"Nice customs curtsy to great kings." Henry 5 Act 5, Scene 2
January 31, 2013 12:00 AM
Anne Flinders
by Anne Flinders, dramaturg
Brigham Young University’s Young Company production of Henry 5 will bring with it a different, but perhaps not wholly unusual cast. The title role of King Henry V is being played by Mackenzie Larsen, a pre-acting major. In fact, there are four women in the cast of seven, and only one female role in the script. All the women are playing male roles.
[caption id="attachment_1183" align="alignright" width="300"]
The cast of BYU's Young Company Production of HENRY 5.[/caption]
Making a cross-gender casting choice in the title role of Henry 5 may come as a surprise to some theatre goers, but it is not without precedent. From the beginnings of professional English theatre in the 1560s to the closure of the theatres in 1642, boys were the performers of female roles in an age when it was considered unacceptable for women to act. Cross-gender casting (boys playing women) was therefore a familiar and acceptable practice, even an expectation, in Elizabethan theatre. However, women did not begin to appear on the stage in England until 1661, and when they did, they played women.
A lot has changed in the last 350 years. Casting women in male roles while reading the character’s gender as female is becoming a bit of a trend in theatre and film today. Fiona Shaw played the title role in Shakespeare’s Richard II in London in1996. While the production received initial mixed reviews (mostly because of casting Ms. Shaw as Richard), it did open up the idea that a woman could play a woman in a man’s role, rather than attempting to portray a male in the way boys portrayed females in Elizabethan theatre. For example, this idea was carried further when in 2010 Helen Mirren played Prospera in The Tempest, a decidedly female portrayal of the exiled sorcerer.
[caption id="attachment_1180" align="alignleft" width="205"]
Mackenzie Larsen plays King Henry V in BYU's HENRY 5.[/caption]
The director of BYU’s production of Henry 5, Megan Sanborn Jones, stated that part of her decision to cast a female in the title role lay in the fact that “there are simply not enough great roles for women, particularly in Shakespeare.” She also found that she gained new insights into the role through this casting choice. It prompted a very particular way of adapting Shakespeare’s script into a 50-minute play.
When Mackenzie Larsen learned that the title role would be played by a female, she was excited. “I loved the idea of having a female put in such a position of power.” As she became more familiar with the script she found that some of the lines are about “manning up and being like a King.” Larsen states, “The way these lines read with a woman as Henry gives them new meaning and gives the audience new perspective. The factor of being a woman and trying to prove yourself to a bunch of men makes Henry's story that much more inspiring.”
Larsen says she has found that one of the challenges in taking on this role has been actually playing Henry as a girl. But she has found that once she stopped worrying so much about making the part fit the way people expect it to be, and just allows herself to be in the moment, she overcomes those concerns. She says, "Being present is powerful enough.”
BYU’s Henry 5 opens February 6th and runs through February 16th. Tickets are on sale now.
by Emme Corbett, dramaturg As a senior student studying history at BYU. One of the first concepts you learn as a history major is that when you study history, it is vital that you do not bring your modern-day biases with you. As strange as some past behaviors or occurrences may be to our modern eyes, understanding the reality of what life was like in historical societies allows for a more authentic and rich study of the past. It also becomes evident fairly quickly that no matter what point in time you’re studying or where you are in the world, there will be commonalities across many cultures. The shared similarity of the human experience allows these connections to occur, so it is no surprise that researching various time periods could be related back to Caesar in Ancient Rome. It was necessary in our dramaturgical research to explore three major time periods that are encompassed within this play in one way or another. These time periods are first, 49 B.C. Rome, when Julius Caesar first became a dictator of Ancient Rome, and the setting for the original script. Second, 1599 England, when William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar was first performed, most likely at the Globe Theatre. And third, 1919 Italy, when Italy was recovering from participating in the First World War, and the setting for our performance at BYU. This weakened state created a situation where authoritarianism could ensue. It was an interesting experience to be able to connect the culture of Ancient Rome to that of Italy in the early 20th century. The reason for choosing this production of Julius Caesar to take place in 1919 Italy is not random. The significance of that time period is to draw upon the reality that history repeats itself. An aspect of history that is repeatedly detrimental to countless societies is when a group of people finds itself weak and vulnerable--whether that is due to lack of resources, a change in leadership, exiting a war, or simply evolving generations--and a power vacuum is created. This moment in time when desperation allows for someone to assume leadership (based purely on the need to rely on anybody) and provide temporary relief is often too quickly turned into an authoritarian government. The third time period that we also had to account for in this production was the time of Shakespeare in 1599 England. Some of the questions we had to ask ourselves were: Why Julius Caesar? What elements from the story of Caesar’s assassination did Shakespeare feel would resonate with his audience? From these questions and further research on the Elizabethan period, we discovered that, like in 1919 Italy, there was a concern with the succession to the Crown. Queen Elizabeth I was on the throne at the time and created conflict among the people beyond her just being a woman in power. Queen Elizabeth never married and subsequently never bore any children, thus failing to secure a successor who was in her direct line. Another element of the play that related to Shakespeare’s audience was the role of the plebeians. Their behavior in the play could symbolize how the lower class in the Elizabethan Era, while uneducated and changeable, contribute largely to the success of their society.