Edmund

A flash banner.

In the Globe Theatre Company's production of King Lear, Edmund was played by Michael Gould.

About Michael Gould

This was Michael's second Theatre Season at the Globe. He appeared in the Globe's first Theatre Season as Leontes in The Winters Tale.

Click on the numbered links to follow Michael's journey as he creates and plays the character of Edmund in the Globe Theatre.

Michael Gould - Character Notes 1

On the first day of rehearsal we were introduced to the theatre and staff. Starting this theatre season is very different from the last time I was at the Globe for the first theatre season. To begin we had a look around the theatre, which was an opportunity we did not have before, as the theatre was not completed and was full of scaffolding.

We went up into the attic and talked about performing in the Globe space, we then made a ritual dedication for the season. Later we looked at the range of experience the cast of King Lear has with Shakespeare. Some actors have not performed in Shakespeare's plays before, while others have a great deal of experience.

The cast read through the play together for the first time, which was a great deal of fun. It was a relief to hear which voices would be saying which lines. The way the play is cut is very important to a production, Barry (Kyle, Master of Play) had already cut the play before rehearsals began and he gave us these cuts.

It is rare for me to get a job so far in advance, (Michael was offered the role at the beginning of the year) so I have had quite a lot of time to think and prepare. This is both a plus and a minus, as my head is so full ideas before the beginning of the rehearsal process.

This week we have been talking about the play in most rehearsals, which has generated a lot of questions. We are starting to develop areas of discussions around these questions. All of the discussions have taken place around a big table, with all of the company present.

The real starting point for anyone playing Edmund is thinking about where he has been for nine years. Why did he go away? What did he do while he was away? And, why did he come back?

The themes that are beginning to emerge are concerned with legitimacy, power and displacement. While the play and characters are riddled with notions of good and evil, we cannot simply ‘play’ that notion. We must remember that as actors our job is also to create people. Edmund might be thought of as one of the evil characters in King Lear, along with Goneril, Regan and Cornwall. However, to play these characters in a manner that is credible we need to legitimise their behaviour. An actor cannot play ‘evil’ I will need to find out what it is that makes Edmund this way. Someone said that, in a way, these characters are victims as much as perpetrators; they are all damaged people.

Edmund is an aristocrat, and as the second son of Gloucester (there is textual evidence that he is younger than Edgar) he could not expect the same privileges and future as his brother. The fact that he is a ‘bastard’ adds to his sense of dispossession and alienation. In modern terms, it is like being told that you can’t work, that you will never have any money and that you will never be able to fulfil your full potential.

What I would like to know is how people (particularly 17 and 18-year-olds, for I am thinking that Edmund was that age when he left his father's estate) would feel about this situation and what they would do. One solution might be to leave the area to try and find a new identity. Maybe Edmund goes abroad.

The return of Edmund has been a big issue in our general discussions. Who knows about the division of the kingdom at the beginning of the play? Has Edmund come back because he thinks there is a possible opportunity here? Does he know that there are plans to divide the kingdom? Does he believe he could benefit in some way from its division?

Another question I have been thinking about is how does it feel to be an illegitimate son? Gloucester talks of the whole situation with very little shame, almost with pride. He talks in graphic terms of the woman who is Edmund's mother. If Edmund did feel shame at the circumstances of his birth, has he now turned these feelings into something else?

I’ve also been exploring favouritism in families. Who was the favourite in Gloucester's family? I have been trying to find textual evidence to support a decision. I think it is probably Edgar. There is a speech that Gloucester has, prior to Edmund betraying him, which suggests that.

What does Edmund want at the beginning of the play? How much has he planned and what is his strategy? Has he planned anything in the first scene (as it is only in the second scene that he reveals the forged letter plan)? Is Edmund's ambition endless, or has it been limited from the beginning? In other words, I am questioning how opportunistic he is. How do Edmund's ‘wants’ change through the events of the play? Does he plan everything or is he just lucky?

What is Edmund's mother like? We have had discussions about the lack of mothers in this play. Textual evidence about mothers would be useful. Can anyone find some?

Edmund talks about the astronomical conditions he was born under. "My father compounded with my mother, under the dragons tail, and my nativity was under ursa major and so that it follows that I am rough and lecherous…" What exactly does that particular line mean? What does "ursa major" signify astronomically? What is the dragons tail?

The other thing, which is quite interesting from our point of view, is the relationship between verse and prose in different versions of the play, because we are using the Quarto. In Edmund's case, the "thou, Nature, art my goddess" soliloquy in the Quarto is in prose. The folio is published as verse. I explore both the verse and prose version and make comparisons.

There has been a range of discussions amongst the company about family and national politics. I think Edmund turns his personal life into political ambition. He has made that translation somewhere along the lines. Other characters in the play have not made this type of decision, they are still expecting the emotional turmoil of the family.

The company has talked a lot about introducing a range of dialects into the play. King Lear is such an English play, or such a British play. The word ‘British’ is used three or four times in the play, which I was quite surprised about. The play was written at a historical moment in which England and Scotland were united for the first time. Shakespeare seems to want to represent that in some kind of way. So I have been thinking about the use of a dialect for Edmund, specifically, what type of voice would be useful? I have been talking to Barry (Kyle, Master of Play) about experimenting with an Irish accent, as my mother is Irish. But this might be too much, as it may go into political Irish displacement issues, which are not relevant to our production of the play.

There have also been discussions about how related Shakespeare is to Stanislavsky. As twentieth century and twenty-first century actors, we all have grounding in Stanislavsky and bring these ideas to our work on King Lear. However many, if not all, of the ideas behind Stanivlasky's method post date Shakespeare by hundreds of years. How then applicable are they to our work on the play?

I was much more worried the first time I began rehearsals for a play at the Globe. This time I feel quite ready to respond. It very helpful to have regular sessions on movement, voice and verse. I can also use my own previous experience and the experience of actors in other theatre seasons to inform my work.

These are background things; we have not really got into the play. We are reading the play section by section, scene by scene and asking questions on themes. We are looking at where each theme takes place, and when it takes place in relation to the previous theme. All of these chronological things can be puzzling.

As we go through the scenes I will be asking questions as I think that they are useful, particularly in terms of the speed of the play. There are lots of references to the passage of time, but they might be conflicting. There are many references to time, like "you’re the man who hit my master two days ago" – so we discover that between scene four and scene seven there are two days. I haven’t actually sat down yet and worked that out. It is usually better to complete that type of exercise with the other members of the company, otherwise you can make mistakes. It is very useful to know practical things, like the time of day, for each scene.

Barry, (Kyle) is very good at asking people to talk about what they feel and their experience. My experience of the first read through, (probably because I felt very anxious and vulnerable), was that each character appeared to be very vulnerable. I was amazed by this response, as some of the characters are clearly evil.

In my previous season here, we did not have the opportunity to find out how the space worked vocally. We now have more knowledge of the building, which we could not have possibly had during the first season. I have started from a very different point this time.

Activity

Look again at Michael's list of questions. Use his comments to help you formulate you own ideas and answers. Do you agree with Michael's current thoughts. Use the text where ever possible to back up your ideas.

Back to top

Michael Gould - Character Notes 2

These comments are the thoughts or ideas about the part as s/he goes through the rehearsal process – they are simply his/her own interpretations and frequently change as the rehearsal process progresses.

We are concentrating more on specific scenes now. However, at this stage there is a lot of discussion work, it is quite rare that we get on our feet and do something practical. There is so much to ‘chew over’ and think about.

The other day, I came to realise that I had not read any of the play for about three days because I had been carrying out research. There is a growing sense that the research needs to decrease and that we need to develop a more practical approach to the scenes. However, I feel that there is a lot character development that will come out of our research.

I’ve been looking at the theme of ‘nature’, and what it means to the play as a whole. It is referred to about forty times. This theme relates to Edmund, as his second word to the audience is "Nature". Edmund seems to represent an alternative view of nature. Therefore, I think it might be interesting to trace the journey of the word throughout the play. I feel that Edmund represents the Hobsian view of nature, which is more malignant, and not the more beneficent view of nature of Hooker and Bacon.

This week has been dominated by research. Jaq (Bessell, Head of Research) is resourcing the actors with any information we request, this is wonderful. Often we find, in the copies of the text we are using, lots of little notes at the bottom telling us to refer to other sources. That is great, because then we simply ask Jaq for those sources. Barry (Kyle, Master of Play) has asked Jaq to draw up a list of what people are doing, so that we are not duplicating information.

My first point of research was on the laws of inheritance, which quickly ‘spun off’ into ideas about custom and nature. On research document stated that the first male inherits everything, but in the absence of the male heir the land would be divided between the daughters. This idea is not confirmed. Sometimes you have to look at research sceptically. The same person, who stated this idea, makes all sorts of unjustified claims about the play. They claim that Edmund has been studying abroad, like Hamlet and Horatio, but there is no evidence that suggests that. Although Edmund has been away for nine years, the text does not say what he has been doing.

From my research I have found that the laws of inheritance are based on the understanding of the time of the hierarchical structure of the universe. What is interesting from Edmund's point of view is how much his character may be an expression of an idea in the play, he is also a man of action. It seems that thoughts and actions are in harmony in Edmund. That is what is so exciting about the role, the opportunity to play someone who is bright and at the same time seriously muscular! I think that is where we are heading in terms of Edmund's character – to an interpretation of him as a superman (in the Nietzschean sense).

People have been submerging themselves into their personal research projects and by way of doing that, they have actually been submerging themselves into their characters. It seems that the research projects help to define the character.

Discussions in a big group are more general because you are looking at the entire play and trying to give everybody space to say how they feel. In these discussions it is important to be objective, but we all see things through our character's perspective. The work in smaller groups tends to be more practical, specific to the content and context of a scene, the circumstances prior to the scene, the characters wants and desires and nuances of a line and verse. Practical suggestions for the play are made during group work. An example of this is when Edmund cuts his arm, it was suggested that Regan might bandage it for him, and that might be their first moment together. It would be good to get Regan and Edmund together, quite intimately, as early as possible.

We have rehearsed the Kent and Oswald scene, when Kent insults Oswald and ends up being put in the stocks. I have one line in that scene, "How now! What's the matter? Part!" It would be very easy to come on stage and say my line and then drop out of the scene. However, I was keen not to do that. I wanted to try and turn that line and scene into something imperative for my character, obviously without detracting from the main thrust of that scene. The company has not been working through the play in scene order. I find dipping into scenes here and there quite dynamic, because you have to think ahead. It is not as interesting to work sequentially as you know what is going to happen in rehearsals.

I have been looking at the scene where Edmund betrays his father to Cornwall. If you see this in another theatre they turn things inside out, so that you have the raging of the storm outside and then there is this internal scene with background noise of the storm. This is fine, and accurate, but I would be interested to experiment with playing the Edmund and Cornwall scene in the rain, just to show how the storm affects everyone. Barry (Kyle, Master of Play) believes that there is an element of madness in the storm, which infects all the characters. I think that this is a really good idea. Edmund could only betray his father in the storm, if it was calm and peaceful he would not do it.

We are using the Quarto, (Oxford Shakespeare edition) for this production and there are times when it feels like it is not as good as the folio, but sometimes the folio is not as good as the quarto. In fact, I may do the folio version of ‘thou, Nature…’ It is a useful exercise to compare the differences between the folio version (most editions use the folio) and the quarto, the difference in punctuation is particularly striking.

I have been negotiating and trading lines with Barry. He gave me three and a half lines back (that had previously been cut out), so I thought I owed him! In the "This is the excellent copy of the world" speech, Edmund is talking about all of the different things that people claim the stars are responsible for. "That we are all liars, drunkards, thieves…by spherical predominance". Edmund is saying that we are led to do things by divine prominence. Barry cut the list down, as it is quite a long list. However, I felt that in the Globe you could use the entire list by involving the audience. You can imagine that you are pointing out the drunkards, the thieves and the knaves. When Edmunds says this list, he is not judging people. He also lists his own character, the trecherer.

We had the cuts prior to rehearsals. I prefer an ongoing negotiation throughout rehearsals, rather than being given cuts at the outset. Barry is very open to negotiations. He is quite keen to keep lines in, but we do need to be careful as if we all put our cut lines back into the production we will add half-an-hour to the playing time!

Activities

Research

Michael has spent a lot of time researching the role of Edmund. Look through the articles sent to you which Michael has been using for research. What have you discovered from the research material that might inform your understanding of the character of Edmund? Have you, in your studies of King Lear come across any material that might be of use to Michael?

Nature – throughout King Lear

Michael is interested in the theme of nature and is trying to trace the journey of references to nature or natural imagery throughout the play.

Attempt this exercise for yourself. How can you relate your findings back to the character of Edmund?

Back to top

Michael Gould - Character Notes 3

These comments are the actor's thoughts or ideas about the part as s/he goes through the rehearsal process – they are simply his/her own interpretations and change frequently as the rehearsal process progresses.

This week I have been rehearsing the ‘fight’ scenes. These scenes are fun to rehearse, but they are very violent. We are using machetes and chains. The machetes are very sharp, so safety has become an important factor in rehearsals. The decision to use machetes and chains was made before we began the rehearsal process. There are three themes in King Lear that begin with ‘T’. These are ‘totalitarianism’, ‘timeless pastoral’ and ‘terrorism’. The idea of using chains and machetes is to fit in with the theme of ‘terrorism’. I think that they look more violent than guns.

The 9 o’clock newsreader Michael Burke, foreign correspondent, was often given a knife to defend himself when he was in dangerous situations abroad. When he gave up this job, he was allowed to talk about what really happened in these situations, rather than the sanitised scenes shown on the news. The reality is horrendous, but it is never shown. We wanted our production to show the reality of such violence.

We have had sessions with a fight choreographer (the man who is in the ‘Strongbow’ advertisements!), who has been teaching us moves. The session we had this morning highlighted the importance of sustaining eye contact and concentration to ensure that both people in the sequence are safe at all times. We have to be very aware of the other person and make sure that they are ready. We are progressing from learning moves to creating sequences of body positions. The way in which the body is used is very important, as it tells a story. If done in the right way, both attack and defence can be demonstrated, without the ‘fighters’ having to make physical contact.

The principle rule that the choreographer told us was to never trust your fight partner. If the person is coming towards you, you must imagine that they are going to hit you and so you move. This makes it more realistic; it also helps to ensure that the fighters are kept safe.

Both Edgar's and Edmund's approaches to the fight are very different. Edgar has righteous indignation on his side. Edmund's attitude is ‘cool’; he seems to fit the role of the ‘baddie’. The way that the two characters move in the fight is effected by their attitudes towards the fight. Someone who was not frightened would be bending slightly, to move in closer. A frightened character would hold their body rigid.

In rehearsals we went through the first of the two ‘Gloucester’ scenes, when Edmund carries out the first part of his plan. We have made the decision that Edmund does not have a main ambition; his plans simply grows as he successes do. At the beginning, Edmund does not display confidence, or arrogance. Traditionally, Edmund is a cool, charming, handsome, daredevil man. In our production he is quite ‘gawky’.

Edmund, in relation to the rest of the play, is an outsider. This is first shown, in our production, at his first appearance. While the other characters are on stage, Edmund is in the yard. There will be a wooden pole in the yard with a wheel at the top of it. I will have to climb up the pole and talk to the characters on the stage from this position (I am worried about how I will get up the pole, and how long I will have to stay on it!). This physical distance is symbolic to Edmund's position in the world of the play. What kind of impact will that have on the audience and the staging of the play? I had not envisaged Edmund's position like that; I had imagined him to have a larger part in the world of the stage.

In his first soliloquy, Edmund is planning out what he is going to do. He is also trying to justify what he is and what his actions are. In some ways it is difficult for a modern actor to fully understand many of the ideas and motives that he is talking about. However, these ideas would have been very important at the time when the play was first written. There was a belief that people, whose origins were illicit and stealthy, were illicit and stealthy themselves. However, if you were born to an orthodox marriage, you were considered to be ‘normal’. Edmund is an illegitimate child and therefore his origins are considered to be illicit.

Paul (Brennen, Edgar) and I rehearsed the scene when Edmund is ‘helping’ Edgar to escape. The staging of the scene is very funny as Edgar is frightened that he will be caught, so he roles across the stage and crawls around on his elbows as if trying to be inconspicuous.

An interesting point in the play that I have been thinking about is when Albany accuses Edmund of being a "most violent traitor", as Albany is a traitor himself. He is committing treason by working against the king. I feel that during the times when the play was written, this may have been worse than what Edmund was doing. How would the Elizabethan audience respond to this? What would be their idea of treachery?

I have also been thinking about Edmund's ‘relationships’ with Goneril and Regan. The relationship with Goneril seems to be ‘brittle’. It is not an explicit relationship, it is ambiguous. There are points when the audience might be aware that something has happened, or will happen. An example of this is when Cornwall sends Edmund away, just before he gouges out Gloucester's eyes. At the same time, Goneril is returning to Albany. Something happens on the way to where they are going; because in the next scene Goneril enters with her hair dishevelled (it had been scraped back before that). This does not mean that they have consummated their relationship, but it does signify a change that has taken place in Goneril. She now seems more relaxed. I think that it is better to leave it ambiguous because the tension and potential to what may happen is more interesting than the actuality of something happening.

In the next stage of rehearsals, we will be looking closely at the second half of the play. I think it will be very interesting to begin physically rehearsing it on stage.

Activity

Edmund's Ambition

Michael says that he has decided that Edmund does not have a main ambition in the play.

Do you agree with him? Find evidence in the text to support your answer.

Back to top

Michael Gould - Character Notes 4

These comments are the actor's thoughts or ideas about the part as s/he goes through the rehearsal process – they are simply his/her own interpretations and change frequently as the rehearsal process progresses.

I have been working through the fight scenes with Paul (Brennen, Edgar). We had a run-through of the play and I got badly bruised knuckles because I had to wrap a chain around my hand and swing it.

The run through was very positive. The company could finally see which parts of the play would work on the stage, and which parts would not. It took us two days to complete the run-through!

We have also been rehearsing on the stage, which made us realise that many of the scenes, that we thought were strong, would have to be reconsidered. It has been a bit disorientating going from working in the rehearsal room to the stage of the theatre. However, being on the stage is good, and Paul and I have been rehearsing on there together. When we were working in the rehearsal room we found that we were accommodating the space around us. My perception of how the scene should be played has now changed because although the stage is small it is very open. Edmund mostly talks to the audience and so I think that it is important for me to rehearse on the stage.

While we were doing the run through there were tour groups in the theatre, watching the rehearsal. I loved the fact that they were there as it gave us a sense of what it would be like to have an audience. We even got applause at the end of a scene!

Barry (Kyle, Master of Play) had made a large cut in Act I Scene II, in the speech when Edmund is relating everything back to the working of the stars. I had cut this speech down further. However, while rehearsing we experimented with putting the lines back and the scene suddenly ‘took off’.

Paul and I have been discussing the relationship between the two brothers and the fact that they had different mothers. Who was Gloucester's favourite son? I think that in Act I Scene II there is something of Edgar's character in Edmund.

In the run-through Edmund's nasty character became very clear. It also gave us the opportunity to see the ‘journey’ that each character goes on and how they develop. I think that Edmund is self-evasive, his father talks about him with both shame and pride. Gradually Edmund's ambitions are revealed and he is driven by his strong will not his emotions.

I think that there are points when Edmund may ruin his own plans. In addition, when Edmund finally gets Edgar to leave, he cuts his own arm. Barry suggested that this is because he does not want to go through with his ‘project’.

I think that the situation between Edmund, Goneril and Regan is interesting. Distinctions must be made the two sisters, as it would be very easy to generalise them. The way that they act towards Edmund is very different. Goneril is ‘colder’ and damaged. Regan is more ‘strange’. I think that Edmund transforms Goneril, which can be seen after her journey to see Albany. The journey is not shown (it is an unwritten part of the play) but we improvised what might happen: we both came on to the stage wearing sunglasses with a blanket full of half eaten food, as if we had just been on a picnic. In the production Goneril will come on to the stage seeming more relaxed with her hair down.

Patricia (Kerrigan, Goneril) and I have decided that Edmund and Goneril do not consummate their relationship. Felicity and I have not resolved this about Edmund and Regan.

Edmund seems to be able to exploit the flaws in the other characters in order to manipulate their behaviour for his own gain. Edmund exploits Edgar's imagination; he sees Cornwall's hunger for power, and gives him a letter from Gloucester which insights him to build an army against Lear; he exploits Gloucester's paranoia that his sons do not love him; and he exploits Goneril's need for love. I think that to a certain extent this is a quality that all leaders have.

Many ‘convenient’ events take place within the play, which help Edmund's plans to succeed: the fact that the duke comes after Edgar leaves, that the duke witnesses Edmund's service to his father, and that Cornwall dies. In this sense he is quite lucky.

Edmund is a ‘creature’ of the Yard who spends much of his time in the crowd speaking to them. He is not really a part of the world on the stage. However, at the end he turns on the crowd. I think that one reason for his failure is the fact that he is always on his own and does not make lasting alliances with others.

Something that has become clear throughout rehearsals is that Edmund never develops a relationship with any other character. Usually, when you are in a play you follow scenes through with other characters. However, although Edmund does interact with characters such as Edgar, Cornwall, Regan, Goneril and Albany he does not develop relationships with any of them. Edmund is always working on his own. This was demonstrated after we had a session on movement with Glynn (Macdonald, Master of Movement). She asked us to pair up with a character that we spend a lot of time with in the play. This was very revealing as there are seventeen people in the company, and I ended up working on my own.

I would like the students to try this pairing exercise. Which characters do they think belong together? I would also like to hear their ideas about presenting the war between England and France, as this is what we are currently thinking about.

At the moment there are so many ideas in my head that they do not make up a coherent ‘pattern’ or ‘journey’. I have to try and draw the best ideas together to make the journey clearer. I have moved on from thinking about ‘who’ Edmund is, ‘what’ he does, and ‘what’ happens in the play. I am now thinking about ‘how’ he does these things.

Activities

Pairing exercise.

Try the pairing exercise that Michael describes above. Which characters do you think belong together and why?

The war between England and France

The company is exploring how this war should be presented. How do you think it should be staged?

The progression of Edmund's journey

Michael has now progressed to thinking about how Edmund achieves his objectives, (see last paragraph). Chart Edmund's journey – this time concentrating on ‘how’ rather than ‘who’ or ‘what’.

Back to top

Michael Gould - Character Notes 5

These comments are the actor's thoughts or ideas about the part as s/he goes through the rehearsal process – they are simply his/her own interpretations and change frequently as the rehearsal process progresses.

It has been fascinating, troubling and relieving going from rehearsals into performances. We have had to go from a small working space to a large one and from indoors to the outdoors. The rehearsal room is marked out with the floor plan of the theatre. However, in the rehearsal room what would be the corner of downstage (on the main stage) was right next to a wall, so you ended up avoiding it even though on the actual stage it is one of the best places to be. The downstage corners are useful in getting maximum access to the audience, but you do not get a sense of this in the rehearsal room. When you work indoors, you are aware of the inner landscape of the character and the world of the play. In the rehearsal room, ‘performance energy’ is not required, as you are still trying to explore what is going on inside the character, scene and story as a whole.

As soon as you get into the theatre you have to start confronting logistical issues such as where you should be in order to maximise the audiences’ viewing of the play. Audibility has been an issue. Barry (Kyle, Master of Play) has become more aware of stage ‘glitches’, after seeing us work on stage. He is constantly encouraging us to explore the depth of the stage.

After the first few previews, I started to think about the ‘valley of death’ (the corridor space between the two pillars). This is not a good place to be. If too many actors stand there, the scene can become very flat; it has the worst line of sight. Upstage centre is a good place to be and you can feel that. When you are in a rehearsal room you cannot appreciate this.

From Edmunds’ point of view, the transition has been great. During the last ten days of rehearsals I had felt that I could not go any further. Most of the scene work had been done, and previously scene work was the only work we had done. There was a character missing from the play as there was no audience and Edmund has a relationship with the audience. Other characters also like Kent and Edgar also speak to the audience, but because Edmund is placed in the yard, his relationship with the audience is unique. Edmund is a ‘yard’ character, and we can characterise the yard as the base.

After the first preview, I was totally seduced by the audience. I felt I wanted to speak to them all the time, they were like a new to toy to play with. I think that the audience may have responded a little too positively to Edmund. They seem hungry for me to talk to them.

This theatre is unique. You can perform Shakespeare indoors and the actor can pretend that they are talking to the audience. At the Globe, because you can see everyone, you feel as though you are cheating them if you do not speak to them naturally and properly. In a speech if there is a question, I feel that it should be addressed to the audience. They do not necessarily have to respond to the question, but they should consider it. If they do want to answer, I would be happy for them to. The indoor theatre tradition is to say speeches in an introspective way. In an indoor theatre you can get away with this, but at the Globe you cannot. I am very encouraged if they do talk back. The difficulty is stopping it from becoming like a pantomime. However, I am confident that the text can handle these situations. People were afraid that I might go off text due to situations where the audience would answer back and I would not know what to say in return.

There is a particular speech when Edmund is asking which sister he should choose. The audience answers ‘both’, ‘none’ or they say a particular name. The line that I say is "Which of them shall I take?" and the next line after that is "Both?" If the audience shout ‘both’ it is great, as it seems as if you are questioning what they have said. If they say ‘Goneril’ then you have the line "one?" Once the audience has committed themselves to a view, I say that I cannot have both and one sister will inevitably have to die. I enjoy the fact that the audience feel engaged with the problem, and then also have to face the consequence of their solution.

Edmund is an outsider and I have to play him like that. The audience is outside of the world on the stage and Edmund sometimes seems to join them there. Sometimes I think that the audience grows too close to Edmund because he interacts with them. I hope that this is not detrimental to the play. Edmund is tricking them; he has no friends and is outside of the world. He is a law unto himself. In the last speech when I say " stands on to me to defend, not to debate", I am rejecting the audience, telling them I do not want anything to do with them because I am going to be king. It is a bit like Richard III. You can play him in a way that is very seductive, he can woo and cajole the audience to get them on his side, but then is a menace. I am trying to find ways to explore this. I do realise that I am not liked at the end of the play, and it sometimes feels very real. I don’t want them to start throwing things at me, but I do want them to realise that they have gone along with an evil scheme. From a political point of view, they have behaved as badly as he has. They have not supported Edgar.

Back to top

Michael Gould - Character Notes 6

These comments are the actor's thoughts or ideas about the part as s/he goes through the rehearsal process – they are simply his/her own interpretations and change frequently as the rehearsal process progresses.

At the moment I am simply trying to get used to the character of Edmund. How would he react to walking out onto the Globe stage? I really have to work with my instincts, as I am still developing his character. I know what I would like to happen and I have to make it happen with Edmund. Every character in this show is unique and every actor tries to present this uniqueness to the audience.

One of the major challenges at the Globe is gaining the favour of the audience. It is difficult to determine the reaction of the audience. We tend to gauge the success of the show by the number of laughs that we receive. As an actor, one of the most dangerous things you can do is to ask the audience questions and play with them as you perform your role. This is dangerous because you don’t know how they’re going to react. Will they answer or just stare at you? By talking to the audience, you are convincing them of the ‘believability’ of the character. You also promote this believability through spontaneity. The audience identifies these spontaneous actions and responds to them.

The Globe audience can be very disconcerting because they are looking directly at you. They can sometimes be very distracting. You can see them being very attentive, but they tend to shuffle at certain key moments. They can also be very distracted by aeroplanes flying overhead during the performance. Your job as an actor is to keep them interested. Sometimes you can use those distractions in order to clarify your speeches and to provide interest. I used the passage of an aeroplane in a scene during our last performance. The passage fitted perfectly with a line that was referring to ‘mysterious things’. It was a unique experience and the audience loved it. Sometimes the show can be affected by distractions, but in this case it fitted well.

Reviewers also tend to notice what does and does not fit well. I must admit that I do read the reviews, but I can be pretty objective about them, putting a positive spin on almost anything. For instance, I had a reviewer say that the audience was in danger of turning Edmund into a ‘laughable rogue’. In a sense, I feel that they do. If I was in total control, then I would be responsible for fostering that reaction in the audience. However, I am not in total control. There is a relationship with the audience. Edmund needs them to acknowledge his ambitions for the play to progress. I do not see this review as a negative criticism, but as a positive one. It defines and acknowledges the actor's relationship with the audience.

Back to top

Michael Gould - Character Notes 7

These comments are the actor's thoughts or ideas about the part as s/he goes through the rehearsal process – they are simply his/her own interpretations and change frequently as the rehearsal process progresses.

I have had a week of re-rehearsals, which I found to be quite ‘light’. I was expecting it to be more strenuous and rigorous! Barry (Kyle, Master of Play) did not want to challenge the basic structure of the play that already existed. Instead he wanted to use this period to make subtle and minor changes in order to make the play ‘broader and deeper’. This went into accordance with my own aims. Previously my focus was on playing King Lear, and Edmund, specifically at the Globe. By the time it came to the re-rehearsals I had already achieved this and I felt comfortable in the space. However, I think that I had neglected the substantive nature of the part – who is Edmund? What does he want? I had given these questions some attention during the initial stages of rehearsals. Therefore, my contribution to the re-rehearsals was trying to make the character of Edmund more ‘real’.

I had thought that Edmund was a happy-go-lucky chap at the beginning of the play, who became dangerous as the story developed. I now think that there should be more of the dangerous elements in him from the beginning. However, it is very challenging to do this without losing the wit in his speech.

In the first half of the play Edmund reflects on his identity, and pronounces "I should have been that I am, had the maidenliest star in the firmament twinkled on my bastardising". I had previously played this statement very lightly in a joking way. I now perform the statement with a negative attitude. The fact that Edmund is an illegitimate child is his identifying feature in the world of the play and he is angry with this. On one level he is admitting that this is his identity and he does not care what anyone thinks, but I do think he is damaged by it. This would make sense, as it would provide a motive for his actions.

Barry read a book by Frank Kermode who wrote about Shakespeare. Kermode said that evil is a form of sanity. Edward Bond (who wrote a version of King Leir, which Barry directed) echoed this idea. He said that madness is like being particularly sane. Bond said that it is society who is mad, and the people who are considered to be mad by society are simply trying to understand what society is. Therefore, the madder the person, the more sane they are. The saner the person, the madder they truly are as they are accepting society which is actually insane.

I asked Barry if he wanted me to act in a more evil manner. He suggested that I should concentrate on how rational, justifiable and sane all of Edmunds ambitions and actions are. It is for other people to say that the betrayal of his father and the subsequent banishment of Edgar are caused by evil acts. This relieved me as I could have played him as an evil madman who rolled his eyes and had a twitch! However, I think that the fact that he does all of these evil things and remains relatively normal makes him more scary and threatening. In his soliloquies he can afford to say who he is and what he wants, but he cannot act as an obvious threat in the world of the play as his plans will not be successful.

In long runs of a play we have to try and keep our minds ‘fresh’. Sometimes you find that when you are in a scene you are already anticipating the next event. Because you know what is going to happen next, your reactions to that particular event will not seem real. An example of this is when Edmund offers his father a letter; I now know how he is going to react. So we looked at this point in the play and tried to think of alternative reactions, such as Gloucester declaring that the letter is a forgery. If this happened and he realised that there was a conspiracy taking place, it would have been the downfall of Edmund. If this was Gloucester's reaction, the other bad events may not have happened. There is a point in that scene when Edmund is unsure to whether his father will really believe that the letter is from Edgar. The key to a real tragedy is that there are always moments where an opposite reaction could prevent that tragedy: Gloucester realising about the letter or Cordelia telling her father that she does love him.

One of the key exercises we did in the re-rehearsals was to get all of the ‘evil’ characters together (Edmund, Goneril, Regan, Oswald and Cornwall) with one ‘good’ character (in this instance it was Albany). The exercise was called ‘Hot-seating’. We took on the roles of different media journalists, ranging from Jeremy Paxman to a journalist from Hello! magazine. All the bad characters interrogated Albany in the style of a press conference. I asked Albany who would be king now that Lear was dead, and Albany could not answer; he grew nervous and mumbled. We all took turns in doing this and it was very revealing to see how characters got themselves out of difficult situations. It became clear that Edmund was like a Darwinian character that believed in survival of the fittest and had a ruthless logic.

Edmund is interesting, because despite his ‘evil’ traits, he has the ability to charm an audience of fifteen hundred people. This seems to be a historical trend; people such as Hitler displayed similar characteristics. What do the audience think when Edmund dies? Are they sorry to see him go? Characters like Edmund are much more complex than they appear to be. In a pantomime version, all of his complexity would go. After the re-rehearsal period, I felt that the complexity in my portrayal of Edmund did increase. I toned down the charm and increased the intensity of his negative speeches and aspects of nature. I saw a change in the reaction of the audience, who now do not warm to Edmund as much and do not react as obviously (such as laughing out aloud). Although it took some time to get used to these ideas, I am enjoying it more now.

Barry asked Geoffrey (Whitehead, Gloucester) to be more comedic in the scene when I present him with the fake letter. We did try this for sometime, however it did not work as it portrayed him as foolish and innocent – and he is neither of these. Barry has asked Albany to act less aristocratic, which means that there is more potential for Edmund to get along with him. This is important, as the audience need to believe that an alliance could be made between them.

Back to top

Michael Gould - Character Notes 8

These comments are the actor's thoughts or ideas about the part as s/he goes through the rehearsal process – they are simply his/her own interpretations and change frequently as the rehearsal process progresses.

We have now put all the minor changes we made in the re-rehearsal period into the performance. The re-rehearsal period was about broadening and deepening the production. Initially, I used the re-rehearsal period to bring some of the later aspects of Edmund's personality into the earlier parts of the play. So, rather than Edmund having straight forward journey from ‘happy go-lucky’ guy to military king, now some of his toughness appears earlier and some of his geekiness later. This way, he seems like the same character all the way through the play. He is just operating in different ways. I think this makes him more of a coherent character.

However, when I performed this more complex Edmund for the first time some of the audience began booing in places early on in the play, where they never had done before. I had thought, and hoped, that making the character more real would result in a greater level of belief from the audience. Barry (Kyle, Master of Play) suggested that it was because of some of the nastiness I had introduced into Edmund at the beginning of the play. The audience were seeing the Edmund they expected they were going to see. This worried me at first because I don’t like my characters to be too predictable to an audience. I could have encouraged this booing, but I think that it is detrimental to the tragedy of the play. I am not sure that I am doing anything differently now, but the audiences do not seem to be booing quite so much.

In re-rehearsal we did some ‘hot seating’ work which allowed me to really appreciate what Edmund stood for, which was great. I started to get anxious about how much the audience is charmed by him. He is almost like the conventional charming villain. He has great wit. It makes me wonder what impression of Edmund that the audience leave with. Perhaps they’re thinking ‘wasn’t he funny’!

I went to watch Cymbeline and noticed how much Mark (Rylance, Posthumus) is able to listen to an audience. I don’t just mean when they laugh. He is able to listen more closely than that. At the beginning of the season I had been putting a lot of energy into trying to convert the audience to Edmund's way of thinking. After seeing Mark, I thought I would try and listen to the audience in the same way, and not work so hard to convince them. I have to be careful that this does not affect the amount of energy I am putting into the role. I find that if I don’t inject enough physical and vocal energy into what I’m doing then the audience also reacts with less energy.

In rehearsal I spent a lot of time thinking about Edmund's relationship with the other characters. Now that the show is up and running I spend my time thinking about the audience. I think that this is because most of the character work has been done now and that I am secure in what we decided. I also think that it is necessary for me to think a lot about my relationship with the audience because Edmund has a unique relationship with them.

I don’t feel that many of the scenes in King Lear have changed that much since the rehearsal period. What has changed, though, is that we all trust each other a lot more than we used to, which means that the scenes tend to flow more easily.

Back to top

Michael Gould - Character Notes 9

These comments are the actor's thoughts or ideas about the part as s/he goes through the rehearsal process – they are simply his/her own interpretations and change frequently as the rehearsal and performance process progresses.

This run has been long. We are finding that during performances the form has taken over from content, which can be troublesome because we are not thinking about what we are doing. At this stage it is easy to forget the content. The other day I could not remember of Edgar was the older brother. Someone also asked me if the brothers had different mothers, and I said ‘no’! The only way to guard against this is to go through the notes that I made at the beginning of rehearsals.

I am also trying to occasionally do things differently during performances. Scenes can become set in stone and you begin to feel that if anything changes you will be ‘thrown off’. I think it helps to see what other actors are doing in the space. On Monday I went to see a performance by the International Fellows (who came from Shakespeare's Globe Centres from all over the world). It was interesting because I could see them ‘grow’ into the space as the evening progressed. The fellows started off rather cautiously and tentatively, doing many things that I had discovered were not right – getting stuck between pillars, making things very ‘flat’ and not being very vocal. However, as the evening wore on their confidence grew and they started trying out many exciting things. It made me think about how I could use the space, particularly the corners upstage.

Paul (Brennen, Edgar) and I are still experimenting with the space and making small changes. An example of this is when I finish my first scene with Gloucester and I am supposed to go and sit in a chair. I do not think that this merits the line "what serious contemplation you are in", because it does not look like I am in serious contemplation; it looks like I am messing about in my father's chair. So, last night I went and sat at the edge of the stage and it felt better. Maybe it was because of the novelty of doing something new, but it also helped us to think on our feet because we had not planned what would come next.

We do have room to change things during performances, however you do not want to distract other people from what they are doing. It is easier to change things if there are only two people on stage, or particularly if you are by yourself during soliloquies, as you are free to try new things. But if there are a lot of people on stage the blocking of the scenes can be quite structured. Change does not only mean blocking; it can also be the mood of the speech, or the tempo. Changing the play also depends on the nature of the rehearsal. Mike Alfreds’ (Master of Play for Cymbeline) entire play is based around each performance being different. The scenes are not blocked and so the cast has more freedom to experiment with new ideas. The fact that the each audience is different really helps to keep the performances ‘fresh’, because they do effect the way we tell the story.

The company will be going to Japan for two weeks to perform King Lear in the Tokyo Globe, once the season here has finished. I am thinking about learning some basic lines in Japanese. The way we have set Edmund is as a character that belongs in the Yard; he is almost a member of the audience who takes over. I think belonging to the people in the audience will obviously be more challenging in Japan, and so therefore I think it is appropriate for me to try and say a few lines in Japanese. It will help to build my relationship with the audience. I have been told that the Yard has seats in it, which are sometimes there and at other times they are taken out. If so, it might be interesting to have Edmund sit down amongst the audience.

One of the cast members, Simon Hyde (Soldier/Knight/Edmund's Captain) cannot come to Japan and so most of the preparation work for Tokyo will be based around rehearsing with the new cast member.

We will also be holding question and answer sessions for the public in Japan, as we have done here. I enjoy doing these sessions, as it is interesting to hear other people's interpretation of the play. Often the interpretation may not be the same as mine, such as one person disagreed with my idea that Edmund changes at the end of the play. The ending of the play also rests on interpretation. Some people may see the end as negative and others may see it as positive. I do not think it is fair to say that the bad characters ‘deserve’ what they get at the end of the play, as it is never fair for someone to be killed. However in the context of the world of the play, maybe the characters do deserve it, as it is the type of world where people fight if one calls the other a traitor. Edmund's actions can be justified through motives; it is the methods that he uses that have to be questioned. I do not think that Lear deserves to die. However I do not see the death as negative, in the traditional sense, because when he does die he has reconciled with Cordelia and his life has a new level of understanding.

I think that there is something unresolved at the end of our production, as there is a moment when you are not sure who will be the next king. On the other hand, the last two lines of the play show that something has been learnt from those who have suffered: "The oldest hath borne most: we that are young, Shall never see so much nor live so long". I think that this is very optimistic – learning from other people and learning from the past.

Back to top