Fairwell Emma Rice

Much in the papers, recently, about Emma Rice’s departure, from Shakespeare’s Globe. The comments have been unfair; with mention of reclaiming Shakespeare and restoring the theatre’s reputation. It is, I’m sorry to say, as though Miss Rice had infected British culture. But, as a groundling, of many years, I have greatly enjoyed her productions and so, judging by their reactions, have those around me. In fact, I have never, before, experienced, within that ‘wooden O’, enthusiasm like it. A renegade, perhaps, but she has, certainly, given us new takes, on Shakespeare. With her The Taming of the Shrew, she took an ostensibly unpleasant play and de-misogynised it; making the acquiescence of Kate something tragic. Purists may say that she’s undermined Shakespeare’s work, but why that presumption? We do not, after all, know, in detail, how the plays were presented, in his day; and clearly, there is ambiguity, in his words, so why not bring that to the fore? We should acknowledge, too, the energy and fun she has brought to The Globe; so evident in her recent Twelfth Night. As for the furore about artificial lighting, allow me to state what should be obvious, to her critics: that it exists, anyway, at the Globe. Otherwise, how would productions continue, beyond dusk? I would, then, argue that Miss Rice has, merely, used it more effectively, than others. I can, personally, compare two performances, of The Merchant of Venice; with almost the same cast and staging, but a year, or so, apart. In my opinion, the latter was greatly enhanced, by the lighting effects Miss Rice introduced. Another issue is the amplification of sound, but, doesn’t it allow actors to focus more upon the words and less on voice-projection? It would be useful if one could confirm, but the quieter moments seem better than before; to this audience member, anyway. Of course, Micelle Terry; an accomplished Shakespearian actress; should be welcomed; and there were marvellous productions before Emma Rice. But The Globe is not a museum. If it exists, in the main, to demonstrate how things probably were, in Shakespeare’s time, it will be, primarily, a tourist-attraction: a place to be visited, now and then, but not a source of innovative drama. That probably won’t be so. There’s every chance Miss Terry will instil her own unique vision. But, I, for one, will miss the work of Emma Rice and I’d bet, almost anything, that her era will be looked back on, with great affection.