Playhouses
There were two different types of playhouse in London during Shakespeare’s time. There were outdoor playhouses, also known as ‘amphi theatres’ or ‘public’ playhouses, and indoor playhouses, also known as ‘halls’ or ‘private’ playhouses.
All outdoor playhouses had:
• A central yard that was open to the sky;
• A raised stage sticking out into the yard;
• A roof over the stage, which was called ‘the heavens’,although the first Rose theatre (1587-92) may not havehad one;
• A tiring house behind the stage with a backstage area,where actors dressed and waited to come on. Abovethis were lords’ rooms, rooms for storage, and a roomlevel with ‘the heavens’ to work the special effects from
• Galleried seating all around the yard, on several levels,which was roofed.
There were several differences between indoor and outdoor theatres. Indoor theatres were:
• smaller than outdoor playhouses, holding about 500
people, not thousands.
• built inside an existing building, so not open to the sky.
• more expensive (ranging from 6d to 2s and 6d),
compared with open yard standing (at 1d) as in
outdoor playhouses.
• lit by candles as well as daylight through the windows.
The Globe
Playhouses, like the Globe, were outdoor theatres – they had some covered seating, but the yard in the middle was open to the sky. Indoor theatres were inside a larger building, so had a roof. They were much smaller than outdoor theatres. Plays were performed in the round and the Globe was very large. Therefore, actors would have to be very loud in order to be heard as they didn't have any microphones. The design of this theatre was possibly adapted from the inn-yards that had been used for rehearsals. The building was a polygonal wooden building with three galleries that surrounded an open yard.The Globe was very expensive to construct by Elizabethan standards.
Actors
In this era, it was only boys and men who were allowed to become professional actors in England. Women were allowed to act in other areas of Europe, however this wasn't allowed in Shakespeare's productions. Women were not allowed to perform in public theatres until 1660. Boys would play all the female parts in shows while men would occasionally play the older women. While most women's roles were played by boys or young men in the all-male casts, occasionally some iconic or comedic female parts such as Juliet's Nurse may have been played by a particularly famous or popular actor.This seems very unfair as women are just as important as men in plays within today's society and I think we would struggle to cop without female actors. I find it strange that boys would have to play female parts as this would take away from the naturalism or truth within a performance. However, Shakespeare's plays weren't usually naturalistic so it wouldn't have been too odd at the time. There was a large variety of characters to be played and some actors were renowned for specializing in a certain type of part. This meant that William Shakespeare wrote some parts for a specific actor to portray. For example, Dogberry, in Much Ado About Nothing, was written for William Kemp because he was very good at physical comedy. Actors in Shakespeare's time also had to be skillful in fencing, dancing, singing and playing musical instruments in his plays. The costumes in Shakespeare's plays weren't usually historically accurate. Instead, they were very modern and designed to be aesthetically pleasing and impressive, especially for the leading parts. Costumes provided the essential wonder and were a key part of the plays. They were often second-hand clothes once owned and worn by royalty. I find this interesting as today we usually go for naturalistic costumes rather than aesthetically pleasing costumes. It doesn't seem anywhere as important now than it was in Elizabethan times. It seems extravagant and wasteful to spend so much money on costumes in my opinion. How much an actor earned depended on the location the company performed at. Companies earned more money when they performed in London rather than the country, therefore they were able to pay their actors more money. Some actors would be paid 10 shillings a week in London but only 5 shillings in the country. In some ways, this seems unfair as actors do the exact same job and get paid less money. However, I understand this as theatre was more popular in London, therefore plays probably received larger audiences and more money, therefore companies would be able to afford to pay actors more. Actors normally performed in the afternoon because they relied only on natural light to be seen as they didn't have the same equipment we have in today's society to chooses the amount of light we want. Plays were performed in repertory, meaning that the same play was never performed two days in a row. Often, actors would have to be in several plays at once playing several different roles which would have been very difficult and confusing for them.
