So Dreadful a Judgment is the first of a series of historic dramas, or "museum theater" productions, created and performed by Plimoth Plantation. These interactive dramas give the audience a powerful personal encounter with history by allowing them to explore difficult and entertaining questions about the past with the characters!
While Wes is deep in the editing process, he was kind enough to offer a dramatic preview of the footage from So Dreadful a Judgment. The MPAA film rating in the beginning isn’t real, but I think a nice touch.
So Dreadful a Judgment – Teaser Trailer from Plimoth Plantation on Vimeo.
The filming of So Dreadful a Judgment has been funded in part by The Ida and William Rosenthal Foundation.
Now Mr. Churches consort, and his then only Son were till this time remaining at Duxborough, and his fearing for their safety there … resolved to move to Rhode-Island; tho’ it was much opposed both by the Government, and by Relations. … Then preparing for his Removal, he went with his small Family to Plymouth to take leave of their Friends; where they met with his Wives Parents, who much perswaded that She might be left at Mr. Clarks Garrison, (which they supposed to be a mighty safe Place)… Mr. Church no ways inclining to venture her any longer in those Parts, and no arguments prevailing with him, he resolutely set out… But by the way, let me not forget this remarkable Providence. viz. That within Twenty-four hours or there abouts, after their arrival at Rhode-Island, Mr. Clarks Garrison … was destroyed by the Enemy.
Thomas Church, “Entertaining Passages Relating to Philip’s War,” in So Dreadfull a Judgment, ed. Richard Slotkin and James K. Folsom (Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press, 1978) p. 420
On March 12, 1676, a group of eleven Native men attacked William Clark’s house on the Eel River, about three miles south of the Town of Plymouth and potentially located somewhere on our museum grounds. It was a Sunday; some of the attackers had been friendly with Mr. Clark and knew on this particular day the defences of his “slightly fortified” house would be weakened by the fact that most of the English inhabitants would be attending church. Forty years later, Thomas Church would hold the attack on the Clark Garrison House, and his father’s choice not to tarry there, as an example of God’s protection of his father, mother and Thomas himself (the “then only Son” quoted above).
In the overall narrative of Entertaining Passages, the Clark Garrison House is a minor footnote—one of many incidents and acts of “Providence.” Garrisons, or fortified houses, were extensively used during King Philip’s War (1675-1676) to defend English communities from attack and frequently served as a refuge for a town’s inhabitants. But what is particularly interesting and important about this event is its connection to us here at Plimoth Plantation. In 1941, Harry Hornblower, amateur archaeologist and the future founder of the museum (to learn more about archaeology at Plimoth Plantation click here), conducted the first of a series of digs at what is known today by archaeologists as the R.M. site. So called because of a spoon recovered at the site engraved on the handle with the initials R.M., there is some question as to the precise identity of the excavated remains of a 17th-century structure, or series of structures, and the R.M. to whom the spoon once belonged. (For an analysis of the site by the Plymouth Archaeological Rediscovery Project click here)
One common theory maintains that the R.M. site and Clark Garrison House are one and the same. Several features of the site seem to support this theory. First, the site is located in the general area of William Clark’s property. Second, is the date of the site seems to correspond with the period during which Mr. Clark’s home was used as a garrison and was destroyed. However mundane a pile of clay tobacco pipe stems may seem to a casual observer, their rather distinct evolution of style over the course of the 17th and 18th Centuries has made it possible for archaeologists to date a site with reasonable accuracy. The pipe stems located at the R.M. site seem to indicate the date of the site to be approximately 1620 to 1680, with a slightly greater concentration of stems falling between 1650 and 1680. Thirdly, discolored soil found on the site may indicate the structure had been burned. New England ministers Increase Mather and William Hubbard both state in their histories of King Philip’s War, published in 1676 and 1677 respectively, that the garrison’s attackers burned the house.
Brass projectile point, 1600-1650; Colonists traded brass kettles to Native People for fur and other goods. Native People frequently cut the brass into pieces to make projectile points, jewelry, hair combs, and other items.
Buttons, 17th century, silvered bronze with cast rose pattern.
Iron Shot Mold and strips of cast lead shot, 1625-1675. The scissors-like shot mold (one half missing) cast a single piece at a time. Smaller shot was cast in strips. Note the lead sprue that connects them.
March 12. This Sabbath eleven Indians assaulted Mr. William Clarks House in Plimouth, killed his Wife, who was the Daughter of godly Father and Mother that came to New-England on the account of Religion, … and she herself also a pious and prudent Woman; they also killed her sucking Childe, and knocked another Childe (who was about eight years old) in the head, supposing they had killed him, but afterwards he came to himself again. And whereas there was another Family besides his own, entertained in Mr. Clarks house, the Indians destroyed them all, root and branch, the Father, and Mother, and all the Children. So that eleven persons were murdered that day, and under one roof; after which they set the house on fire.
Increase Mather, “A Brief History of the Warr with the Indians in New-England,” in So Dreadfull a Judgment, ed. Richard Slotkin and James K. Folsom (Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press, 1978) p. 112
Accounts differ on the number of English killed. Mather and Hubbard both put the number at eleven. However, the records of the Plymouth Colony Court name only one casualty in the attack. On July 7, 1676, three Native men were convicted by the Plymouth Court of raiding William Clark’s house and murdering his wife Sarah. No mention is made of the death of an infant child or the presence of a second family at the home. In fact, a fourth Native man is prosecuted in connection with the raid on July 21, and at his trial he stated that the raiders expected only three people (perhaps Clark’s wife and two children) to be at home. Unfortunately, he says nothing of the number of inhabitants they actually found, nor does the court explicitly connect any other deaths to the raid beyond that of Sarah Clark.
The mystery extends to the R.M. site itself. Before writing this post I had an interesting conversation with our Curator of Collections, Karin Goldstein. In 1941, the R.M. site was located on Hornblower family property. Today that property is now part of the modern living history museum Plimoth Plantation. Karin oversees the artifacts from the R.M. site which are held within the museum’s archeological collections. While discussing some of the questions surrounding the R.M. site she made some fascinating observations that in my mind deepen the mystery even more. She questioned to what extent the site had been burned. Karin pointed out that the Standish site in Duxbury, also 17th-century, had been so obviously burned that the archeologists had even found melted window glass. On the other hand, if the R. M. site was a garrison house, then the abundance of pipe stems found at the site may indicate that a large number of men were standing around and smoking while on watch.
And what of the R.M. for whom the site is named? Perhaps, it was Plymouth resident Robert Morton. Maybe he was one of the militiamen standing around William Clark’s “slightly fortified” house smoking a clay pipe. Perhaps he forgot his spoon.
We just finished up filming yesterday on the movie version of So Dreadful a Judgment. Here are some of the pictures from the set.
Awashonks (Shani) and Josiah Winslow (Scott) at the Plymouth Court
Shani and Scott performing in Act 3. I'm holding cue cards and our director, Wes, is on camera.
Philip as Peter Awashonks
Awashonks (Shani) with her son Peter (Philip)
Awashonks (Shani) examining damaged corn.
Wes using a camera crane to do a tracking shot of Shani in the corn.
Thank you again to Marie Pelletier for taking these great photos.
The filming of So Dreadful a Judgment has been funded in part by The Ida and William Rosenthal Foundation.
We would like to wish our wonderful Public Programs and Museum Theater intern, Amanda Coffin, the best of luck as she pursues a career where she can help bring museums and traditional theater closer together. The energy and expertise she brought to our team will be much missed. Thank you Amanda for adding Dramaturgy to Plimoth Plantation’s vocabulary!
Amanda patiently waiting between takes with cue cards.
This past week we completed the filming for Acts 1 and 2 of the film version of our play So Dreadful a Judgment. Here are some photos from the set.
Awashonks (Shani) and Benjamin Church (Brian)
Our director Wes giving Shani and Brian their motivation.
Cameras are rolling!
Benjamin Church (Brian) going to get some work done on his plantation.
Benjamin Church (Brian) and his wife Alice (Amanda)
Alice Church (Amanda) embracing her husband before he departs to meet Awashonks.
Benjamin Church (Brian) riding in a mishoon to his meeting with Awashonks.
Thank you to Marie Pelletier for taking these beautiful photos.
The filming of So Dreadful a Judgment has been funded in part by The Ida and William Rosenthal Foundation.
“Awashonks, sqauw-sachem of Sogkonate, was the wife of an Indian called Tolony, but of him we learn very little. From her important standing among the Indians, few deserve a more particular attention; and we shall, therefore, go as minutely into her history as our documents will enable us.”
Samuel G. Drake, History of the Early Discovery of America and the Landing of the Pilgrims (Boston: Higgins and Bradley, 1854) p. 249
“They found hundreds of Indians gathered together from all Parts of her Dominion. Awashonks her self in a foaming Sweat was leading the Dance. But she was no sooner sensible of Mr. Churches arrival, but she broke off, sat down, calls her Nobles round her, orders Mr. Church to be invited into her presence.”
Thomas Church, “Entertaining Passages Relating to Philip’s War,” in So Dreadfull a Judgment, ed. Richard Slotkin and James K. Folsom (Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press, 1978) p. 398
The Historical Awashonks
Even without Thomas Church’s depiction of Awashonks in Entertaining Passages Relating to Philip’s War, we would actually know more about the central figure of our film than most human beings of the past. Unlike Awashonks, the vast majority of people show up in the historical record as a name, or not at all.
As the Sachem (leader) of the Sakonnet people, in what is today Little Compton, Rhode Island, Awashonks appears multiple times in various Plymouth Colony records between 1671 and 1683. A few of these records give us some hint into her mindset–maybe even her personality. One significant event that helps us try to understand who Awashonks was, what her life was like, and how it may have influenced who she was as a person appears in the Judicial Acts of the Plymouth Colony Records (original spelling intact):
On July 7, 1674, a rival Sakonnet Sachem, named Mammanuah, accused Awashonks and her people of “forcably detaining the land of the said Mammanewah,” by “assembling … about the middle of March last” upon a portion of the lands he claimed as his own. In addition, he told the court, they “did forcably molest and hinder the said Mammanuah from giving possession of a persell of the said land to such of the English, to whome hee had sold the same, by violent binding the said Mamanuah in the same place, insulting over and threatening him, while hee lay bound before them, indeavoring, as they declared, to cause him to relinquish his title to his said land.”
Not surprisingly, the court found in favor of Mammanuah and granted him the disputed land which he intended to sell to some Englishmen. On top of losing land which may have encompassed part of a seasonal residence for the Sakonnet people (Native People of Southern New England alternated between summer and winter dwelling sites in the 17th Century), Awashonks was forced to pay 5 pounds in damages, plus court fees.
Giving Awashonks a Voice
The court records, Puritan chroniclers, land deeds, and Entertaining Passages all give us wonderful details about what Awashonks did, what she suffered, where she went, and who she associated with. But few of these sources give us much that can be translated into dialogue. It’s one thing to say that Awashonks and her people had lands taken from them by English courts. It’s another to say how she felt about it. That’s when we have to look to other period sources to find an authentic voice. Below is an example of a primary source that we used to give words to Awashonks’ emotions:
“So must we be one as they are, otherwise we shall be all gone shortly, for you know our fathers had plenty of deer and skins, our plains were full of deer, as also our woods, and of turkeys, and our coves full of fish and fowl. But these English having gotten our land, they with scythes cut down the grass, and with axes felled the trees; their cows and horses eat the grass, and their hogs spoil our clam banks, and we shall all be starved.”
Speech of Narragansett Sachem Miantonomo recounted in Lieutenant Lion Gardener, A History of the Pequot War (Cincinnati: J. Harpel, 1860) p. 26
And here is the dialogue we gave to the character of Awashonks in our film:
“But is it time to fight? Without fighting you off, someday we might forget our fathers ways. Our fathers once had plenty of deer and skins. The woods were full of turkeys and the coves full of fish and fowl. But you English have gotten our land. You mow down the grass and cut down the trees. Saving our ways might be worth the risk. I want Sakonnet to be like it was when I was a child.”
Would the real Awashonks please stand up?
But does all this tell us who Awashonks was?
That’s the big question. Who was Awashonks as a human being? What was her personality like? What was her relationship to Benjamin Church (her closest English neighbor) and how did that influence her decision to submit herself and her people to Plymouth Colony in 1676?
These are the sort of questions that the role-players at Plimoth Plantation’s 1627 English Village ask themselves all the time. They are questions that anyone who writes or performs historic drama or “museum theater” must ask.
In producing So Dreadful a Judgment, we are faced with a potentially unanswerable question: How much of our Awashonks is the true Awashonks? Can we ever really know her?
Finding Locations for Our Scenes
There was a lot of activity going on during our week of preparations for filming. We began filming yesterday (Monday, August 6th), but the week prior was full of rehearsals, costume fittings, location scouting, and test shots. Below are some images of our director, Wes, trying out some shots with our actors.
Wes Ennis, our director, tries out some shots with Brian (Church) and Shani (Awashonks)
Brian (Church) and Shani (Awashonks) look at the footage our director, Wes Ennis, filmed.
Wes and James look through the camera
Costume Fittings
This week we’ve also been trying on costumes. Here is a sneak peak:
Brian as Benjamin Church. This outfit will be used for the scenes when he's working in the fields and setting up his plantation.
Brian in his second outfit with his military sash.
Shani has the task of designing and hand stitching her own Awashonks costume, so part of her week has included hunting down the correct beads and hand stitching them (one at a time!) to her leggings.
Shani uses a lighter to complete her Awashonks costume
The beadwork of Awashonk's skirt. Wool would have been a trade item the Natives exchanged for and earth tones would have been the most desired.
Learning to split fence rails
Before filming, Brian also had to learn how Benjamin Church would have built fences on his plot of land in Sakonnet. The artisans of Plimoth Plantation taught him to split logs in preparation for the shoot. To read about the work of the artisans, check out their blog: The Riven Word.
Brian (Church) learns to split fence rails from our artisan Michael French.
Brian uses wedges to split a hickory log
Brian learns how Benjamin Church would have cleared land and built fences.
We also met the cows Brian will film with. Here’s a shot of them!
Jesse the Steer with Rosie the Heifer behind him.
The Little Compton Historical Society
On Wednesday, August 1st, the cast and crew of the film version of So Dreadful a Judgment travelled to Little Compton, Rhode Island for some inspiration. Our film takes place in Sakonnet, Rhode Island which is present day Little Compton, and it has been very valuable to see the landscapes and the beaches where Awashonks and Benjamin Church lived. This was our second visit to Little Compton and both times we saw great generosity from the Little Compton Historical Society. Marjory O’Toole, the managing director there, took the time to drive us to some of the original sites including Benjamin Church’s land and the rock, known as “Treaty Rock” in Little Compton, that might have been the site of one of the meetings between Benjamin Church and Awashonks. For more information on the Little Compton Historical Society, click here.
Cast and Crew explore the Little Compton Historical Society with Marjory O'Toole, Managing Director of the Society.
Benjamin Church’s Homesite
Our first stop with Marjory was to one of the “great lots” that Benjamin Church purchased as part of the Sakonnet Proprietors in 1674. The land we visited was the plot (Lot 19) that Church first began working on and building on when he moved from Duxbury to Sakonnet in 1674. He was likely living on this plot when he first met Awashonks and had to abandon it while fighting in King Philip’s War. Consequently, he never completed the house that he began building here.
Brian Sheppard (Benjamin Church) and Shani Turner (Awashonks) stand on Benjamin Church's land.
"Here lived Colonel Benjamin Church, most successful of earlier Indian fighters, conqueror of King Philip August 12, 1676"
Treaty Rock
Our next stop led us to Treaty Rock. Thomas Church, Benjamin Church’s son, explains in Entertaining Passages Related to Philip’s War, that:
Accordingly he appointed him to notify Awashonks, her son Peter, their Chief Captain, and one Nompash (an Indian that Mr. Church had formerly a particular respect for) to meet him two days after, at a Rock at the lower end of Capt. Richmonds Farm; which was a very noted place; and if that day should prove Stormy, or Windy, they were to expect him the next moderate day.
Thomas Church, “Entertaining Passages Relating to Philip’s War,” in So Dreadfull a Judgment, ed. Richard Slotkin and James K. Folsom (Middletown, Connecticut: Wesleyan University Press, 1978) p. 423.
We learned there were many rocks on Captain Richmond’s farm in 1675, though many of them have been cleared over the years to accommodate farming. Because of this, we don’t know for sure whether the rock we visited was the specific rock where they met (or if the original still exists), but the writing on the boulder seems to imply that this rock held significance for the people of Little Compton since at least the 19th century.
Marjory (in front) leads us towards Treaty Rock
Treaty Rock in Little Compton, Rhode Island
Benjamin Church Gravesite
After saying thank you and goodbye to Marjory, we stopped for lunch at the Commons. There we saw the graves of Benjamin Church and his wife Alice as well as some of his other family members.
The tabletop of Benjamin Church's grave. Church died on January 17, 1717/18 when he was 78 years old.
The graves of Benjamin Church, Alice Church, and other members of the Church family reside in the Little Compton Commons Cemetery.
Sakonnet Point
Our last stop in Little Compton took us to Sakonnet Point where Awashonks and the Sakonnets spent their summer months. Here we were able to visualize the place Church may have met the Sakonnets in 1676 when he saw some of them fishing on the rocks and arranged to meet with Awashonks.
Shani (Awashonks) and Brian (Church) look out at the water at Sakonnet Point in Little Compton, Rhode Island.
Shani (Awashonks) walks the beach at Sakonnet Point.
While on the beach, Shani found some excellent shells and rocks that will be incorporated into the Awashonks costume we use in the film. These small elements of authenticity and the pictures we have from our trip will inspire and shape the final film. Since we don’t have the budget to film the movie in Little Comption itself, we have done our best to find locations in and around Plymouth that somehow hint at the sites we visited, though it will be difficult to match the beauty and serenity of the places we saw on that day!
In 1716, two years before the elderly Benjamin Church would fall from his horse and die from the result, Entertaining Passages Relating to Philip’s War was published under the authorship of Church’s son, Thomas. It was meant to be a true account of the past military glories of the now disgraced “old soldier.” Many people today are familiar with Entertaining Passages because of the prominence given to the account in Nathaniel Philbrick’s New York Times Bestseller, Mayflower.
There is some debate as to how we should understand the text. Does it demonstrate Church to be, as scholars Richard Slotkin and James K. Folsom label him, the “king of the wild frontier”? Or is it, as historian Jill Lepore has said, “the single most unreliable account of one of the most well-documented wars of the Colonial period”? (Read Jill Lepore’s interesting New Yorker article here)
It would seem easy, from a perspective of historical truth, to simply write off Entertaining Passages because of the cloud of doubt it finds itself under. Numerous other accounts of King Philip’s War are more contemporary to the events they describe. Even if some consider the truthfulness of the events described within Entertaining Passages to be questionable, one can understand the appeal of the narrative. While there are many scenes of violence and inhuman behavior on both sides depicted within the book, there are passages that the 21st-century reader would indeed find entertaining, or even funny. Many of these do stretch the imagination. Did Church, while recovering from a painful injury, really have difficultly tackling a Native warrior because the man was naked and slippery?!
But what if the problem one faces is not that they must weigh multiple cold and uninteresting (but potentially more accurate) sources against one fun and exciting account, but that the one dubious–and exciting–source is all you’re left with? That’s our problem. When Thomas Church chose to write his father’s memoirs he gave us the only account of any depth, that relates the wartime meetings of Benjamin Church and Awashonks. There is no doubt that both meetings took place (if we are to believe the cold and uninteresting contemporary writers). The results of those meetings, at least for the second one in June of 1676, can be corroborated with contemporary documents. But, with the exception of a poignant testimony given by Peter (son of the female sachem) to the Governor of Plymouth Colony, we have few details of either meeting outside of Entertaining Passages.
In preparing So Dreadful a Judgment to be made into a short film we’ve brought together just about every primary source we can think of, and nearly every secondary one as well. Among these are multiple editions of Entertaining Passages. When you spend 7-8 hours a day staring at, or thinking about, the material related to single moments in time, not only are you likely to know more about a subject than you should, you’re also probably going to make something, maybe even a lot of something, out of trivial details. Or are they trivial?
According to Entertaining Passages, in the Spring of 1674, Benjamin Church took a ride down to Sakonnet with a Captain John Almy from Rhode Island. Shortly thereafter, Church buys land there and starts his “plantation.” In July of 1675, two weeks after King Philip’s War begins, Church and 19 other English soldiers are caught in a fire fight in John Almy’s pea field and are forced to take shelter behind a wall on Almy’s property. In March 1676, Church finds shelter for his family at John Almy’s Rhode Island home on Aquidneck Island, just across the river from Church’s Sakonnet lands.
In one of the various official records of Plymouth Colony (our main source on Awashonks outside of Entertaining Passages) John Almy appears in June of 1672 when Awashonks is forced to satisfy a rather substantial debt she owes to him. This was to be paid in either pork, peas or services in the form of building stone walls. (Perhaps the very same walls along the pea field?).
So who is John Almy, and why is he important? Is he important? Is he a trivial detail? I would argue that Almy is only trivial if one views Entertaining Passages as a relatively exaggerated account of generally true events (what the ladies at my first historical society job called embroidering the facts).
John Almy ceases to become trivial, however, if one becomes an adherent to one of two respected, but equally extreme viewpoints of the narrative. If you are to believe the interpretation that Entertaining Passages is the account of the first great American frontiersman, a 17th-century Daniel Boone, then Almy’s presence (more precisely his pea field) highlights the fact that Church isn’t alone out there in the wilderness communing with Native culture, but looks more like a Johnny-come-lately to an increasingly more Europeanized landscape. If one were to take the opposite view that there is little to no value in the Church narrative, that it’s entirely allegory, perhaps trivial details such as Almy’s continued silent presence would give such an argument check. Why would Thomas Church include disconnected details, such as Almy, which have no bearing on any allegory whatsoever, unless Thomas Church is recounting substantially true events? After all, historians have become quite adept at peeling away the intrusive voice of past narrators. How is Entertaining Passages any different? (Take, for example, the account of the naked, slippery, Native warrior with whom Church wrestles. The account remains funny until the Native man is taken by the hair and decapitated. One gets the feeling that the early 18th-century reader was supposed to keep laughing at that point. Perhaps some version of the event actually happened.)
As So Dreadful a Judgment, the film, continues to come together, I shall keep the silent characters of Entertaining Passages in mind. They remind me that not everything is as it seems. Truth may be found where there seems to be none.
The truth must not be spoken at all times, though to my knowledge I have written nothing but the truth, and you may take out or put in what you please, or if you will, throw it all into the fire.
Lion Gardener. A History of the Pequot War. (Cincinatti: J. Harpel, 1860).
I come to Plimoth Plantation with a background in directing and dramaturgy, a traditional theater background, and as such I’m always asking myself certain questions about the play we’re working on: How can we make this more compelling? How can we engage our audience? Shouldn’t this be more entertaining?? These are important questions for a director of traditional theater pieces, and they are questions I ask myself when directing or working on all types of performance. The challenge comes in the other set of questions you must ask when working in museum theater: How can we be as accurate as possible? Does this represent the people, events, and time period correctly? Are we showing people the truth? These are the questions I sometimes have to remind myself to ask. Because of this challenge, it is extremely helpful to be working with a historian, James, who thinks of those questions first, before thoughts of theatricality. I want the play to be as compelling as possible (and reliable, too) while James wants the piece to be as accurate as possible (and entertaining). The blending of entertainment and accuracy is the ultimate goal of museum theater at Plimoth Plantation, and while we’re not quite there yet, we have definitely made quite a few steps in that direction with So Dreadful a Judgment.
The Blending of Perspectives
When James and I were first handed the script, we initially went to work gathering primary sources and learning all we could about Benjamin Church and Awashonks. We knew we needed to put together as much information as possible on these historical figures in order to create a full representation of them on stage. Throughout the process we have seen that the more information we learn and the more background we give our actors, the more compelling the characters become. From there we worked with the actors and listened for the emotion in the piece in order to create those moments that the audience can relate to. At the same time, we tried to find the lines that weren’t landing with the audience or that might be confusing.
“Wherefore have you not been down to Sakonnet before now?”
“Why have you not been down to Sakonnet before now?”
This is an example of one of the many small changes the script has gone through since we first got the piece in hand. And though the change is small, even this adjustment from “Wherefore” to “Why” required a discussion. On one hand, changing the line to “Why” makes it easier for the audience to immediately understand the question Awashonks asks. But “Wherefore” is proper 17th century language and it is used in the primary source on which the play is based.
Being able to make these changes to a script is one of the reasons I love working on original plays. Though written fifteen years ago, So Dreadful a Judgment was written by Plimoth Plantation and therefore we are able, with the playwright’s permission, to make some changes here and there to enhance the script. The difficulty comes from this “original” play drawing so heavily on primary sources written in the 17th century. These authors are far removed from us and we can hardly ask their permission to change a word here or there for the sake of audience clarity. It is up to us to make the decision between audience engagement and understanding or historical accuracy, and this is why having these conversations (for example, “Why” versus “Wherefore”) is so important throughout the process.
Seeing Things from Both Sides
It does help a great deal that James and I can see things from both sides when we need to. James’ experience as a role-player in the 1627 English Village here at Plimoth Plantation and as a performer in museum theater pieces helps him understand the necessity of theatricality, while my dramaturgy experience helps me understand the historical point of view. What is a dramaturg? Though not the easiest position to define, a dramaturg is often the link between the theater and the outside world (whether that be other educational disciplines or the general public not involved in the creation of the piece). This means a dramaturg might research and serve as historian on a play, might work with the artistic staff to select the plays in a season, and might write blog posts just like these to connect the audience with the performance. As a production dramaturg, I am often studying words or time periods represented in the script in order to bring a better understanding to the actors and production team. Additionally, I might also educate the audience and help them connect what they are witnessing on stage to their own lives. (For a great book on dramaturgy, see What is Dramaturgy? Edited by Bert Cardullo). All of these experiences have served me well when working on So Dreadful a Judgment.
Why Change Anything?
As mentioned above, some of our changes have resulted in a better understanding for the audience, but there have been other changes both in the script and in the blocking or delivery of lines by our actors that have served a different purpose. Throughout this process, James and I have been continuously gathering information. Sometimes I think there is no end to the primary sources we can read and search for, let alone the secondary books and articles that have been written on the topic. We could gather information and read on the topic for years, but unless this information informs and adjusts the characters in the play, there is very little benefit to all of this work. So as we gain a better understanding of the time period or the lives of our characters, we need to make these adjustments to the script in order to represent the fullest picture possible. The more detailed and nuanced these characters become, the more compelling the drama will be. The best characters in literature and drama are complete ones, and that is our task with the pieces we represent: Gather the information to create a full person (to the best of our ability, of course), and then put that character on stage. If we flesh out the person, the audience will be able to connect with these characters, and that makes for a compelling drama.
One of my favorite examples of this is a blocking choice we made for Benjamin Church. In Entertaining Passages Related to King Philip’s War, it says:
That Night Philip sent (as afterwards they found out) a great Army to way-lay Capt. Church at the entring on of Assawompset Neck, expecting he would have returned the same way he went in; but that was never his method to return the same way that he came; & at this time going another way he escaped falling into the hands of his Enemies. (441)
Knowing that Church never leaves from the same place he entered tells us a lot about his military tactics, and even gives us a glimpse of his personality and mindset during this war. When staging the piece, we decided to follow through on this by making sure our actor never enters and exits from the same side of the stage. This little detail, one the audience may not realize is there, is one of the small ways we can include the characteristics of Church to better show a full picture of who this man was and add another layer of interest for our audience.
Recent Comments