Miss Ngaio Marsh Lectures On Shakespearean Producer

Press, Volume CI, Issue 29791, 6 April 1962, Page 13

Miss Ngaio Marsh Lectures On Shakespearean Producer

The intelligent. literate, born-director could give a g jod production of a Shakespeare play without opening u commentary on the play, said Miss Ngaio Marsh las. evening in a lecture on the Shakespearean producer. Having formed his impression of what the play was about he should not permit cx.raneous notions, trim-

mings. and the conclusions of scholars to interfere with his' interpretation of the play and :s single purpose. Superimposed notions and fancy ’ouches, too common in contemporary productions, could be immensely harmful, ' she

Miss Marsh was giving the first of her three Macmillan Brown lectures sponsored by he University of Canterbury. Professor Macmillan Brown held the chair of English and classics at Canterbury University College from 1874 to 1895. Her series is entitled ‘Three Cornered World.” and the next two lectures ill deal with the actor and the audience of Shakespeare. The first lecture was on the producer. ' Saddled with fantastic theories, obscured by antic notions. fawned on by bardoliters. yapped at bv degummers. subjected to every possible theatrical hazard or producers whim. Shakespeare survives the centuries and remains a literary s amping ground and. by and large, a box office success.” said Miss Marsh.

Producer’s Role The producer is. in a way. s kind of lens. He collects many aspects of the play into himself and projects them through the actors upon the receiving surface, which is the audience,” she said. In bridging the gap between himself and the audience the contemporary producer was faced with an accumulation of historic references and

"What in the last analysis is the producer for? I believe him to be there for one purpose: to enable the audience to understand and enjoy the play The commentators have

no direct bearing on this result. Their value in the study.

in the academic course, in the armchair is, no doubt, immense. But in the theatre they are valuable only in so far as they help the director and the actors to work a miracle.”

Shakespeare left no instructions apart from certain well-known passages in the plays themselves, said Miss Marsh. "The director has the play itself and, from the author, nothing but the play “But it is quite remarkable

I how vivid a sense of colpaboration is built up during | rehearsals. lam sure mo. . | Shakespearean producers and actors are familiar with it,” said Miss Marsh oi the producers’ feeling that he was not in fact at a great remove from the author. Use of Ornament

I Once the main theme had [ been discerned nothing Ishould distract from it, said I Miss Marsh. “Use ornament by all means, if it is articulate ana harmonious, but don’t tart up a good thing with irrelevant morsels of quaintness. They are the last resort cf the barren producer.” Miss Marsh spoke of her own experience in producing “Twelfth Night,” a play about several aspects of love. "We didn’t expect the audience to go out muttering that they had seen eight variations on two aspects of love. We merely hoped that the production would be an honest one because the company had referred their job back to the author.” she said. “Illyria is what the play is about. The rehearsal period was a journey in search of Illyria. The performance would be our arrival there. What happens there? By day the sun shines richly on trees, palaces and well-tended gardens. At night the mood presides over revels that for all their robust foolery are tempered with a kind of wistfulness.

‘lt is a civilised and aristo-

cratic scene, not at all weighty, golden and warm but airy, with the scent of roses pervading the gardens. All this is to be found in the text.”

With the scene firmly in mind the producer could think about the actor's movements, said Miss Marsh. These must be at one with their surroundings. The director must then convince the actors that his reading was a valid one and see that all parts were in harmony. Authorship

In a digression on authorship, Miss Marsh said the birth of every play was a matter of collaboration in which the author's work was dissected, changed, filtered through the minds of producer and actors, promoter and designer. "There is every reason to suppose that Shakespeare had to endure the ordeal at the hands of Burbage, Kemp. Arnem, and the boy players. “It always seems rather odd that none of the Shakespeareans who have felt impelled to defend his authorship have put forward the fact of the author’s presence at rehearsal.

"Any man or woman who has taken part in the preparation of a new work in the author’s presence will know that if Shakespeare had been a Warwickshire nonenity masquerading as a playwright he would have been found out in the first five minutes.”