ON-LINE DATABASE of SCIENTIFIC PAPERS
DOI: 10.5593/sgemsocial2017/62/S25.026

THE ROSE AND THE GLOBE PLAYHOUSES: WHICH FORTUNE IS BETTER?

D. Khaustova
Tuesday 3 October 2017 by Libadmin2017

References: 4th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference on Social Sciences and Arts SGEM 2017, www.sgemsocial.org, SGEM2017 Conference Proceedings, ISBN 978-619-7408-24-9 / ISSN 2367-5659, 24 - 30 August, 2017, Book 6, Vol 2, 215-222 pp, DOI: 10.5593/sgemsocial2017/62/S25.026

ABSTRACT

The Rose was the first purpose-built theatre on London Bankside. The playhouse was erected in 1587 as a theatre of Philip Henslowe. At the end of the XVI century, the Lord Admiral’s Men moved to the Rose playhouse and performed there, attracting audiences, becoming popular and eventually prosperous. Rose’s repertory included plays of Marlowe, and Shakespeare. The Rose’s success encouraged other theatres to be built on Bankside; these new theatres overtook the Rose, which had been abandoned by 1606. The Globe became a new home of King’s men in 1599, and Shakespeare was one of actors who bought a share in the Globe. The theatre had been running for several decades, presenting many of Shakespeare’s greatest plays. It remained the home for the company after the death of the Bard. Thus, in the XVI-XVII centuries, while the Rose pioneered and gave example for other theatres, the Globe had a brighter fortune and survived much longer. The project to rebuild Shakespeare’s Globe was initiated by the American actor and producer Sam Wanamaker in 1949. He dedicated his life to this project completed in 1997. The new Globe became one of the key attractions of London: amateurs from across the globe come to visit the Globe of Wanamaker. To some extent, the new Globe leaves a Disneyland impression, which is possibly not bad though does not appeal to theatre professionals and scholars. It is art, and contemporary history suggests that this kind of art and enlightenment (or education) is highly demanded by the society, by the international market. Otherwise why we hear more and more often of reconstructions, re-enactments, and other attempts to revamp vanished heritage and historic events. The Rose lives a different life: its well-preserved archaeology was discovered in 1989. It became a major international news story, and a campaign save it was launched with support from Lord Olivier, who gave his last speech at Rose’s grounds. Currently the Rose tells guests much about its life between 1587 and 1603. Red rope lights around the site indicate the size of the Rose, its courtyard and positions of its two stages. More than 700 small objects found on the site give lots of inspiration to theatre historians and tourists. The site inspires actors and the audience the way it did over four hundred years ago. There are regular performances, training events and open days for those who cherish historical heritage and Renaissance theatre. So, which fortune is better in the XXI century? – General public would rather suggest that the Globe is undeniably luckier: its new embodiment is known all over the world, lots of people visiting London strive visiting it, celebrity actors play parts in productions stylistically pretending to be reconstructions… But the original Rose playhouse it is still alive, faithful and unembellished, it stays where it was founded 430 years ago. It readily shares its fortune with London museums and keeps encouraging those who love theatre and esteem real values. From the Rose’s door, you can see a plate marking the former location of its old but inexistent competitor, the old Globe. If we only could merge the two, combine them in tours for visitors (both online and offline), if we only could give the Rose more space and implement a long waiting project aimed at wider and better presentation of its treasures, if we only…

Keywords: English Renaissance theatre, the Rose, the Globe, archaeological site, remodelment, education, art.