Women in Shakespeare: Jenny König on Lady Anne

Since most Shakespearean casts are male-heavy and even male-only, coverage tends to focus on men who create the work. Let's balance that out! This is the third season of my interview series, Women in Shakespeare. I'm talking with the women who produce and perform Shakespeare and related work in New York City.

For New Yorkers, Thomas Ostermeier's regular visits to BAM showcase an especially radical approach to classic drama. His Doll's House in '04 had Nora shoot Torvald down like a horror-movie heroine! At the Berlin Schaubühne, Jenny König has worked on Shakespeare with Ostermeier several times, as Gertrude/Ophelia in Hamlet and Isabelle in Measure for Measure. Now she's visiting NYC in his Richard III, playing Lady Anne. She emailed with me about playing one of Shak's most challenging small roles.

-----

Let’s start with Lady Anne. What have you discovered about her that you find fascinating? What knots did the playwright leave for you to untangle?

Fascinating for me is especially that this woman keeps going. She lost everything. She has no real opportunity for social acceptance or security and yet she talks to this man, the murderer of her husband, her father and her father-in-law, so in short the lone reason for her misery. And in the end she even gets engaged [to] him.

That conflict is exciting, but of course it is also a conflict that I also have to manage, playing this scene.

And then again it’s quite reasonable. Lady Anne is a woman living in times of great uncertainty, so the most important thing was to stay in a position of power. I think any man in her position wouldn’t have had the same difficulties, or at least not to this degree, because a man living in this times would always have had the possibility to live alone, start over or to switch sides. None of those things, a woman could have done by herself. Of course there are exceptions, like Queen Elizabeth, but they remain exceptions.

In addition to all this political reasoning there is an animalistic quality to the whole scene, even though Richard and Lady Anne are two very aristocratic persons. That’s a very exciting contrast as well.

That scene is a classic and a challenging one. How do you make Anne's about-face plausible to the audience?

In my opinion her main motivation is not love, but political reasoning. For me, the engagement with Richard is above anything else an opportunity. It’s easy to forget what it meant for a woman to loose every man of her house, when all the words you have are those of a mourning widow calling upon the ghost of her ancestors, begging for revenge.

But it is very important to remember, that at the beginning of this scene Lady Anne has no security whatsoever. And even worse, her family fought at the losing side of the war. And now there is this man, how[ever] ugly he might be and how[ever] terrible the crimes he has committed may be, who is part of the winning family. And he comes to Lady Anne and surrenders himself completely to her. Not only emotionally, by saying he loves her and she is the purest most beautiful woman he knows, but also very literally by handing her a sword.

What does Anne find appealing about Richard?

He gives her the thing she misses the most right now: power. That, at least for me is the reason she falls for his lies. And of course he is the forbidden fruit. That helps as well 😀

What challenges have you found working on Shakespeare in translation?

To play a Shakespearean play in any language other than English naturally means to lose parts of the beauty of his writing and structure. But I think Marius von Mayenburg made a wise decision to mostly free himself from the verse-like structure of the language. He sometimes sacrifices the beauty of a well-written poem for the impact of the meaning of Shakespeare’s words.

I sometimes wish we had a translation of a Friedrich Schiller play. Because if the language of a play is so sophisticated and well placed there is always the danger of getting stuck in this golden cage of structured words.

Turning to the play, what elements of Richard III feel urgent and contemporary?

Reading Richard III, you inevitably think about persons of today’s politics. Power and the people who possess power always seem to follow the same basic rules, same now as 400 years ago.

The loudest and most ruthless man claims to be the greatest victim and gets to be king.

Maybe that is why Shakespeare always seems to work.

Thomas Ostermeier’s direction of classics, at least the ones we’ve seen in New York, strikes many audiences as iconoclastic. How does the approach and aesthetic of Richard III fit with other work you've done with him?

One thing that every Ostermeier-production of a Shakespeare-play I know has in common, is that we are very aware of the fact we are playing a theatrical piece, but at the same time, every situation in that theater piece is real. So for instance, the transition from one scene to another is very theatrical, one actor can play more than one part, and the audience gets addressed by the actors. It’s all a play. We know that and the audience is allowed to see it. But the situations these people are living are very real. We always try to make the audience recognize themselves in those situations.

So during the rehearsals for Richard III, we talked a lot about lying and manipulating we have experienced in our own lives, in order to get a better understanding of the scenes and the reasons these people make decisions. And we noticed that our private experiences are still quite close to what Shakespeare has written 400 years ago.

Talking about Shakespeare more generally, what’s your perspective on his roles for women? Where are his strengths and his weaknesses?

One thing you can never change is that Shakespeare lived 400 years ago. So all the latest developments like feminism, emancipation, sexual revolution and the fight against the common reception of what it means to be beautiful, all this he never experienced. And so neither can the women that he wrote experience those things. But of course you try to tell the story of a “strong, modern woman”, a story that, sadly, is not written down in the play. How am I supposed to show Ophelia as a strong and independent woman, when she keeps repeating the words “I shall obey”? It sometimes feels like the more I try to think of her as a modern woman, the more I fight against the play and by doing so, I can’t really work as an actress.

A friend of mine, a male actor, once had to play a woman in a Shakespearean play. He came to me with the words “Holy shit, I never had to listen to directing instructions like this! How do you manage to play stuff like this?”

in Measure for Measure

But I think there also can be a strength in showing women the way Shakespeare saw them, because you sometimes get incredible reactions to this depicting of weakness. For instance, we played in Iran once, and after the show many women came to me asking why we had shown Ophelia as such a weak woman. "Why didn’t you show her the way we want to see her?" To which I could only reply: “Read the play, we only did what Shakespeare wrote down.” And like this we started to talk about women and the issues we face today. And that is, what for me theater is about: communication.

Do you have any other Shakespearean roles you’d love to play, or to go back to? Not just the women either—any dream-roles traditionally played by men?

Joan la Pucelle from Henry VI is one special character I‘m longing to play. Shakespeare has written her as witch, not as a fantastical, beautiful, evil woman. In his writing you can see his political issues with her. It’s not about her being female [as much as] which side she belongs to.

And of course every male main character is fascinating, but if I had to choose one of them I would go for King Lear. His philosophical thought, about mankind being “only” animals, I could imagine this is fun to play.

Thanks!

-----

Richard III plays from Oct 12 to Oct 14 at BAM Harvey Theater in Fort Greene. Tickets are $35-115!

-----

headshot  Franzisca Sinn

photos  Arno Declair

Women in Shakespeare: Joy Richardson as Paulina

Since most Shakespearean casts are male-heavy and even male-only, coverage tends to focus on men who create the work. Let's balance that out! This is the second season of my interview series, Women on Shakespeare. I'm talking with the women who produce and perform Shakespeare and related work in New York City.

Joy Richardson has worked for over two decades in London's theater. Her big break, at the National, was in a controversial Pericles under the direction of Phyllida Lloyd. Since then, she's played many classic and modern roles, at the National, Shakespeare's Globe, on the West End, and in global tours. Now she's visiting NYC with Cheek by Jowl's Winter's Tale. She's cast as Paulina for the second time, having once played the part at the Globe's inaugural season in 1997. Ms. Richardson emailed with me about the role and other Shakespearean parts for women.

Let’s start with Paulina. What have you discovered about her that you find fascinating?

Paulina is a fascinating character to play. She goes on a huge learning curve throughout the play. When we first meet Paulina, she appears out of nowhere, at a time of great crisis in the kingdom. In trying to make things better, she challenges the most powerful authorities in the land: the King and all his nobles. As terrifying as the consequences might be, she risks her life to do what she believes is right and just. Justice is at the core of her values, and what gives her the strength of her convictions, while others falter.

Which scenes are the most challenging?

Paulina's scenes are all challenging to play, in different ways. She is an isolated figure most of the time. It is often her against the world. Her weapons are words, and her ability to constantly adapt, and so survive. All the while being constantly forced to justify her actions. She has to persuade the men, that she, a woman, knows best, and that good will come of all the years of suffering she puts the King through.

What knots did the playwright leave for you to untangle?

Richardson as Paulina

in Cheek by Jowl's Winter's Tale

The tricky thing for me is that we know very little about Paulina's past life. Even her present personal life is a mystery. But as an actor you cannot leave that aspect of her blank. The little scraps of detail have to be used as the foundation to create a fully rounded human being. Someone with hopes, fears and a detailed history. Otherwise you can so easily make her a mouthy, two dimensional know-it-all. Paulina's is so much more than that. It is a challenge, but fun having that much scope for invention.

Many of Shakespeare’s strong women are a political type—Lady Macbeth, Cleopatra, Margaret, Lear’s daughters. How does Paulina fit with those characters?

Paulina is a very political animal. She sees the politics in everything. And is brave enough to be visible, even in the face of great danger to herself and her family. In her society, men rule women. It is the men who are appointed to positions of power. And it is with great political skill that she navigates this. It requires great political skill on her part to gain the influence she does, and maintain that power and influence in the face of constant criticism and attempts to undermine her.

Where does her power lie?

This production explores the psychology of power. Power misused and the different ways people respond to the horrendous choices facing them. The struggle with their own values. 'What are you willing to sacrifice for your beliefs?' is the question running throughout the play. Paulina's power lies in the strength of her belief in a better future. She has hope in the future. And she believes she has a crucial role to play to make it happen. Her conviction and self-belief allows her to take a leap of faith, and forces others to do the same.

On an intersecting subject, how does Shakespeare's perspective on Paulina's age affect his portrait of her?

One thing about Paulina is that her beauty and sexuality are not an issue in the play. It is what she says and does that carry weight. This is very unusual in a major female character in a Shakespeare play. When we first meet Paulina, she asks questions, speaks her mind, and publicly condemns all those who do not meet her moral standards. But as the years pass, she is less confrontational and more passive aggressive. She speaks less, but is just as effective. Her determination is still there, and her power has grown. Physically she is weaker, as the years have taken their toll. She has sacrificed everything for what she believes. Age has imbued her with a different kind of energy and determination. She is older, wiser, and has an iron will.

You’ve played Paulina before, at Shakespeare’s Globe in 1997. How has your perspective on the role changed in twenty years?

Richardson as Paulina

at Shakespeare's Globe, 1997

The Paulina I played twenty years ago was completely different to the Paulina I play now. This has largely to do with the company I am working with now, but also because the world is a very different place. Extraordinary events have happened that have left their trace. The certainty I had then seems so naive now. I am twenty years older and I have a whole bundle of new questions to throw at Paulina, along with the previous questions. This Paulina has a tougher job to do in facing down her own demons, before she can deal with other people's demons. But she also has many more strings to her bow. She feels the weight of responsibility for consequences of her actions, but going backwards is not an option. Many things can, and do go wrong, and she is more aware of the possibility of failure.

How does the approach and aesthetic of Cheek by Jowl fit with other Shakespeare you’ve worked on, at Shakespeare’s Globe and elsewhere?

Working for Cheek by Jowl is an education. An opportunity to learn and break old habits. To step outside your comfort zone. It is an amazing company of hugely talented individuals who bring their unique skills and passion to enable actors to tell a story so that it matters. The actor is put at the very centre of every production. And as storytellers, we are continually stretched in new and interesting ways. Focus is also placed on the dynamics of space and time. The space must live, so the word, and the story can be born. Rehearsals continue throughout the run of the show. This is a luxury. With other companies rehearsals end once a show has officially opened. This opportunity to continuously explore the text and make new choices is a rare thing in the world of theatre.

Talking about Shakespeare more generally, in your career you’ve played a variety of his roles, male and female. What’s your perspective on his parts for women?

One exciting aspect of doing a Shakespeare play is his understanding of humanity. Strengths and weaknesses. His characters are multilayered, with endless possibilities for interpretation. Both male and female. The difference between them is the different rules and expectations imposed on them by society. The men are often the protagonists. The movers and shakers. While the women must find endless ways of challenging the restrictions put on them. Sometimes they succeed in their aims and other times, they do not. But there is a whole world that lies in between.

Where are his strengths in depicting them and where are his weaknesses?

Richardson (second from right) with the women

of Cheek by Jowl's Winter's Tale

Shakespeare gives a voice to those facing the injustices of the world. He also gives a voice to the perpetrators of injustice. The argument is never simplistic. So, for an actor, there is a danger in wanting the women to be heroines of our times. Wanting them to be good role models and expecting them to display the values we admire. That is why a play like The Taming of the Shrew is often seen as a “problem play”. At the end of the play, our “heroine” delivers a speech that embraces the very values that enslaves women. This is unpalatable for modern audiences, yet it is a reality that exists now. The spirit of the downtrodden are sometimes broken. After a long battle, her spirit appears to be broken. The play explores uncomfortable truths, using humour. When we laugh we feel complicit. The easy way out is to deliver her final speech ironically. As is often done. Racism, sexism and antisemitism are expressed by characters in the play, but I cannot recall anything in Shakespeare's plays that are beyond salvaging. That perspective misses the point. Exploring these themes is an opportunity to find the depth of what it is to be human.

Do you have any other Shakespearean roles you’d love to play, or to go back to? Not just the women either—any dream-roles traditionally played by men?

I have always wanted to play Lady Macbeth and Juliet. They do say that by the time you are experienced enough to play Juliet, you are far too old for the part. But why give up on dreams? Prospero and Richard III are also characters I would love to play.

-----

Cheek by Jowl's The Winter's Tale runs from December 6 to 11 at the BAM Harvey Theater in Fort Greene. Tickets are $25-$110.

-----

headshot  Ric Bacon

Cheek by Jowl photos  Johan Persson

Globe '97 photo  UPPA/Photoshot

Women on Shakespeare: Janni Goslinga on Margaret

Since most Shakespearean casts are male-heavy and even male-only, coverage tends to focus on men who create the work. Let's balance that out! This is the second season of my interview series, Women on Shakespeare. I'm talking with the women who produce and perform Shakespeare and related work in New York City.

I'm thrilled to email with Janni Goslinga, the leading lady in Ivo van Hove's production of Kings of War. The six-hour epic, playing at BAM this weekend, adapts Henry V, Henry VI 1-3, and Richard III into a single drama. Van Hove’s direction of classics, especially his recent Broadway mountings of Arthur Miller, has struck some as iconoclastic (as if that's a flaw). Goslinga has worked with van Hove many times, and now plays his Margaret, the original template for Shakespeare's 'powerful queen' roles.

Thanks for talking with me, Janni. What have you discovered about Margaret that you find fascinating?

Margaret is a survivor. She is ruthless to others and herself. She sees what is necessary and what must be done to rise to power and stay in power. Which is exactly what she wants. She is married off to the King of England as part of a deal negotiated between France and England, and leaves her whole world behind to become Queen. When she discovers that Henry is weak and unfit to be a king, she decides to assume control. Margaret is too strong-willed, has too much ambition and too much talent to play the dutiful little wife: ‘…is it okay for Henry to act like nothing more than a school boy? Am I a queen in nothing but title and really secondary to a Duke?’

Which scenes are the most challenging?

The scene in which she loses control, when Henry gets a nervous breakdown, is definitely the most challenging to play. Henry hears of the death of his good friend Gloucester, begins to suspect Margaret’s lover Suffolk and starts praying obsessively. Margaret tries desperately to stay in control, but plotting to murder Gloucester has sent adrenaline rushing through her system. She struggles to suppress feelings of deep resentment and anger towards her weak husband. Finally she explodes: ‘I have done everything for you! Look at me! Do something!’ Margaret’s survival instinct tells her to fight, but Henry’s response in the face of danger is flight. This scene has to be rough, frantic, irrational. We act it out differently every night.

What knots did the playwright leave for you to untangle?

In the following scene for instance, […] when Suffolk is unmasked and banished for his crime, the lovers say a passionate farewell. We rehearsed that scene several times and tried to inject strong sexual tension into it. At a certain point Ivo [van Hove] proposed to cut out all the romantic ‘…I’m lost without you…’ phrases from Margaret. Suffolk gets an emotional outburst. Margaret only replies: ‘The King is coming. Go. Take my heart with you.’

Goslinga (l) with Eelco Smits as Henry VI

When that mind switch became clear to me, I knew how to play this role. This is a woman who is able to see the future — and put her son’s interests first. What is left to save? She kicks her lover to the curb and refuses to feel the pain this causes her. She won’t allow it. All she gives herself is that one little sentence that she barks at him on his way out: ‘and take my heart with you.’

She is a survivor.

Margaret was the first of Shakespeare’s powerful queen roles, and, across three plays, it’s the largest part in his complete works. How does Kings of War present her, as compared with the strong men and weak kings?

Richard III is the only play regularly performed in the Netherlands. Dutch audiences generally view Margaret as ‘that crazy woman who swears like a sailor’. They are never quite sure what her reasons for swearing are and who she is really cursing. Performing Henry VI and Richard III allows us to show her forcefulness. When she is crowned Queen of England, she has high expectations. She is bitterly disappointed when it becomes clear that her husband has no actual power and that the court nobility is really in charge. Margaret becomes a true Iron Lady: ‘Lords, hard politics freeze up my Henry.’

Margaret is dominant, unwilling to compromise in negotiations and will stop at nothing to achieve her goals. She is hard on herself and has great contempt for men who show weakness. Attack is her best line of defense. She calls Henry ‘a walking disaster’ and tells Suffolk he’s a ‘sorry excuse for a man, a spineless crybaby.’ The only person she has a soft spot for is her son. When Henry offers York the rights to the throne and betrays their son, she leaves him, raises an army with her son and goes to battle. When, much later, she returns to curse Richard III — the man responsible for killing her husband and son — she is totally fearless. She is like a terrorist with nothing left to lose. She has returned for one reason only: to wreak havoc and bring about destruction. Destruction through precision bombing in words. Ivo rightly calls her ‘a ticking time bomb’ in this scene.

How does van Hove's creative aesthetic fit with the Shakespeare you’ve done together?

Goslinga (l.) in Roman Tragedies

With Roman Tragedies the concept was a big political conference, one that we were all part of, both the audience and the actors. The news ticker and the television screens all flashed the same announcement: in ten minutes you will witness the murder of Julius Caesar. We moved through the audience. This gave the whole performance an intensity and a level of tension I had never seen before. The audience literally sits next to us as we fight, make love, invent conspiracies and die.

In Kings of War, with its War Rooms and secret passages, we also play to the camera and the audience at the same time. It’s an acting style that we have developed together and I personally love it.

In Othello, created by Jan [Versweyveld, set & light designer] over a decade ago, a glass house that served as a warship and a bedroom at the same time moved slowly towards the front of the stage. The play started out as theater and ended in a close-up like in a Hitchcock movie, next to Othello and Desdemona’s bed. Audience members later told us that they wanted to run up on stage and stop Othello when he gets ready to kill her.

I have also starred in a Romeo and Juliet production in which Julia’s whole family was made up of tango dancers. This resulted in a few very unique scenes, but I did not feel that the concept was able to carry the whole play.

Can you tell me more about van Hove's and Jan Versweyveld's aesthetic vision, and how it shapes your performance?

Ivo and Jan always have a fresh and compelling view of the pieces they want to do. Their approach is indeed ‘un-holy’, or maybe I should say nothing is holy in the process of rehearsals, as long as it is in line with the concept. The concept is always very well thought-out. The space that Jan has developed and the situations Ivo describes to us actors, always offer a lot of inspiration that we can use in our portrayal of the scenes. Most of the time, things fall into place naturally from that concept and the choices Ivo makes are a natural, organic result.

Ivo and Jan’s immeasurable talents lie in the creation of concepts that really capture the essence of a piece and they’re never dogmatic. It’s fun for them to watch what happens with their ideas on stage.

In your career you’ve worked on several of Shakespeare's plays. What’s your perspective on his roles for women?

Goslinga (l.) as Emilia in Othello (2012)

For me, it’s mostly a shame that they usually don’t have as many lines as the male characters do. Or the fact that they are given fewer opportunities to be philosophical, contemplate matters, express doubts or offer arguments. Because, really, I think it’s exquisite when they do. I had the honor of playing Emilia in Othello and her monologue is second to none, not even Shylock’s: ‘Let men know that women have senses too: we can see and smell and we have a palate that knows sweet and sour just like a man’s does…’ Her development in this play is amazing; from an insecure woman trapped in an abusive marriage with husband Iago who despises her and constantly spews racist and sexist remarks (even Donald Trump pales in comparison), to a confident human being who, as the stars align against her, finally sees clearly for the first time when it’s too late and raises her voice to the heavens in agony.

How does his perspective on a woman’s age affect his portrait of her?

How he does that is his gift, I suppose. I played Julia back when I was a theater student in college and now I’m playing Margaret — who’s absolutely ancient by the time she returns in Richard III. The rhythm of a character’s language, the way their minds work, their choice of words, but also the way they view the world — you get to use all of this to show a character’s age. It gives you the hormones and crazy, overwhelming infatuation of teenager Julia, and the centuries of wrath and war and the hate-filled nature of Margaret. A dinosaur who survives everything.

What about your dual roles in Roman Tragedies, with its take on modern politics?

In Roman Tragedies I play ‘the wife’ — the woman behind the successful man. I play both Coriolanus’s silent lady and Julius Caesar’s better half Calpurnia, who foresees his fate but is powerless to stop it from coming to pass as he refuses to listen to her and leaves for the Senate anyway.

I recently read somewhere that, in a lot of descriptions of Hillary Clinton, she is first referred to as Bill Clinton’s wife. Clearly ‘wife of’ is still a position that people would like to see women in today. The fact that these characters play subordinate roles does not mean that you have to portray them as submissive types. In our show, by putting me on stage repeatedly, Ivo shows how the silent woman cries angry tears on the couch at home when she sees Coriolanus getting himself banished by being stubborn. When she later goes to beg him to do something, she shows a stubbornness equal to that of her husband.

Goslinga (l.) as Virgilia
in Roman Tragedies (2012)

These are important choices to make, to allow these characters their fair share of stage time. To take every character seriously, always, without any moral judgment.

Is there anything in Shakespeare's plays that’s beyond salvaging?

I wouldn’t say there’s anything beyond salvaging. But in order to successfully portray the change in Lady Anne’s character in Richard III, or to deliver a strong closing monologue as Katherine in the Taming of the Shrew, you need an exciting and fitting angle. Exciting for both men and women of the 21st century.

Do you have any other Shakespearean roles you’d love to play, or to go back to? Not just the women either—any dream-roles traditionally played by men?

I would love to play Lady Macbeth. Recently at Toneelgroep Amsterdam, male dream-roles also have been played by women by the way: Octavius Caesar is played by a woman in our Roman Tragedies. And we have performed Queen Lear and Hamlet vs Hamlet, both with a female title role.

-----

Toneelgroup Amsterdam and BAM's Kings of War runs from November 3 to 6 at BAM Howard Gilman Opera House. Tickets start at $30.

-----

photos  Jan Versweyveld