As You Like Its, Plural

As You Like Its

I decided to elaborate on my reactions to the two As You Like It productions we witnessed. Seeing two versions of the same work was interesting in that I didn’t expect such a large variety in the adaptations. They offered very different ideas and executed them in different ways, the specifics of which will be subjectively observed below.  

Regents Open Air Theatre

I was immediately in love with the Regent’s Park venue. Everything was so lush, with greenery climbing nearly every wall. The size of the theatre was surprising to me, and, even being in the uppermost corner, I had a great view of the performance.

Something that felt strikingly out of place among the greenery was the first act’s set design. Two piles of trash lined the edges of the stage, leaving some stray pieces to float in the water downstage as well. This artistic choice served its purpose to draw my attention, from then on determined to uncover its meaning. The setting of the first half of the show contrasted that of the second. After intermission, the stage was lined with planted flowers, a blue bridge was erected over the water, and a tire swing hung center stage, no trash in sight. My interpretation of all this set design was that it served to contrast the two Dukes. Duke Frederick lives in a modern, capitalistic society. Litter lines the streets, global warming is destroying the planet, and power has been corrupted. The overall feeling is that of hopelessness and oppression. Duke Senior, on the other hand, lives in a wonderland. The set shows flowers and foliage, the characters sing and jest to pass the time. The contrast between the two brothers was magnified by the set design in ways that weren’t as visually impactful at the Globe and on paper.

One choice this adaptation made was to blind Oliver midway through the production. I understood this as a way to show the severity of Duke Frederick and his people, but I felt it could have been handled a bit better. The actor playing Oliver sort of hobbled on stage, arms outstretched trying to find a person to talk to. He stared into the distance as he talked with Rosalind and Celia, until about halfway through his scene, where he started making eye contact with the other actors again. He later had struggled to locate the seat being given to him and waved his arms to find Celia. Though I understood the intention of this scene, I felt it could have been handled with more care to be accurate and respectful.

The reason this particular scene stuck out to me so much was because it contrasted how the Globe represented disability. The actress playing Celia was deaf and signed the great majority of her lines. Her and Rosalind communicated through sign language (and some miming for the audience), and their relationship didn’t seem any different than it was on paper. The Globe’s production offered an honest inclusion of a disabled actress, whereas the Open Air production exaggerated common stereotypes that fell short in comparison.  

Shakespeare’s Globe

The Globe offered a traditional and extravagant atmosphere. I appreciated how the architecture stayed true to what could have been the original design when the Globe was first constructed. It really brought home the fact that we were watching a Shakespeare production in the very place he would have done so.

The costuming in this play attempted to bridge the gap between historically accurate and modern. During the first half of the play, the actors wore traditional garments, most notably being Rosalind and Celia’s gowns. Looking at these two characters specifically, their costume changes mirrored the blur of constructs and norms in this work. Neither of the two got married in a traditional dress, but rather a top and trousers; Rosalind kept her short hair, adorned with a flower crown. Mixing traditional “men’s clothing” and “women’s clothing” was a way of showing the fluidity of Rosalind’s character, as well as this society’s values.

This production highlighted its status as Comedy. Their direction gave life to some of the humor that personally went over my head in the text, making the experience very light hearted and enjoyable (despite standing the entire time. Sigh). I personally thought this group of actors did a better job executing their lines. The character choices they made created a lot of variety in personalities on stage, making the ensemble more entertaining. I was able to feel their connection to one another as people slip through their characters’ facades. I felt wholly connected to them as an audience member and, as a performer, I valued the community they had cultivated on stage.

The Hymen scene in this version felt like it worked better. Some people thought it was unnecessarily gaudy, but I felt that was the text’s intention. The fact that a divine power had to interfere at all was already excessive, so they chose to capitalize on the extravagance of it. The gold, the flower garlands, the flying… I took it as a vaguely satirical commentary on the involvement of a god to smooth everything out perfectly, similar to how these actors executed the scene with the Second Brother’s return: hilariously too good to be true.

While the two performances were greatly different, I did enjoy how each kept the original text (to some extent). There was a certain amount of respect payed to the original work, though each production added a modern take to the text. I walked away acknowledging the artistry of today’s world, appreciating how people can interpret a text so differently while continuing to pay homage to their roots, their predecessors, and the arts.