FACE TO FACE
Voice of the oppressed
He is a one-man Shakespeare theatre company who has toured over 30 countries with his "Shylock", a take off on the Bard's "The Merchant Of Venice". GARETH ARMSTRONG hardly seems British when he takes on the Jewish persona of Tubal, Shylock's only friend, not only to present the story of the pound of flesh from his point of view, but also to go through the gamut of the play in performance through 400 years. He adds the history of the Jewish race from the age of the biblical Shylock, an ancestor of Abraham and Jacob. Armstrong's brilliant script sucks the viewer into the ghetto of a despised minority community. You forget that he has played other parts (Romeo, Puck, Macbeth, Richard III) and directed other plays ("A Winter's Tale", "Much Ado About Nothing", "Easy Virtue", "A Murder is Announced"), his work for the BBC, the Royal Shakespeare Company and other theatre repertories, his stints as teacher in drama schools, workshops and his fascinating lectures on performing Shakespeare. For those who participate in his "Shylock" experience, Armstrong becomes simply the voice of the vilified and the oppressed everywhere, speaking with passion, conviction and a humour all the more forceful for being black. Excerpts from his interview with GOWRI RAMNARAYAN:
You have performed, directed and taught Shakespeare for 33 years all over the world. How do you explain his universal appeal?
He stole the best stories and made them his own. He created incredible characters within the narrative. Every society has its Romeo and Juliet, but unfortunately also its Macbeths, Coriolanuses and Julius Caesars. And everyone in the world has a bit of Hamlet within. So, however remote in time, space and status, there is always something in those characters — indecision, passion, intolerance, greed — to claim as your own.
How much of the universality has been infused into Shakespeare by 400 years of criticism, classroom study and performance?
While some people do have a Shakespeare chip in their brain, it is interesting to perform to people who have never seen his plays before. In Zaire, Congo, Nigeria, Cameroon, Morocco, Tunisia, Uganda, Kenya or Sudan I can see that what I am performing is actually the story of the people who are watching it. When I performed Macbeth in Ethiopia, they had just seen the murder of their king, who, like Duncan, was an anointed figure.
How does it feel to perform Shakespeare where English is not the mother tongue of your audiences?
In some nations there is a reluctance to deal with anything perceived as a colonial hangover. But among the educated middle classes in India the knowledge of Shakespeare is formidably good, (laughs) alarming really, because you find people who know the text as well as you do. Here Shakespeare is taught in schools in a way he is no longer taught in Britain.
How important is it to perform Shakespeare with the "right" British accent?
The actual pronunciation doesn't matter so long as you get the metre right. More important is the way the verse is spoken. You may miss some of the rhymes in non-native English speech. The content makes the play, as well as the language.
Content... but doesn't Shylock change from place to place?
Last summer I played "Shylock" in Ahmedabad quite soon after they had a lot of trouble there and the play seemed to acquire a potency of its own, quite different from its shows in England where we have comparatively less political and no inter-religious strife. The message about intolerance has more impact in places that understand the premise of the play. It is so rewarding to speak to people who can shine a light on their own experience into the text, not see it merely as a 400- year-old play with an interesting narrative.
In your "Shylock", based on Shakespeare's play, the theme is the ghettoised ethnic minority community, despised and reviled for being different. Does this "Jewishness" itself change from place to place?
Every society has its ethnic minorities and so my play has resonances even where there are no Jews. In Israel the audience knows absolutely what I'm talking about, I'm just reminding them of their own history. In Germany and Austria with shameful associations with anti-Semitism, the same Jewish history becomes a shocking revelation, reminding people of a past for which they feel a degree of regret and guilt. Both audiences go quiet at different points in the play. But Jewish silence sounds very different from German silence.
A chilling moment in your play is when you speak of the quality of mercy. You turn that famous speech into a complete denunciation of "Christian" cruelty towards the Jews, and the hypocrisy in making that cruelty appear to be kind. Shylock becomes the victim oppressed by the Christian mafia. When did the old Black and White interpretation of the play start showing such grey shades? Aren't the lines in the text justifying such empathetic interpretation very few?
Yes, the most famous being Shylock's plea for common humanity ("Hath not a Jew eyes, hands..."), which is not there by accident. But there are relationships that shift the meanings when they are seen through different eyes. Doesn't Shylock's daughter's "happy" marriage with a Gentile, betray her father and her faith? The first actor to play Shylock with a degree of sympathy was Edmund Kean (18th Century). In the 19th Century, when Jews became establishment figures, more integrated in society — Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli did not hide his pride in Jewish roots — Henry Irving played Shylock as a dignified businessman. Then the play began to take on shades of grey, a duality, especially after the Holocaust. But it was also Hitler's favourite, depicting the Jew as a rapacious monster. Before the fall of communism, East Europe used Shakespeare for protest — censors could hardly ban "Julius Caesar", "Coriolanus" or the "Merchant of Venice".
So Shakespeare and Shylock change with the times.
You can hang anything on a Shakespeare peg, they are all true, and all false! Something happens in the political arena, or in your personal life, and the play takes on a whole new meaning.
You give talks about the hellhounds of Shakespeare. What made you choose Macbeth and Richard III as examples? What about Iago?
Macbeth and Richard III would have been great men if only they had used their strengths to do good. Macbeth was a fine warrior; some of the most insightful verses in Shakespeare are in his mind and mouth. He subverts the good side to do evil, damns himself. Why people make that choice is always fascinating. Richard is early Shakespeare, doesn't have depths of self-analysis, but his physical deformity makes the play politically sensitive. The way he is treated is often because of the way he looks. I wonder how much of his villainy is revenge on nature and human beings.
Iago may be my next play. See how he destroys a noble figure, turning him into a wife murderer. He is the quintessence of evil.
People have predicted the death of the theatre for decades but here you are going strong. Are audiences returning to the theatre?
In Britain there is an audience, but it is not expanding. What depresses me more is that for our young actors, skills like speaking verse properly and voice projection are no longer a priority. Drama school graduates will not know who I'm talking about if I mention Henry Irving. Most actors don't aspire to be good actors anymore. They want to be famous. But let me add also that right now there is a revival in political theatre in Britain, which we haven't had since the days of Margaret Thatcher. David Hare has written a play about the nationalisation of the railway. Exciting because it takes you to the roots of the problem, of how people shirk responsibility in their pursuit of money.
Printer friendly
page
Send this article to Friends by
E-Mail
Magazine
