Creating an authentic recreation of Shakespeare’s legendary Globe Theatre was no simple task, and production designer Fiona Crombie’s approach was both inventive and deeply thoughtful. But here’s where it gets controversial: why do so many film adaptations choose to ignore the original structures or historical accuracy? Crombie’s work on the film 'Hamnet' offers a compelling answer—by reimagining the Globe with a rugged, rustic charm, she emphasizes storytelling over strict historical fidelity, inviting viewers into a more visceral, intimate experience.
When director Chloé Zhao began envisioning the scenes set inside the Globe Theatre for 'Hamnet,' Crombie explains that filming in the actual historic venue was impractical for several reasons. Not only is the Globe still functioning as an active theatre today—serving audiences and artists—it has also undergone modifications over the centuries, making it visually and structurally different from its original form.
"The Globe Theatre we see today is a different version than what we needed for the film," Crombie remarks. "The current Globe is actually the second structure; the first was destroyed by fire. This gave us creative license to craft a Globe that suited our vision and aesthetic preferences." The film’s version of the Globe was deliberately built to evoke a sense of rawness and simplicity, contrasting with the more polished, modern representations. Crombie emphasizes that during the original period, the theatre was designed primarily as a venue to host plays, rather than as a spectacle itself. Today, the Globe is often viewed as an iconic landmark—Crombie’s goal was to shift focus back onto the performers and the story in her recreation.
To achieve this, she constructed a detailed, functional theater, including spaces that wouldn’t be visible on screen. For example, behind-the-scenes areas were designed to support stagehands in delivering props and setting the stage, adding authenticity to the production process. Interestingly, although much of the film’s footage is edited to suggest different scenes, Crombie mentions that they actually filmed a substantial portion of the actual play 'Hamlet,' creating a seamless immersive experience.
The backstage environment was dressed to suggest versatility, capable of hosting various Shakespearean productions like 'A Midsummer Night’s Dream' or others. Crombie even incorporated an entire armory, costumes, and oyster shells—some of which were used as makeup holders—enhancing the functional realism of the set. When studying historical illustrations of the original Globe, Crombie notes that exaggerated features were common, but her team interpreted the scale to suit their storytelling needs.
A pivotal discovery for Crombie was learning that the timber used to build the Globe might have been salvaged from dismantled theatres, rather than being custom-made for the project. This insight added a layer of authenticity, emphasizing the resourcefulness of the original builders. While the true Globe had Will Shakespeare looking down from above, observing the audience, Crombie opted for a more personal touch in her design—placing the audience closer to the actors and fostering a direct connection.
This approach sparks a question for all history and adaptation enthusiasts: How much should creative freedom override strict historical accuracy in film sets? Do these fictionalized, rustic interpretations serve the story better, or do they diminish the cultural significance of the original structures? What’s your take—should filmmakers prioritize authenticity, or is creative reinterpretation more valuable? Share your thoughts and debates below.
