Shakespeare’s Globe Theater: Our Trip to see the Indian Version of The Tempest

Last week Priya and I went to Shakespeare’s Globe Theater to see a production of Shakespeare’s play The Tempest.

The Globe Theater is dedicated to productions of Shakespeare’s work. It is a building that was reconstructed to resemble, as closely as possible, the original Globe Theater, which Shakespeare wrote for and worked in. It sits on the south side of the river just west of London Bridge. 

Here's a short history on the original building:  During the first years of Elizabeth’s reign (1558-1603), the English playing companies used inns, inn yards, college halls and private houses for their performances. It was not until 1576 that the actor-manager James Burbage built the Theater in Shoreditch, the first purpose-built playhouse in London. Shakespeare joined the resident troupe at the Theater in the 1580s and the company (later known as the Chamberlain’s and then the King’s Men) flourished there for 20 years.

In 1596 a dispute arose over the renewal of the lease and negotiations were begun to acquire a disused hall in the precincts of the old Blackfriars priory to use as an indoor theater. James Burbage died in February 1597 and in April the lease expired, but the dispute continued for two years, during which time the company performed at the nearby Curtain playhouse. In Christmas 1598 the company sought a drastic solution: they leased a plot near the Rose, a rival theater in Southwark, demolished the Theater and carried its timbers over the river. To cover the cost of the new playhouse, James Burbage’s sons Cuthbert and Richard, offered some members of the company shares in the building. Shakespeare was one of four actors who bought a share in the Globe. By early 1599 the theater was up and running and for 14 years it thrived, presenting many of Shakespeare’s greatest plays.

In 1613, during a performance of Henry VIII, wadding from a stage cannon ignited the thatched roof and the theater burned to the ground all in less than two hours. The theater was quickly rebuilt, this time with a tiled roof. Shakespeare may have acted in the second Globe, but he probably never wrote for it. It remained the home for Shakespeare’s old company until the closure of all the theaters under England’s Puritan administration in 1642. No longer of use, it was demolished to make room for tenements in 1644.

The building Priya and I visited is the new Globe Theater, which was reconstructed and opened in 1997.

Here's a short history on the modern building: The project to rebuild Shakespeare’s Globe was initiated by the American actor, director and producer Sam Wanamaker after his first visit to London in 1949. Twenty-one years later he founded what was to become the Shakespeare Globe Trust, dedicated to the reconstruction of the theater and the creation of an education center and permanent exhibition. In 1993 after 23 years spent tirelessly fundraising, advancing research into the appearance of the original Globe and planning the reconstruction with the Trust’s architect Theo Crosby, Sam Wanamaker died. At that time the site had been secured, the exhibition undercroft structurally complete and a few timber bays of the theater were in place but it wasn't until three and a half years later the theater was completed.

They attempted to make the Globe as historically similar to the original as possible but that was difficult because nobody knows for sure what the original Globe looked like. Printed panoramas, such as those by John Norden and Wenceslaus Hollar, give some idea of the theater’s exterior; written accounts, usually by visitors from overseas, building contracts and one sketch (of the Swan theater) tell us something about the interior. In addition, there are suggestive descriptions included in the plays themselves, such as the famous Chorus which begins Henry V: ‘And shall this cockpit hold the vasty fields of France / Or may we cram within this wooden ‘O’...’

What we do know is that the Globe itself was not a truly circular building. The archaeological excavation of the Rose Theater in 1989 revealed what most scholars had long suspected that the Elizabethan playhouses were polygonal buildings. In the same year, a small portion of the Globe itself was excavated, from which two important inferences were drawn: that it was a 20-sided building and it had a diameter of 100 feet.

Techniques used in the reconstruction of the theater were painstakingly accurate. Green oak was cut and fashioned according to 16th-century practice and assembled in two-dimensional bays on the Bankside site; oak laths and staves support lime plaster were mixed according to a contemporary recipe and the walls are covered in a white lime wash. The roof is made of water reed thatch, based on samples found during the excavation.

The stage is the most conjectural aspect of the reconstruction. Almost nothing survives from the period to suggest the appearance of this part of the theater. Its design was drawn from evidence provided by existing buildings of the period and practical advice offered by the actors and directors who participated in the 1995 ‘Workshop’ and 1996 ‘Prologue’ seasons.

Other than concessions to comply with modern day fire regulations such as additional exits, illuminated signage, fire retardant materials and some modern backstage machinery, the Globe is as accurate a reconstruction of the 1599 Globe as was possible with the available evidence. Still for the time being this Globe is – and is likely to remain – neither more nor less than the ‘best guess’ at Shakespeare’s theater. So the modern Globe was opened by Her Majesty the Queen in June 1997.

So that is what I can tell you about this building both its historical and modern stories.

Now back to our visit. Priya found tickets to Shakespeare’s The Tempest and she wanted to go to which I eagerly agreed. Now this production of The Tempest was not a normal production of the play rather it was an Indian version of the play. It had Indian and European actors who used both English and some Indian language (not Hindi) to act out the play. 

Before we went I did a little research on The Tempest because even though it was a play I had heard of it, it was not one that I was familiar with. Obviously there is no way to become truly familiar with one of Shakespeare’s plays in an hour but I did what I could before I had to leave for the show. So I just went to Wikipedia for an overview of the play because while Wikipedia is certainly not the most trustworthy of places to get your information it is one of the easiest places to get. If you are not familiar with the play take a look here and you can see what I saw.  Again while I won’t promise that this is the best synopsis of the play it lays out the basics. The main character is named Prospero and he is the Duke of Milan. He is usurped and exiled by his brother to an enchanted island. His daughter Miranda is with him and he is served by a spirit named Ariel and a deformed creature Caliban. Prospero has magical abilities and he raises a storm to wreck his brother and his confederates on the same island. Once they are there Prospero’s long contemplated revenge can now be attempted.

Now despite my research I must admit that once I was in the theater actually watching the play I was almost instantly lost and found it very difficult to follow what was happening on stage. There were numerous reasons for this. First was the issue of language. As I said before the actors used both English and an Indian language and they seemed to switch back and forth at random times. There were even times when one actor spoke in English and another actor would respond in the Indian language. Now while I’m sure there was some sort of structure to when they would change languages as someone who couldn't understand the Indian language it made large chunks of the play completely incomprehensible for me. The second problem, closely connected to the first, was the issue of accents. Many of the actors were Indian and often even when they were speaking English their accents were so thick that I could not understand what they were saying as well as the fact that the English they were speaking was Shakespeareian English not modern English, which is not the easiest English to understand in the first place. I would get words and phrases here and there but again there were just huge gaps in my comprehension of what was being said and thus of what was happening in the story. The third issue was where we were sitting. Our seats were not very good. We were off to the side of the stage and there was a large pillar right in front of both of us. It blocked my view of at least a third of the stage and Priya lost about half of the stage. So when you can’t understand what is being said or see what is being done it makes for a very taxing time. Due to all of these factors Priya and I decided to leave during the intermission. This meant we saw about an hour and a half of the play but missed the last hour or so of it. Still with all the problems I mentioned I feel I could accurately say that even though I was there for the first hour and a half I missed all of the show.

Now the theater itself is quite beautiful and I am pretty sure Priya and I will be back but I know the next time we go we will definitely get different seats than the ones we had this time. As far as what play we’d go see I’m pretty open to anything though I would vote for something done fully in English. The theater was roundish with four levels of seating. There was also a large area for people to stand in front of the stage, kind of like a concert. One of the most interesting things was that it had an open roof so you could see into the sky. I can only imagine how many times a play must have been rained on or even rained out. If you are even in London this is a place I would recommend going.

Here are some pictures of the theater.