Reviewed by:

• Shakespeare in the Theatre: The National Theatre, 1963–1975: Olivier and Hall by Robert Shaughnessy
• Jennifer Barnes

Robert Shaughnessy’s Shakespeare in the Theatre: The National Theatre, 1963–1975: Olivier and Hall makes a valuable contribution to Shakespearean performance history and provides a cornerstone to Bloomsbury’s Shakespeare in the Theatre series. Taking as its starting point public calls for a national theatre capable of providing a “house for Shakespeare,” the book charts the essential role that Shakespeare production played in the shaping of the National Theatre (NT) during the Laurence Olivier and Peter Hall eras (4). Encompassing the NT’s establishment at the Old Vic in 1963 to its move to the South Bank beginning in 1975, Shaughnessy analyzes the “most Shakespeare intensive period” of the NT’s history as a quest for identity that maps onto the distinct visions of Olivier and Hall (4). Throughout, Shaughnessy brings pivotal productions to life by drawing on varied sources from the NT archive, including reviews, production stills, and letters from the public. This material, rooted within often turbulent cultural and political contexts, brings a sense of immediacy to these long-ago performances that is keenly felt. Each chapter in the volume pivots on a range of key productions that, together, illustrate how Shakespeare proved central in establishing (and performing the very idea of) a national theatre. [End Page 262]

The first chapter focuses on Laurence Olivier as director and as star; the central productions considered are the inaugural Hamlet (1963), Othello (1964), and The Merchant of Venice (1970). Throughout, Shaughnessy is alive to the impact of Olivier’s star image and his acting techniques on this period of the NT’s history, and he conveys a sense of the kinetic experience of Olivier’s performances, “a phenomenon that was not just seen but felt” (31; emphasis in original). The bulk of the chapter is, unsurprisingly, devoted to the controversial Othello, which is put into productive conversation with Merchant through a focus on Olivier’s use of prosthetics and his famed “outside in” approach to acting. Shaughnessy uses this technique as a way to finely detail the complex, and very different, receptions of each production. Indeed, the excellent analysis of Olivier’s performance style connects both the stories of these productions and their legacies to a more comprehensive understanding of Olivier’s directorship at the NT. The work here establishes the framework of the rest of the book—a burgeoning sense, from the mid-1960s, of Olivier’s encroaching anachronicity; a corresponding evolution in theatrical taste; and a complex relationship between the NT and the RSC, headed by Hall.

This sense of an Olivier, and an NT, poised not always comfortably between tradition and modernity leads into the next two chapters, focusing on the pivotal year 1967 and on the visits of key European influencers, notably Franco Zeffirelli and the Berliner Ensemble (1964–65). In chapter 2, Shaughnessy details the histories of the two productions that dominated the 1967–68 season: Tom Stoppard’s Shakespeare-inspired Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead and Clifford Williams’s all-male As You Like It. Through these productions, Shaughnessy explores the often-conflicting obligations that the state-funded NT had to navigate, juggling financial sustainability with public demand and valued traditions with the shock of the new (87). Stoppard’s play and Clifford’s radical adaptation thus exposed the NT’s own cultural performance in a landscape marked, not least, by the work of the Royal Court and the RSC. Certainly, the NT’s fraught identity is underscored throughout the book by means of its interlocking history with the RSC, which, vexingly, “was already fulfilling most of the functions of a national theatre, and more” by 1963 (17). These are dancing threads that Shaughnessy keeps dynamically alive, leading the reader from Olivier toward Hall and back again.

Indeed, Hall’s 1965 Hamlet, Shaughnessy suggests, may well have been inspired by Zeffirelli’s Amleto, which transferred to the Old Vic in 1964. Coupled the next year with Much...

审核人：

• 剧院中的莎士比亚：国家剧院，1963-1975：罗伯特·肖内西的《奥利维尔与霍尔》
• 詹妮弗·巴恩斯

罗伯特肖内西的莎士比亚在剧院：国家剧院，1963-1975：奥利维尔和霍尔对莎士比亚的表演历史做出了宝贵的贡献，并为布卢姆斯伯里的莎士比亚戏剧系列奠定了基石。以公众呼吁建立一个能够提供“莎士比亚之家”的国家剧院为出发点，这本书描绘了莎士比亚作品在劳伦斯·奥利维尔和彼得·霍尔时代在塑造国家剧院（NT）中所发挥的重要作用（ 4）。从 1963 年北领地在老维克成立到 1975 年开始搬到南岸，肖内西分析了北领地历史上“莎士比亚最密集的时期”，作为对身份的追求，映射到奥利维尔和霍尔的独特愿景上（ 4）。在整个过程中，肖内西通过从 NT 档案中提取各种资源，包括评论、制作剧照、以及公众的来信。这种材料植根于经常动荡的文化和政治背景中，为这些早已深刻感受到的古老表演带来了一种即时感。本书的每一章都围绕一系列关键作品展开，这些作品共同说明了莎士比亚如何证明在建立（和表演）国家剧院方面发挥着核心作用。[第262页结束]

第一章重点介绍劳伦斯·奥利维尔作为导演和明星的身份；被考虑的核心作品是首部电影《哈姆雷特》（1963）、《奥赛罗》（1964）和《威尼斯商人》（1970）。自始至终，肖内西都对奥利维尔的明星形象和他的表演技巧对 NT 历史时期的影响充满活力，他传达了奥利维尔表演的动态体验感，“一种不仅是看到的，而且是感觉到的现象”（31 ; 强调原文）。不出所料，本章的大部分内容都致力于有争议的奥赛罗，并与商人进行了富有成效的对话通过对 Olivier 对假肢的使用和他著名的“由外而内”的表演方法的关注。Shaughnessy 使用这种技术作为一种方式来精细地详细说明每个作品的复杂且非常不同的接收效果。事实上，对奥利维尔表演风格的出色分析将这些作品的故事及其遗产与对奥利维尔在北领地的导演职位更全面的理解联系起来。这里的工作建立了本书其余部分的框架——从 1960 年代中期开始，Olivier 越来越不合时宜的意识正在萌芽；戏剧品味的相应演变；以及由霍尔领导的 NT 和 RSC 之间的复杂关系。

Olivier 和 NT 的这种感觉并不总是在传统和现代之间轻松平衡，这将进入接下来的两章，重点是 1967 年的关键年份和欧洲主要影响者的来访，特别是 Franco Zeffirelli 和柏林乐团（1964 年 - 65)。在第 2 章中，肖内西详细介绍了 1967-68 赛季主导的两部作品的历史：汤姆斯托帕德的莎士比亚风格的罗森克兰茨和吉尔登斯特恩死了和克利福德威廉姆斯的全男性如你所愿. 通过这些作品，肖内西探索了由国家资助的北领地必须应对的经常相互冲突的义务，在财务可持续性与公共需求和重视传统与新事物的冲击之间进行平衡 (87)。斯托帕德的戏剧和克利福德的激进改编因此在以皇家法院和 RSC 的工作为标志的景观中展示了北领地自己的文化表演。当然，NT 令人担忧的身份在整本书中都通过其与 RSC 的关联历史得到强调，令人烦恼的是，到 1963 年，它“已经履行了国家剧院的大部分职能，甚至更多”（17）。这些是肖内西保持动态活跃的舞动线，引导读者从奥利维尔到霍尔，然后又回来。

事实上，肖内西认为，霍尔 1965 年的《哈姆雷特》很可能受到了泽菲雷利的《阿姆莱托》的启发，后者于 1964 年转移到了老维克。第二年加上了很多……