Synaptic

The theatrical problem solving assignment asks students to use performance as a way of understanding how a textual problem might be clarified by imagining a performance on an early modern stage. Jasmine’s interest in how invisibility can be staged in The Tempest presents an excellent response to the “invisibility” problem by exploring contemporary performances and proposing her own theatrically intelligible solution.

– Walter Cannon

---

In William Shakespeare’s, The Tempest, magic is a prevalent theme. Prospero, master sorcerer and one of the main characters, learned the arcane arts from his books. Others, like the fairy Ariel, are blessed with the gift, and can become invisible to the human eye. Ariel uses this ability to play tricks on Prospero’s enemies to make them see the error of their ways. Specifically, in Act III, Scene II, Ariel uses his gift to trick Stephano and Caliban into believing that Trinculo is calling them liars, provoking their anger. However, there is a problem; while it’s said at the beginning of the play and in the stage directions that Ariel is invisible, it’s not said how Ariel will achieve it. How does an audience see and not see invisibility?

Barbara D. Palmer, in her essay “Staging Invisibility in English Early Modern Drama,” states, “. . . although invisibility plays a significant role in a range of plays [from 1580 to 1642], the term invisible is found only five times, three of them in Tempest” (120). Since The Tempest makes the most references to invisibility in early modern drama it is obviously a significant part of the play, but since we have few other instances of it, it’s difficult to determine how it’s achieved or what its effect might be. How can the actors, through performance, show the audience invisibility, and more importantly, how does this problem affect the rest of the play? If the actors don’t portray the magic to the audience right away, the rest of the play is hard to believe. The key to making the audience believe is a mixture of special effects and staging; costume and make-up must be implemented for Ariel, and the whole cast must work together through facial expressions and body language to create the illusion that Ariel is there, but nobody can see him. By using these tactics to create invisibility on stage, the audience can see the irony in Ariel’s presence – he is clearly visible to us, but not to the rest of the cast.

In Act I, Scene II, Prospero instructs Ariel to approach the other characters using invisibility: “Go make thyself like a nymph o’ th’ sea. Be subject / To no sight but thine and mine, invisible to every eyeball else” (1.2.304-6). According to David Bevington, author of “Hearing and Overhearing in The Tempest,” this declaration should be enough to convince the audience that Prospero and Ariel are invisible: “An audience consents readily to the theatrical event by doing what the dramatist stipulates: the audience accepts that Ariel is now invisible and takes pleasure presumably in ‘seeing’ what is ‘invisible,’ thereby sharing magical power with Prospero” (102). While this is helpful, it doesn’t solve the entire problem. The audience believes that Ariel is invisible because Prospero and Ariel say so. However, it’s up to the cast and director to actually portray the magic accurately. For example, if Ariel were to enter a scene, and all the other characters looked over and focused on Ariel, the play can no longer claim that he is invisible. Saying something is helpful, but acting out Ariel’s invisibility using facial expression and body language is necessary to make Prospero’s words intelligible.

In this particular scene (3.2.42-152), Stephano, Caliban, and Trinculo are plotting to kill Prospero and take over the island. Ariel comes into the scene, invisible to the other characters, and overhears their conversation. In three separate instances, Ariel calls out, “Thou liest” (45, 62, and 75). This tricks the others into believing Trinculo is speaking. The scene is supposed to be comic, but by being invisible and overhearing the whole scheme, it sets up Ariel and Prospero to overcome evil. Without Ariel’s invisibility (or, at the very least, a good portrayal of it), it wouldn’t have been possible to overhear the conversation and the audience would be deprived of the pleasure of irony.

It’s obvious that the others can’t see Ariel, but how is the tricky part. It’s one thing to state that the characters are invisible – it’s another thing to portray that on stage. Modern productions of The Tempest find different ways to portray Ariel’s magic on stage. In 2012, a troupe at the Theatre Royal in Bath performed the play with Ariel dressed in a creative outfit: “Ariel is done up in blue warpaint and a shock of candyfloss for hair” (Letts). While this seems unimportant, it actually allows the character to look magical without going too far with special effects and cheapening the play overall. With Prospero’s decree of invisibility, plus the outfit, the role is easy to accept. After all, if Ariel looked like Trinculo or Stephano, the audience may doubt his power. If Ariel is dressed as someone out of this world, the audience is able to accept the magic much more. Unfortunately, that’s not enough to make the audience believe. The actors have to invite the audience in; if they cannot, then the play will surely fail. In 2005, a reporter from the Washington Post did a review of the Shakespeare Theatre’s production of Tempest. While the special effects were great (when they actually used them), the actors themselves were mediocre at best:

But the production’s sporadic demonstrations of novelty are clouded by lackluster performances and a surfeit of less than dazzling effects. The stagings of a few of the wordier scenes . . . are so wooden and drawn out that you end up tuning out. And while Breaker’s midair antics wittily suggest Peter Pan as a native of Stratford-upon-Avon, the production’s more earthbound images feel as if they’ve been recycled from an adult extension course in maskmaking (Marks).

While special effects and make-up can create an illusion of magic, it’s up to the actors to portray invisibility accurately with proper positioning, body language, and where the actors focus their attention. As the Shakespeare Theatre proved, if the actors don’t portray their roles well, the audience won’t understand the irony. Therefore, there should be a mixture of special effects and staging.

Alan Dessen says that there are three questions one must consider in order to accurately depict invisibility or, more specifically, the word “vanish” on stage: “(1) what would the original playgoers have seen at such moments? (2) how can we tell? and (3) so what?” (120). This breakdown allows for an easier depiction of magic and invisibility on stage. We must put ourselves in the shoes of the playgoers and actors from early modern drama. What did they see when they first performed the play? The most important question is the “so what?” Understanding what the stage directions meant in 1611 can shed light on what they mean now.

With this in mind, there could be many ways to depict Act III, Scene II. After careful consideration, two of these interpretations seem to be the most believable. In the first, Ariel would hide on stage in view of the audience but not of the other characters. Preferably, the other characters would be placed at the front of the stage. There would be pillars a foot or two behind them, with Trinculo near the pillar on the left-hand side. Then, Ariel would be placed behind the left-hand pillar and positioned so that he can peek out from hiding so the audience can see him. Or, if that wouldn’t be possible, Ariel can be placed in the balcony; that way, he can overhear without needing to hide as much. It would be simple to achieve, as there wouldn’t need to be any special tricks; the actors wouldn’t have to pretend that Ariel isn’t there. This placement would give the whole play a new meaning – Ariel isn’t actually “invisible” to the other characters, but hidden, so there’s a less magical quality. However, it would allow his character to take on a deceptive quality.

On the other hand, Ariel could avoid hiding, winding between the other characters through the whole conversation. It would be up to Ariel to make it known that he is enjoying every moment of his trickery – he could go behind the other characters and make faces at them. He could gesture to the audience, giggle into his hands, and mouth absurdities to the audience like, “Look at these fools!” Whenever it comes to his announcement of “Thou liest,” he could sneak behind Trinculo and yell over his shoulder; it would allow the characters to look in Trinculo’s direction and would even seem like he spoke, rather than a voice hidden away from view. This way, everyone is in on the joke, knowing full well the other characters can’t see Ariel playing tricks on them.

Palmer says that she “would take a more whimsical, perhaps even childlike approach to the stagecraft of vanishing. Making objects and people vanish or turning them invisible is play, fun, cleverness . . .” (120). I agree; the characters should be fun to watch, whimsical, especially Ariel. Therefore, as director, my ideal staging would be the more open version of the play, where Ariel prances around in plain view while the other characters are oblivious. I would place the men near the front of the stage. They would stand near each other so they can converse comfortably, but leave enough space in between so Ariel can weave through them and play prankster. I think this version invites the audience to become entranced with what is happening on stage. The Shakespeare’s Theatre review proved to me that staging is key, and if I have Ariel hiding the whole time, it may get stale. Rather, I want him actively involved so the audience pays attention; he’s listening just like they are, keeping track of who says what. In this sense, he’s tricky, hilarious, and useful.

It would be up to the other characters to portray the gimmick by ignoring Ariel on stage. If they look at Ariel and acknowledge his character is present at all, the whole scene will be ruined. Therefore, they should look at each other, avoid eye contact with Ariel, and pay attention to the conversation instead of the shenanigans going on around them. They should direct their attention to each other. For example, when Triculo is accused of yelling, “Thou liest,” they should gang up on him, get in his face, and push him around. That way, they’re focused on the physical action of the scene, rather than what’s happening outside of their circle. It’ll create an illusion of two worlds, reality and magic.

It may even add another layer if Ariel poked them, messed with their hair, or fluffed their clothes; they could react at that point, maybe swatting at Ariel’s hands or glancing around in confusion. This would set up the illusion that Ariel is there, but the others can’t see him. Ariel is still interacting in the environment, an active part of the scene. However, it would still hold a sense of magic, as the others wouldn’t be able to identify what is happening to them. The other actors can pretend to be confused or shrug like they were imagining things, which would sell the invisibility.

After the staging is all set and done, Ariel could also sport a wild costume; his make-up and clothes could be flashy, possibly fairy wings to symbolize his race, or something with nature involved, like leaves or flowers. As the review from the Theatre Royal proved, if Ariel were to look the part, he’ll be able to make the part believable. He would stand out from the other characters and draw attention to himself, but because the other characters can’t see him, the audience would know that he is invisible. His appearance would be the “special effects” of the scene – no other props would be necessary. After all, it doesn’t matter how many bells and whistles you have if you can’t stage the show correctly.

What does this portrayal mean for the whole play? Because the magic is obviously present, it’s easier to believe the rest of the play as well. With Ariel in plain view, they see for themselves that the magic is happening; they have been given proof without having to be told that things are the way they are. Ariel engrosses the audience in the magic as he becomes an active part of the scene. Later in the play, when Ariel confronts the villains that did Prospero wrong in Act III, Scene III, the audience is taken in by the illusion; the audience is captured, like the other characters, by what is happening on stage and believe that Ariel and Prospero are powerful. Therefore, when Prospero confronts his enemies and forgives them, the audience understands how he did it and accepts it instead of feeling unamused by cheap tricks. Without Ariel’s trickery from earlier, it would be easy to dismiss his participation and believe the whole play to be a ruse; by demonstrating his invisibility and magic on stage, the audience can now believe in the full extent of his power.

Works Cited

Bevington, David. “Hearing and Overhearing in The Tempest.” Who Hears in Shakespeare?: Auditory Worlds on Stage and Screen. Ed. Laury Magnus and Walter W. Cannon. Madison: Fairleigh Dickinson UP, 2011. 101-12. Print.

Dessen, Alan C., and Leslie Thomson. “Recovering Shakespeare’s Theatrical Vocabulary.” A Dictionary of Stage Direc tions in English Drama: 1580-1642. Cambridge: Cambridge U, 1999. N. pag. Print.

Letts, Quentin. “A Storming Tempest Given a Lift by Jedward.” Daily Mail (London). N.p., 31 Aug. 2012. Web. 8 May 2014.

Marks, Peter. “Only Ariel Escapes This Earthbound ‘Tempest’” The Washington Post. N.p., 30 Mar. 2005. Web. 8 May 2014.

Palmer, Barbara D. “Staging Invisibility in English Early Modern Drama.” Early Theatre, 2008.