PERFORMANCE PERSPECTIVES

"Elizabeth"
HISTORICAL COMPARISONS

I settled down one sunny Saturday afternoon, when in fact I probably should have been working in the garden to protect us from the bush fire threat, to watch CATE BLANCHETT in "Elizabeth" which I had hired on videotape. When I turned my set on I discovered that by coincidence, at exactly this time, LAURENCE OLIVIER'S "Hamlet" was being played on afternoon TV. This was not a production I had previously seen and I paused for a moment to watch, tempted to change my initial goal. But the temptation did not last long. Perhaps it was my mood, the sunny weather or the melancholy of the troubled Hamlet but I rolled the videotape and soon enough there was CATE BLANCHETT on my screen.

As time went on the usual Saturday afternoon interruptions meant that on a number of occasions I stopped the tape and of course there was LARRY Hamleting away.

The comparison was inevitable.

Two acclaimed actors, two historical roles. (CATE BLANCHETT won the Golden Globe for Best Actress for Elizabeth) And the contrast was plain.

Here before my eyes, uninvited and unplanned was a terrific example of the difference between "internally" and "externally" focused performance. Further more, here has a classic illustration of the dramatic productivity that results from these two differing processes. There was no doubt that LAURENCE OLIVIER was creating a performance to be watched. This was generated by the sense of importance he carried about what he was doing but it was also enhanced by the way the actors around him kept the focus on Hamlet. Perhaps this is a logical outcome of it being a story in which Hamlet is the central character.

But the contrast with the young Elizabeth was strong. Here was a character who in dealing with the problems of her existence had to moment by moment fight for control of her space and her right to exist. There was no sense here of everyone supporting this character's (or actor's) place in the story. Here there was an active dramatic dynamic. Again it could be argued that this was simply an outcome of the circumstances of the story, yet similar circumstances apply to the drama of Hamlet's existence.

LAURENCE OLIVIER appeared to be totally in control of his performance choices and thus there was a sense he knew exactly what it was he was going to do next as did everyone else around him. These were intelligent and exceedingly well executed choices which gave the play and the performance a sense of its place in history as a theatrical event. This was Shakespeare as it should be done.

On the other hand CATE BLANCHETT had no sense that she could conceive of doing anything more important than dealing with the moment. This was not history in the making - this was life being lived. If Elizabeth did not make the correct choice at this point of time then the outcome of the next moment would be more uncertain. This was not an actor who knew what sophisticated emotional outcome they wished the audience to perceive this was a character dealing with the complexities of difficult decisions.

• These responses could have been triggered by a number of external issues:-
• The change in performance styles over the intervening forty years.
• My bias against pomposity and high station (the tall poppy syndrome)
• The gloom of Elsinore Castle
• The desire to join the queue of people deriding OLIVIER'S performance skills now he is no longer around to retaliate in kind.

Whatever the reason on this sunny afternoon my instincts were to wield the remote as a tool to travel in time away from an historical pageant and into an unfolding event.

Copyright © The Rehearsal Room 2002. All rights Reserved.