Mary Stuart by Friedrich Schiller,
in a version by David Harrower, adapted by Robin Brooks. Dir. Gaynor MacFarlane. Perf. Meg Fraser, Alexandra Mathie, Robin
Laing. BBC Radio 3, 4 Jan. 2015.
BBCiPlayer http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01msj6x
till 3 Feb. 2015.
In this gripping revival,
first broadcast in 2012, Schiller’s classic was transformed into a political drama
that forced us to consider the ways in which the stresses and strains of being
a leader of any territory often forces individuals into making decisions that
they don’t want.
The action unfolded with a minimum of sound-effects:
our attention was solely focused on the dialogue which in David Harrower’s
version was constructed as a series of one, two or three-person exchanges. This
structure conjured up an atmosphere of
intrigue in which Mary Stuart (Meg Fraser) and Queen Elizabeth (Alexandra
Mathie) called upon their various male allies to help further their respective
causes. Mary Stuart wanted to secure her
release from captivity and claim what she perceived as her right to the English
throne, while Elizabeth tried her best to remove Mary Stuart from the scene
altogether.
The only problem facing both female protagonists was
that they could not trust anyone of their associates to carry out their
wishes. Nobles such as the Earl of
Leicester (Robin Laing) might profess loyalty to one side or another, but it
was clear from MacFarlane’s production that they were solely out for what they
could get. If one side offered more advantages,
they would willingly switch their allegiance.
This strategy helped to underline the contemporaneity of Schiller’s
subject-matter; the action might have been set in Tudor England, but the attitudes
expressed were precisely those that influence many of today’s Parliamentarians
as they choose to leave one political party and pledge their allegiance to
another in the hope of securing advancement (witness the ways in which some
Conservative MPs in Britain have switched to UKIP).
In this kind of hothouse environment, reminiscent of a
nest of vipers, both Mary and Elizabeth had their work cut out trying to assert
their independence. Mary Stuart seemed
to have an easier task; as a monarch she had been wrongfully imprisoned, and
she had every right to exercise her authority.
As portrayed by Fraser, however, she came across as an impetuous
personality who frequently let her heart rule her head, especially in her
exchanges with the Queen. Even if she
had assumed the monarchical role, it was clear that she lacked the personality
to exercise control over the court.
By contrast Elizabeth seemed much more suited to the
job. Although aware of her doubtful
origins (she never quite forgave the way in which Henry VIII had raised her),
she had sufficient presence of mind to keep her courtiers under control, partly
through vocal strength, and partly through sheer force of personality. On the
other hand MacFarlane emphasized how difficult
her role actually was; in a context where absolute power seemed to be the only
form of control, Elizabeth was often forced into making decisions that she did
not actually want. This was especially
true at the end of the production, where Mary Tudor’s execution took place as a
result of a misunderstanding between Elizabeth and her courtiers.
Listening to the often powerful exchanges between the
two female protagonists, we were invited to reflect on the relationship between
power and gender – should female rulers adopt different rhetorical and governmental
strategies to assert their authority compared to their male counterparts? MacFarlane’s
production refused to provide a
clear answer: whereas Elizabeth came across as a strong leader, she was often
prone to pangs of guilt either before or after her decisions had been
made. Likewise Mary Stuart tried to
maintain an aggressive façade, but we were never sure whether this was part of
her basic character. In a recent book The
Myth of the Strong Leader (2014)
Archie Brown has argued with some justification that the truly strong ruler is
the person who consults with their subordinates and comes to a collective
decision, rather than making snap judgments on their own. Fine words indeed;
but MacFarlane showed that
in some socio-historical contexts this form of government was impossible to
achieve, especially for female rulers trying to rule male-dominated courts. Through
the skillful use of asides addressed
direct to listeners, Elizabeth often doubted herself, but she could never admit
this in public.
Written in a sparse yet highly accessible idiom, this
revival proved why Mary Stuart
remains one of the most acute political plays written for the European theatre.