top of page
Search

Day 1: I think what was principally interesting to me was the variety of interpretations we all had upon an initial read. It felt to me as though and wealth of experience, individuality and openness hand brought within the first hour of the day so many hypothesis for the the revenges tragedy, which was such an exciting start. The day felt like a dissection, with the most part of this coming from a scenario wherein we explored the world of their ‘court’ - a scene in which junior is trialed on the rape of Antonios wife. The exploration/ discussion of this dark scene led to the beginnings of unveiling a world that, although undoubtedly steeped in horror, was full of corrupt agenda and familial complexity. Exploring this gave us great world-building context and allowed us to shape/ understand potential intentions of not only those in power, but those outside it too.


Day 2: it was useful coming in with more of an open mind to the moral complexity of the play, talking about intentions vs the actual horror of there action. In the first half of the day when we were figuring out step by step how the plot of the duke’s death unravels, it struck me that most of the plot points in our individual groups were the same, yet there were some very obviously different. It made it apparent to me that that in a production of this play you could stress a certain element of the death depending on what you wanted to say (or what hypothesis you were putting forward). For instance, if you were to emphasise more the poison on the skull it could emphasise the Duke’s lechery and perhaps suggest something about the nature of Vindice’s type of revenge (justice for Gloriana?), or on the flip side if you minimised this and focused more on the stamping and the torture it may become more of a selfish revenge (take that for humiliating me!). Furthermore, the afternoon wherein we played out the mass murder scene, the chaotic nature was very apparent. Not only was thus useful in the feel of the play being like a train with the brakes tampered with, but it felt like it had unlocked a common understanding amongst the actors of capriciousness, the feeling that anything could happen anytime. It’s a dark spontaneity that changes choices and dictates a theme of a play. To summarise, I think coming into the R&D it felt like somewhat of a straight forward play in a sense that the plot seemed rigid, however this day particularly left us peek into the world of choices that it actually offers. It feels very malleable.



I came into the R&D with little experience of early modern plays, especially Thomas Middleton. So, I naturally had some nerves and anxieties about my ability to dissect text and truthfully convey my thoughts about Revenger’s and Middleton’s intentions.

However, throughout the 2 days I really started to gain more confidence and felt I discovered so much about the play and the period it was written in (big thanks to Sarah’s invaluable knowledge).


I found talking in an open forum, questioning everything, and throwing out thoughts about each scene/character, extremely helpful to humanise and create depth within the text. It expanded my mindset and nudged me to dig deeper and question things I may have not bothered to think about before.


With that in mind, if we took the exploration further, I would be intrigued to carry on investigating the effect of gender in the play, and how we can still connect to a modern audience despite the now progressed views on egalitarianism. There is a lot of derogative dialogue in the play, especially towards women. Although we questioned it, I believe there could be a deeper investigation into how to perform this language to a modern audience with meaningful and stimulating intentions, rather than forgiving it because of the era and world it was written in/for.


I would also love to experiment with the different physicality’s and potential movement in the play. How would a Masque look like? Could we explore Italian or Jacobean dancing? Could it be a form of communication throughout the show? I would like to see how it could affect the dialogue and relationships within the play.



Day 1 of the R&D started with us all talking about our first interpretations of the play. What stood out most to me was everyone’s reaction to the extreme levels of misogyny, and how that collided with the play’s farcical nature—its quick pace and those very on-the-nose character names almost commedia dell’arte in style. 

I also referenced the Church of Bones in Naples, where people are given skulls to care for, believing it brings them luck, a possible link to Gloriana’s skull?


Reading Act 1. I was struck by how many shared lines there are—this constant overlap adds to the chaos, the franticness of everyone trying to get a word in. Death and revenge dominate, and the language around misogyny felt tied to “nature,” as if the characters believed women’s supposed inferiority was a fact of the natural world. Playing the first court scene, I was surprised at how stuck the Duke felt for someone of such high status. The whole family seemed shaken by the law, unsure how to navigate a changing world that no longer guaranteed their power.


Day 2 we began by breaking down the Duke’s death—How to Kill a Duke 101. What struck me wasn’t just the planning but how much of it felt improvised. Spending 9 years waiting for an in and is just winging it from there?


Later, the Castiza/Mother/Vindice scene hit hard. I was reminded of adult conversations with my own mother about how when things were really bad she would often go without eating to feed us, and even resulting to shop lifting etc to put food on the table. But even with how dire it was, I and my siblings were completely unaware of the situation. My reading of the scene really highlighted a struggling mother who herself saw the only option presented infront of her, and Vindice being witness to the deception of their social and financial status.


We ended by building How to Kill Everyone Else, this time just playing it through. The chaos, the constant toppling of dukes, the masked dances—it all tipped into the absurd.



bottom of page