Han Loo

11/12/99

Eng315.003

My interpretation of Edward II centered around a quotation from Act I scene iv, shortly after King Edward is forced to subscribe to Gaveston’s banishment.

I chose this quotation partly because of its references to the fall of Rome, and partly due to its distinctly anti Christian tone. While I did not see Edward II as a tragic or sympathetic hero, I did see him as an individual rebelling, in an almost teenaged fashion, against the restrictions put upon him by his peers, and by the very religion which pedestals him in his kingship.

I would make my production of Edward II a stage production. I feel that it would be difficult to both capture the intricacies of the characters relationships in film interpretation of this play simply because there are so many different characters, and because it is a fairly lengthy play. More specifically, I feel that the shifting scenes inherent in a film interpretation of this script would both confuse the audience and trivialize the characters; in viewing the Jarmin version of this play I felt these were some of it’s most significant concrete flaws.

I would set my play in ancient Rome, and while I would keep the production fairly minimalist, one aspect of the Jarmin version I would borrow would be the elaborate costuming of the various characters. I feel that this, when contrasted with the barrenness of a minimalist set, characterizes the severe affectations of the various individuals in this play. Furthermore, when paired with the elaborateness of the façade(s) which they use to hide their true motivations - almost to the point where they themselves can no longer distinguish the truth from the illusion — is symbolic of what I feel is a driving force in this play.

My stage would be built to resemble an ancient Roman theater such as the one displayed below:

The stage would be circular and would be backed with two sets of three Romanesque stone columns. Each set would be placed symmetrically at 30 and 60 degree angles from the center of the back wall of the stage. The third set of three pillars would be placed horizontally across the middle of the stage, dividing it approximately into a front (audience) and back. In the front middle of the stage I would have a statue of a man, perhaps a full sized mock up of the Roman Emperor Caligula, although the exactness of this would be a minor detail. As the play progressed I would have the statue slowly become more ruined, so that by the end of the play it is nothing but a chipped pedestal carrying atop some rubble, the significance of this decay being fairly obvious.

The statue itself would, in essence, divide the stage into two distinct and relatively separate areas. Accordingly, I would divide the scenes in this play between the characters each scene centers around. Thus, in Act I, scenes 1 and 3 (primarily Edward and Gaveston scenes) would be played on the left side of the stage while scenes 2 and 4 (Mortimor, Lancaster, Warwick, Queene Isabella and Archbishop scenes) would be played on the right. However, when the script calls for these two sides to meet, I would have them meet in front of the crumbling statue. I would do this to get the audience to signify the decay of the state with the intolerance and immoderation shown by both sides during the course of the play. Furthermore, I would use a stage capable of being rotated (yes they do actually have these) and I would turn it accordingly to center the action and movement between these two distinct "stages" as parties infiltrate opposing sides. During the course of the play I would have constant, shadowed, movement amongst the back columns to heighten the audience’s perception of the mood of deception and conspiracy that I would want maintained throughout the entire play. Lastly, as background and segway-between-scenes music I would use the song Rome is Burning; an old 1970s B-track by the Pretenders.

Not only do these lyrics play nicely into the motif I’ve selected for this production, the tone of the song is dark, conspiratory and sorrowful; the mood I wish to maintain during the course of my production. Furthermore, the song employs a low bass beat almost like that of a war drum; a continuous beat I would keep in the background even when dialogue was being spoken.

The setup of my stage, the use of lighting and music are all done to create a particular mood of deception and conspiracy during the course of my production of Edward II. In my reading of this play (somewhat marred by the Jarmin film version I viewed prior to reading it) I attributed Edward’s downfall as much to his own ignorance and arrogance as to the intolerance of an overbearing conservative aristocracy. In essence, I saw his actions throughout the play as akin to that of a rebellious teenager; immature and spoiled — the true prodigal son - yet still with that undeniably individualistic urge to define himself against the backdrop of his lackluster bourgeois lifestyle. I chose to depict him as a Roman emperor because the Roman Empire was brought to its destruction by the decadence and excess of its rulers. Furthermore, it was my perception that the primary reason for the aristocracy’s rejection of Gaveston (although homophobia definitely plays a part) was because of his class. For the most part they seem to take the homosexual connotations of Edward’s relationship with Gaveston fairly lightly. Rather, it is the overt nature of his relationship, and his habit of flaunting the relationship, that provide Mortimer with the pretense to initiate a coup and seize power.

Justified or not, in my production I would seek to make distinctions between the pretense and actual motives that drive the characters in this play.