No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Weyward Sisters: towards a Feminist Staging of ‘Macbeth’
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 January 2009
Abstract
Shakespeare's plays have long been subject to deconstruction and reconstruction – some would argue, since the moment the words left his pen and entered the arena of theatrical intervention; some, more conservatively, dating the process to the attempts during the Restoration to rewrite him according to new tastes and old ‘rules’. More recently, of course, the long search for an almost platonic ideal of ‘authority’ has been giving way not only before new ideas of what this constitutes in theatrical terms, but through conscious attempts to subvert a play's meaning – not necessarily as ‘intended’ by Shakespeare, but as received in the prevailing culture. Feminist directors and critics have of course been prominent in this process – but the following study of the role of the witches in Macbeth is distinctive not so much for applying twentieth-century ideologies to Renaisssance plays, but for its exploration of the ‘problem’ of the witches in the light of conventions which, still current in Shakespeare's times, are hard to recover in the practical theatre of our own. The author, Lorraine Helms, is currently Mellon Fellow in Theatre Arts at Cornell University. She has published several articles on renaissance drama, and is working on studies of gender and performance in both contemporary and historical interpretations of Shakespeare.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992
References
Notes and References
1. Berger, Harry Jr, ‘Text Against Performance in Shakespeare: the Example of Macbeth’, Genre, XV (1982), p. 59Google Scholar. In Imaginary Audition: Shakespeare on Stage and Page (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989), he modifies his position to some extent. For a critique of the hierarchizing impulse in the phrase ‘text vs. performance’, see Hodgdon, Barbara, ‘Parallel Practices, or the Un-Necessary Difference’, Kenyan Review, New Series, VII (1985), p. 57–65Google Scholar, and The End Crowns All: Closure and Contradiction in Shakespeare's History (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991), p. 13–21. My use of the terms playtext and performance text is indebted to Hodgdon's discussion.
2. Ibid., p. 73.
3. Ibid., p. 67–8.
4. Adelman, Janet, ‘“Born of Woman”: Fantasies of Maternal Power in Macbeth’, in Garber, Marjorie, ed., Cannibals, Witches, and Divorce: Estranging the Renaissance (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986), p. 97Google Scholar.
5. Macbeth, I, iii, 6, in the Arden Edition, ed. Kenneth Muir (Methuen, 1964). Subsequent references in the text are to this edition.
6. Rosenberg, Marvin, The Masks of Macbeth (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978), p. 12Google Scholar.
7. For a critique of Forman, and of critics who have relied on him, see Scragg, Leah, ‘Macbeth on Horseback’, Shakespeare Survey, XXVI (1973), p. 81–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
8. Thomas Heywood, too, who re-tells the Macbeth story in Hierarchie of Blessed Angels, says that Macbeth and Banquo meet ‘three virgins wondrous fair / As well in habit as in feature rare’ (quoted in Rosenberg, op. cit., p. 11).
9. Lomax, Marion, Stage Images and Traditions: Shakespeare to Ford (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), p. 55–69Google Scholar.
10. On the politics of the Jacobean masque, see Orgel, Stephen, The Illusion of Power: Political Theater in the English Renaissance (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975)Google Scholar.
11. Quoted in Spencer, Hazleton, ‘Davenant's Macbeth and Shakespeare's’, PMLA, XL (1925), p. 621Google Scholar.
12. Quoted in Spencer, op. cit., p. 620.
13. Rosenberg, op. cit., p. 496.
14. See Maus, Kathleen, ‘“Playhouse Flesh and Blood”: Sexual Ideology and the Restoration Actress’ ELH, XLVI (1979), p. 595–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the change in biological paradigms, see Keller, Evelyn Fox, Reflections on Gender and Science (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985), p. 33–65Google Scholar; and, most recently, Laquer, Thomas, Making Sex: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1991)Google Scholar.
15. See Bartholomeusz, Denis, Macbeth and the Players (Cambridge University Press, 1969), p. 16–18Google Scholar.
16. Quoted in Rosenberg, op. cit, p. 8.
17. Ibid., p. 8.
18. Ibid., p. 9
19. See Evans, Gareth Lloyd, ‘Macbeth 1946–80 at Stratford-upon-Avon’, in Focus on Macbeth, ed. Brown, John Russell (London: Routledge, 1982), p. 89Google Scholar.
20. Berger, op. cit., p. 64.
21. On the historical relations between the soliloquy and the construction of gendered subjectivity, see Belsey, Catherine, The Subject of Tragedy: Identity and Difference in Renaissance Drama (London: Methuen, 1985)Google Scholar.
22. Such was Nunn's conception for the production, as McKellen, Ian described it in ‘Images of Death: a Symposium on Macbeth’, UCLA Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, 15 05 1987Google Scholar.
23. Charles Marowitz, The Marowitz Shakespeare (New York: Drama Book Specialists), p. 24.
24. For a discussion of Marowitz's The Shreiu, see Barbara Hodgdon, ‘Katerina Bound, or Pla(k)ating the Strictures of Everyday Life’, PMLA, forthcoming.
25. Marowitz, op. cit., p. 14.
26. Linda Musmann is artistic director of Time and Space Limited, New York. For reviews, see Fuchs, Elinor, Village Voice, 27 11 1990Google Scholar, and Marilyn French, Ms., Mar.-Apr. 1991.
27. Rutter, Carol, Clamorous Voices: Shakespeare's Women Today (London: Women's Press, 1988), p. 56Google Scholar.
28. Stoppard, Tom, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead (New York: Grove Press, 1967), p. 63Google Scholar.
29. Brook, Peter, The Empty Space (New York: Atheneum, 1968), p. 65Google Scholar.
30. See Weimann, Robert, Shakespeare and the Popular Tradition in the Theatre, ed. Schwartz, Robert (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978), p. 73–85Google Scholar, and passim.
31. See Gordon, Mel, Lazzi: the Comic Routines of the Commedia dell'Arte (New York: Performing Arts Journal Publications, 1983)Google Scholar.
32. See Bassnett, Susan, ‘Struggling with the Past: Women's Theatre in Search of a History’, New Theatre Quarterly, V, No. 18 (05 1989), p. 108Google Scholar; McGill, Kathleen, ‘Women and Performance: the Development of Improvisation by the Sixteenth-Century Commedia dell'Arte’, Theatre journal, XLIII (03 1991), p. 59–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar. I am also indebted to an unpublished paper by Kastan, David Scott, ‘Clownes Should Speak Disorderlye: Mongrel Tragicomedy and the Unitary State’, presented at the meeting of the Shakespeare Association of America, 1989Google Scholar.
33. On Littlewood's Shakespeare productions, see Dympna Callaghan, ‘Shakespeare at the Fun Palace’, in Marianne Novey, ed., Women's Revisions of Shakespeare, Vol. II (University of Illinois Press, forthcoming).
34. Brecht, Bertolt, The Messingkauf Dialogues, trans. Willett, John (London: Methuen, 1965), p. 76–7Google Scholar. See also Churchill, Caryl, ‘Introduction’ to Cloud Nine, in Plays: One (London: Methuen, 1985), p. 245–8Google Scholar. Several recent productions of Shakespearean and Jacobean drama have experimented with cross-casting, including the Young Bones Theatre Company's The Malcontent, the Mabou Mines King Lear, and Quinapalus Theatre's The Taming of the Shrew. For a review of the Young Bones production, see Duncan-Jones, Katherine, Times Literary Supplement, 12–18 05 1989, p. 514Google Scholar; for Mabou Mines, see Gainor, J. Ellen, Theatre Journal, 12 1988, p. 552–3Google Scholar, and Diamond, Elin, Theatre journal, 12 1990, p. 481–4Google Scholar; and for Quinapalus, see Savitsky, Susan, Shakespeare Bulletin, 07–08 1989, p. 16–17Google Scholar.
35. Kristen Linklater is artistic director for the Company of Women, Boston, which plans an all-female Henry V for a first production in the autumn of 1991.
36. Quoted in McGrath, John, A Good Night Out (London: Methuen, 1981), p. 35Google Scholar.