would require, for example, the actor playing Guildenstern to be meekly obsequious in one scene, aggressively inquisitorial in another, without developing a consistent through-line of interpretation that would render his changes in tone coherent.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Shakespeare Survey , pp. 147 - 160Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2008
- 2
- Cited by