Like many other performers and venues, the Royal Shakespeare Company has had to adjust to life without performance for now. Their solutions? Past performances streamed on the BBC, open-air performances in Stratford-upon-Avon and Gregory Doran’s Talking Shakespeare series.
For those unaware, Talking Shakespeare is a free-to-subscribers webinar series, in which Gregory Doran chats with various RSC actors (via Zoom, of course), for an hour at a time. The webinars take place every week on Monday afternoon, with previous guests including Sir Patrick Stewart and Dame Judi Dench. This week’s guest was, as the title suggests, David Tennant.
After a quick introduction of David, Gregory Doran proceeded to ask him about an essay he wrote while playing Romeo at the RSC. In that essay, David wrote about a certain ‘pathway’ through Shakespeare that he has to take before they can retire; a pathway that started with Romeo and included Hamlet, King Lear and Iago.
In response, David said that this view of an actor’s Shakespearian career was something he’d seen great actors do; “they’re almost like the Olympic events for actors,” He explained. “They’re like fixed points in the careers of actors”. He proceeded to say that there are some parts he hasn’t done and he doesn’t regret not doing, and so, in the end, the list is personal — each actor has their own list.
This prompted a question from Gregory: which roles is David glad not to have done? David replied he’s happy he hasn’t done the “down the line heroic types” like Henry V; he’s more attracted to the “odd heroes”. Macbeth is a role he wonders about, particularly since, as a Scot, it’s almost expected of him to do it. He admitted he’s intrigued by the role, but he can’t quite see himself in it.
Gregory proceeded to talk about David’s performance as Touchstone in the 1994 RSC production of As You Like It (which was David’s first full-length professional Shakespeare production). He talked about how David took the role to a serious place; “all his views … weren’t jokes, they were deeply philosophical,” He explained. David explained that he was very excited to have gotten the part, but then he found himself wondering what to do with it, since some of the Touchstone’s lines are fairly unclear. As the fool he has a specific purpose in the play: he’s there to deliver punchlines and funny moments. But in truth, not a lot of these scenes feel funny when reading the play, which makes him slightly more difficult to play.
Gregory pointed out that his Touchstone was funny, mostly because of the way he’s delivering his views on life. David admitted that when trying to determine how to approach the role, he was having difficulties with some of the speeches. So instead of trying to make it funny (which he couldn’t figure out how to do), he decided to try and make sense of it, to try and do it the way Touchstone does — in the moment.
Trying to remember a specific speech from the play, David started talking about how he doesn’t really remembers lines once he’s through with a role. Naturally, he said, this comes into light when talking about Shakespeare; in similar situations, some actors just start quoting the plays they’re talking about. He added that Gregory himself also has a lot of quotes in his head, to which Gregory said that he doesn’t need to delete everything he knows about a project as soon as he finishes; he doesn’t need to instantly ‘make room’ for the next project. Not to mention, a lot of David’s work is on TV and film, in which you need to remember the lines for a brief period (as opposed to theatre).
Going back to the subject of Touchstone in As You Like It, David talked about the first night of the play’s run. ”I remember … thinking, ‘don’t try to be funny, because you can’t be’,” He said. Instead, as said, he’d decided to try to make sense of it. To his surprise, once he finished his first speech, the audience laughed. At first he was shocked, wondering how the audience could understand it when he doesn’t, but then thinking about it, he realised there was something in the rhythms of the speech; once you try to make sense of it, there’s something in it that just works, even if you don’t really know why. Gregory agreed, citing the comedian Johnny Beattie, who said that the rhythms of a certain speech he was looking at (possibly the Porter in Macbeth), are similar to standup rhythms; you don’t necessarily understand everything, but you sense there’s a punchline. David said it was lucky it was somehow locked into Touchstone’s character and into us as human beings.
Gregory proceeded to talk about working with David on Black Comedy and The Real Inspector Hound (in which David had to fall down the stairs every single night, apparently). He remembered thinking about how Touchstone plus Romeo kind of equals Hamlet; Hamlet’s got Romeo’s passion and self-reflection and Touchstone’s wit. So then, when they did Hamlet (in 2008), David’s Hamlet was a funnier version (as opposed to many other ways in which the role can be done).
He then asked David whether Hamlet was always a role he wanted to do. David said it always was; “it was always there as something one hopes to be asked to do,” he explained. He said when Gregory called and suggested they do it, it was a point of “now or never” (because certain Shakespearean roles are done by actors at certain ages, and he was nearing the top limit for Hamlet). He added that while it’s thrilling to get the chance to do your Hamlet, there’s also the fact you need to actually do it; there are so many expectations and comparisons to other Hamlets, and that’s terrifying.
Gregory pointed out that at that point, there had been over 80 different productions of Hamlet in Stratford-upon-Avon alone since the 1980s. He said that this was his first time directing Hamlet and up until then he felt that there’s “some sort of a definitive production you have to aspire to”. But looking at the different texts of Hamlet (like the First Folio and the ‘Bad’ Quarto), he realised that if there’s no definitive text, there can’t be a definitive production. And there are so many different things in Hamlet that it could be done in many different ways. So when doing their version of it, they needed to decide which Hamlet they wanted to go with. Looking at the text, he saw it as a thriller, and thus the production turned to a thriller direction.
David talked about how this view (of “our version”) made it less scary to do it. When they made changes to the text (such as removing lines from the soliloquy), they made it more “their own”; it was something he very much enjoyed. “Because then we were kind of playing with it, and tinkering with it,” He said. “It was like, the most famous speech in English literature, we’re doing it with the Royal Shakespeare Company, if we could take out just a little of the speech then it’s ours”. That, naturally, helped ease a bit of the pressure he was feeling. (Nobody seemed to have noticed the missing lines, though.)
Gregory explained that the idea of cutting lines from that speech came from looking at the ‘Bad’ Quarto, where the soliloquy was significantly shorter. So when rebuilding that speech, he did so with the Folio lines, but in the Quarto’s length. He felt that seeing as Hamlet is already long, it wasn’t likely that even Shakespeare would’ve seen it in full length, so the adjustments that they made made sense to him.
David then asked if Gregory gets the same feeling that “same plays are more significant” as a director, and Gregory said that he does. He also said that he feels that when it comes to directing something like Hamlet, the important thing is to get the right cast. With David, Sir Patrick Stewart and Oliver Ford Davies, it all came together beautifully.
Gregory then proceeded to ask a question sent by patrons ahead: how does David work on the text so that it feels like he’d just thought of it (rather than being a well known 400-year-old text)? How does he make it all feel spontaneous?
David said that it’s not an easy job; particularly with Hamlet, most of which is extremely well known. “It’s almost the hardest job: it’s walking up and saying ‘To be or not to be’ and not making it feel like you’re doing the greatest hits,” He said. To him, the process of making “their” Hamlet was a massive help — it allowed him to keep it real and connect to the human experience in the base of it. That, in turn, allowed the audience to connect to it as well. He brought up the edited soliloquy as an example, to which Gregory reminded him that they didn’t just cut lines from it, but they moved it into a new place entirely. He said that moving it to the ‘Bad’ Quarto place made more sense to them; the original location might be more interesting, “But it’s like less a thriller,” David agreed. “It might be more interesting if you’re doing a play about the anatomy of psychology, or about grief … but if you’re doing Hamlet as a thriller, it’s got to have that forward momentum [which the original location doesn’t allow].”
David then reminded Gregory that they’d even tried to do it the way it was written in the First Folio, but they’d decided it was better to move it. Gregory added they’d even thought of starting the play with it, to which David said, “You know, I don’t remember that.” (I’m sure I’m not the only one who laughed at this.) He then added that starting with the soliloquy might’ve been too much for him, so it’s probably for the best they didn’t do it.
He continued talking about the first night of Hamlet, and how he’d panicked before he had to go on stage. “Lyn Darnley [Head of Voice at the RSC] … found me in a sort of foetal position in the corner of the dressing room thinking, ‘I don’t think I can…’” He said, laughing at the memory. “She got me onstage that night.”
Gregory then reminded David that Gordon Brown came in to see the play that night, to which David went, “That was the least of my worries that night.” (Apparently he came in late; David’s teasing “We had a play to put on. Come on, Gordon!” was hilarious.)
Next up was the Yorick speech. Gregory talked about how real David had made it, despite being one of the most well-known moments in the play, partially thanks to “the final cast member”, as David called him. Gregory then told the story of how the pianist Andre Tchaikovsky left his skull to be used in Hamlet, and nobody had done it, but when he suggested it to David, David was immediately up for it. David said that using that skull made Yorick feel more real; “that’s what the scene is about, the notion that you can hold the relic of a human being in your hand,” He explained.
Continuing the story, Gregory told about how he remembers that right before the dress rehearsal (as soon as he said those words, David went, “Oh I thought you might [remember]”) they were told they can’t use the skull because they needed approval and it hadn’t arrived yet. But that skull (referred to as ‘Andre’, not as ‘the skull’ — he was that much of a cast member) had become so crucial to the production, that Gregory felt there was no way to replace him. Eventually they got another skull, that’s been used in a previous production of Hamlet (in the 19th century, I think), and it worked well. “I remember … thinking, ‘that’s theatre history ricocheting through the building,” He said.
Talking about the filmed version of Hamlet (2010), Gregory mentioned he was happy they got to do it, partially because during the London run David had to quit in order to have back surgery (“despite falling down staircases every night,” He said, to which David replied, “maybe because of it!”). David talked about how he’d done a few previews, but then it got so painful that he had to keep sitting down every couple of minutes. After those few previews it became so bad that he actually couldn’t walk anymore, and so he ended up having that surgery. In the end he managed to catch the final week of the London run, but it wasn’t the same, of course, and so filming Hamlet was quite special.
David agreed, also adding that some time had passed between the original run and the filmed version, so it was great to revisit it. They also needed to adjust their production to the new environment, moving from stage to film. Gregory talked about the changes to the set (in the stage production there were mirrors that didn’t make it on film) and the soliloquies (which they needed to find a new way to do). David explained that when they came to record it, it was after doing it on stage many times, and so the text and its language became very familiar to them. Usually in film and TV you have a very short stretch of time to learn your lines, but having had about a year’s worth of rehearsal allowed them to feel familiar and in control of the language. That meant that it was easier to make these changes.
Gregory mentioned how the way the ‘to be or not to be’ soliloquy was done on film brought out Hamlet’s vulnerability and made it all personal and intimate; “it was like seeing the skull beneath the skin,” He explained. In the spirit of changes from stage to screen, he also talked about how the stage’s mirrors were replaced with CCTV cameras in the film. He then asked David whether he filmed Sir Patrick Stewart [in act 3, scene 2] onstage, and David said that he didn’t; it was only done in the film version. The camera that he’s seen holding in the film was a prop camera, but he also had a small real camera, which he used for that scene.
Having finished the stage version of Hamlet, so to speak, was it a wrench to “delete the file”, so to speak? David admitted that at the time, it wasn’t; it was very stressful, and so finishing it was mostly a relief. The filming was a slightly separate thing, he added; it wasn’t the same as being onstage every night (Gregory pointed out that on film they could always do another take, which you can’t onstage). “I remember … being proud I’d done it, delighted that it had gone reasonably well, and thinking, ‘I’m through it, thank goodness I’m through it. I did something I always wanted to do, I achieved it, we’re there. Now we can move on.’” He said. But then, because it’s such a great part and a great play, once the tension and stress were left behind, he did look back at the role with envy (because there aren’t many roles that are as malleable and fulfilling as Hamlet). So a few years later he had that thought of, ‘Am I too old for it to do it again?’
While doing Hamlet in Stratford-upon-Avon, he was also doing Love’s Labour’s Lost (in the role of Berowne). Did it make it easier to also do Hamlet, or did it make coming back to Hamlet even more terrifying? David said that it never stopped being terrifying anyway, but then doing Love’s Labour’s Lost was kind of like a night off; it was a fun, beautiful production that he really enjoyed doing. And of course, next to Hamlet, Berowne is easy, really, so it was wonderful to be able to make that switch. “I think you would then go back to Hamlet reenergised,” He concluded.
Gregory proceeded to briefly talk about David and Catherine Tate’s production of Much Ado About Nothing before moving on to Richard II. He mentioned that Richard has a bit of Hamlet in him — the beautiful speeches — and asked what attracted David to the role in the first place. David told the story of how when he was in drama school, he’d seen Derek Jacobi do that part, and Jacobi was so extraordinary that he felt that it was a fantastic role he wanted to do. He mentioned that there’s a similar story behind Hamlet, too; he’d seen Mark Rylance as Hamlet and the way he did it was so spontaneous and alive — “I just remember sitting there going, ‘I didn’t realise Shakespeare could be like that’,” He explained. (It was slightly different than Richard II, though, because Hamlet he knew and Richard II was brand new to him.)
Jacobi and Rylance are both completely different actors, he hurried to add, but they both have that ability to brings things to life like that. It’s the ability to play with the language and be quick with it as if it’s something you’d just thought of, Gregory agreed. He then pointed out that that’s harder to do with Richard, as Richard II is entirely versed (as opposed to Hamlet). David admitted that if he had thought of it that way, he probably wouldn’t have been interested in the part; there was something about Jacobi’s Richard that made it so alive, and what he saw in it, even reading the text afterwards, was that journey that Richard goes through.
David brought up the way Jacobi did the “Here, cousin, seize the crown” line in the deposition scene (act 4, scene 1) as an example. Something about the way he did it — the impetuousness and bitchiness of it, perhaps — made the entire audience roar with laughter. He remembered it so clearly that he’d even tried to do the same when he did Richard II with the RSC (every single night, he admitted), but he never quite managed it. Gregory mentioned that David did something slightly different in the following line (“here cousin”), doing it as if Richard was talking to a kitten, and David laughed and said, “I took what Derek did, couldn’t quite manage it but turned it into something else, that’s what happened!”
Gregory admitted that he had something similar when directing Richard II. Specifically, he remembered the way the “Belike it is the bishop of Carlisle” line (act 3, scene 3) was done in another production. He’d tried to do the same in his RSC one, but it didn’t quite work. They then agreed it wasn’t a good idea to copy someone else’s work, “but it’s hard to resist!” David added, still laughing.
Next up was another question from the audience: does David collect any mementos from the theatre productions he’s done? David proceeded to talk about one of the rings he’d worn as Richard, telling the story of how he got it from Maroussia Richardson [Ian Richardson’s widow] right before they opened. That ring was the same one Ian Richardson had when doing Richard II in Stratford-upon-Avon; since David was the first Scot since Richardson to play the part in Stratford-upon-Avon, she wanted him to have it. David added it was slightly too big for him, but he’d worn it in the scene where he had hunting gloves on (it fit perfectly then). “But that was wonderful to be able to wear that. Again, it feels like history’s giving you a little help,” He said. So of course he still has the ring, and now he’s waiting for the next Scot to play Richard, so that he can pass the ring on to him. Gregory then said that maybe the next actor doesn’t have to be a Scot to get the ring, to which David instantly replied that being a Scot is where the Venn diagram has to overlap — so the next actor to receive it has to be a Scot too.
As far as mementos from other productions he’d done, David also still has Touchstone’s jester stick (there were two versions, a small one and a walking stick one, and he’s still got the former). He couldn’t quite think of anything else he’s got from Stratford-upon-Avon, although it seems hard to him to believe that he didn’t take anything from Hamlet. He then asked Gregory what he has from past productions, and Gregory told the story of a ring he has from the 1987 RSC production of The Merchant of Venice. In it, Antony Sher (who played Shylock) had a ring; that ring became a special prop for him throughout the play. That production was his first Stratford-upon-Avon production as an actor, which made it particularly special for him. So once they finished that production, he kept the ring.
The next question was also an audience question: how did he feel arriving to Stratford-upon-Avon to appear at the RSC for the first time? David admitted that before that he did As You Like It, he’d never been to Stratford-upon-Avon. All the RSC productions he’d seen before were either touring productions or ones he’d seen at the Barbican in London. So that was his first time in Stratford-upon-Avon, and going to the Royal Shakespeare Theatre to preform was thrilling and overwhelming. Of course, he added, back in 1994 the RST was very different; it wasn’t easy performing there. But it was wonderful to be able to be there and to be part of theatrical history.
Gregory then said that it was great to be able to capture David’s Richard II on film. Not to mention, it was their first Live From [Two performances streamed directly from the RST during a play’s run], which is very different to the film version of Hamlet they did before (unlike that Hamlet, the Live From was done live, in front of an audience, onstage). The audience was very much in favour; it was wonderful to be able to watch Shakespeare from the cinemas nearby (wherever they were). But what was the experience like to David?
David admitted he’s torn about these. He mentioned that even though the idea of live streams from theatre was new at the time, the option had come up while they were doing Hamlet. Gregory added that had they done it, they would’ve been the first do so in the UK, but for various reasons, they chose not to. It turned out for the best, though, David added; that conversation about filming it later led to the BBC film.
As far as Live From, David said that as an audience member he’s glad they exist; they gave him the chance to watch both the RSC and the National Theatre productions in various places worldwide. And they were done beautifully, so he truly enjoyed them. But as an actor, he’s somewhat uncomfortable about it; “it’s a weird hybrid,” He explained, “And it’s only when you watch one as an audience member … that you kind of go, ‘Oh, I see that it works.’”
So he’s glad they did it, but the process of doing it was quite scary. It’s usually done after the play’s been running for a while, and so by that point you feel more comfortable and familiar in the role. But with the prospect of it being streamed live, it gets in the way of that. “It’s another thing to mess your brain up,” He said. So he accepts that these Live From performances will keep happening, although as an actor, he’s not thrilled about it. And of course, he’s happy they’ve found a way to preserve theatrical performances in a way that still feels like theatre (because that was always the tricky part).
Gregory agreed it was quite nerve-wrecking to do those, to which David hurried to say, “Terrifying!” He added that part of the reason actors aren’t thrilled about these is that if you make a mistake on a Live From, it’s there forever. This isn’t just one night, one performance. It happened to him with Richard II: there were two words — an image — that he couldn’t quite remember, and he’d spent the few lines prior to the trying to remember what the image was. So he was walking onstage thinking, “not just this audience, but people all around the world, are about to see me not knowing what that image is!” He admitted he even got the Richard II DVD to look for that scene (it’s the only part of it he’d watched) and it was just as he remembered. “I can see it on my face. I can see my face going, ‘oh here we go’,” He said. “That was purely to do with the extra jangle of it all.”
And with that they had to finish the conversation, as the hour they had was over. It was certainly an interesting experience, and I’m glad I had the chance to watch it. A massive thank you to the Royal Shakespeare Company, Gregory Doran and David Tennant for this amazing hour!