Shakespeare William - Ralph Fiennes on Coriolanus: taken from Shakespeare on stage: thirteen leading actors on thirteen key roles

Ralph Fiennes

on

Coriolanus

Taken from

SHAKESPEARE ON STAGE

Thirteen Leading Actors on Thirteen Key Roles

by Julian Curry

NICK HERN BOOKS

London

www.nickhernbooks.co.uk

Ralph Fiennes

on

Coriolanus

Coriolanus (1608)

Almeida Theatre Company

Opened at Gainsborough Studios,
Shoreditch, London, on 14 June 2000

Directed by Jonathan Kent

Designed by Paul Brown

With Oliver Ford Davies as Menenius,
Emilia Fox as Virgilia, Barbara Jefford as Volumnia,
and Linus Roache as Tullus Aufidius

C oriolanus is a Roman history play and Shakespeares last tragedy. It is a natural choice in times of political turbulence. The play focuses on the political divide between democracy, as favoured by the tribunes, and the autocracy represented by Coriolanus. He can be seen either as a hero deserted by a fickle populace, or as a villain whose arrogance threatens dictatorship. In 1930s Paris it was suppressed as the cause of pro- and anti-Fascist street demonstrations. The Nazis identified Coriolanus with Hitler as a model of leadership. Conversely, Brechts adaptation of the play presented it as a tragedy for the proletariat. And a production in Communist Moscow stressed Coriolanuss treachery and aristocratic pride. It was hailed as a lesson in the betrayal of the people by an individualistic leader in the Western mode.

Shakespeare introduced a human dimension, in Coriolanuss dependence upon his mother Volumnia. She prides herself on having moulded her son, and his identity relies to a pathological degree on her esteem. The tone of the play is serious throughout, without any of the comic characters, low-life scenes, or other devices that Shakespeare often used to leaven his tragedies. What little comedy there is resides in Coriolanuss unbending attitude, the tribunes wily manipulations, and the cowardice, hypocrisy and fickleness of the plebeians.

When I asked Ralph Fiennes if he was willing to be interviewed for this book, he was adamant that this was the role he wanted to talk about. Despite his brilliance on the battlefield, Coriolanus is amongst the least sympathetic of Shakespeares tragic figures. He is haughty and anti-democratic, sneers at hungry plebeians and is completely devoid of political tact. This is part of the characters fascination. Id worked with Ralph years earlier when he was playing the saintly, unworldly Henry VI at the RSC. But he is not an actor who needs to be taken to the audiences heart. He put down a strong marker to that effect as the sadistically amoral Amon Goeth in Schindlers List, and has since notched up several other very nasty pieces of work. When I went to meet him, one morning in July 2007, I thought there must have been a mistake about the address. The East London street was narrow and dingy, a knock at the door produced no response. Not a predictable film stars residence. However, I phoned up and Ralph answered, having just got out of the bath. He let me into a pleasant, relaxed dwelling open plan with bare brick walls and made tea and toast. He proceeded to speak about the character with tremendous enthusiasm and urgency. I had to suggest a break in recording or I thought he would never get round to eating the toast.

Julian Curry: Youve played plenty of the great Shakespearean parts. Whats special about Coriolanus?

Ralph Fiennes: Its an odd role for me. I did it paired with Richard II, always a part Id had my eye on. Jonathan Kent suggested a double bill with Coriolanus. Theres no particular connection between the plays, except theyre both about people who aspire to power and abuse it. They cant handle it, and fuck it up. And I just became obsessed with this man. Hes one of the hardest characters to like, I think. The play is like a horrendous, uncompromising cliff face. It doesnt have any of the warm, human, lyrical moments that you associate with Shakespeare. It seems to be a relentlessly uncompromising, jagged piece. Likewise, he is this peculiar, twisted, repressed machine. Hes pulped and conditioned, malformed by his mother. But I love the anger in it. And he has this aspiration to unbending purity. It can be repellent and fascist, but its also hes trying to be something distilled. I think it is a real tragedy. And interestingly, most people I spoke to seemed to dislike him initially, and then feel he is the victim of political manipulation and Machiavellian intrigue. Which he is hes manipulated by the tribunes, by the people.

And by Aufidius later on.

Yes. Well, hes betrayed by Aufidius.

Youve worked with Jonathan Kent a lot, so presumably that gives you a useful kind of shorthand. Can you describe his processes?

He comes with a strong design concept, look whatever you want to call it thats well thought out. But I dont think the cast ever felt pushed into anything. Maybe with Richard II (which Jonathan had been in before, as an actor) there was more sense of that. I remember thinking sometimes, Why should I do that? But with Coriolanus I felt free. It evolved between us. Hes very open to see what happens. The best thing for me, the way I love, is when you both have ideas. The director and the actor each has an idea, a sketch in their heads.

Two-way traffic.

Yeah. You can put things on the table. Youre not sure about this, but that was good, and what happens if you do such-and-such. The setting was very strong, because the two plays were designed to be in the Gainsborough Studios, the old Hitchcock film studios in Shoreditch which have since then, tragically, been turned into modern-style apartments. But because the developer was about to knock them down, we could mess with the structure relatively cheaply. We had in essence what was originally built, a Victorian or Edwardian power station. There had been a thick, heavy, concrete floor across the middle that I think had been put in later, which we took out. So we created this big, big, high space. Acoustically it was very difficult, especially for Coriolanus.

It had a giant gash down the back wall.

Yes, we smashed through the wall to get this jagged effect. It was like a split in the wall, and it went from being wide at the top to quite narrow at the bottom, just enough so you could walk through, and that was your upstage entrance. There was reasonably good wing space on stage-right. Left, there was not enough. Where there would normally have been wing space, there was none. The stage went right up to the exterior wall, so the only entrance on that side was the upstage-left doorway onto a sort of platform. There was a permanent little gangway or catwalk, which was visible. But it worked.

You had a glass panel in the middle of the floor, I think.

Yes. It was toughened perspex or something, with lights in it. It was there that the senators sat on little stools or chairs, as a way of spatially defining the senate area when you wanted it to. It was not great to be on because it was very slippery. I think probably it looked quite good, like an installation piece. But I dont know that it quite did what we were told it was meant to do.

What about the costumes? They were described as A mixture of modern chic with trappings of ancient Rome. Is that what you remember?

Yes, they were loosely modern. No one was conventional except Oliver Ford Davies, who played Menenius, he had a suit. The other senators had sort of Nehru-collared-style suits. I had an extremely military tunic, reduced as it were. There were no decorations, just a simple tunic, very dark green, and dark trousers.