Theatre 2016: Review Twenty-Six

Doctor Faustus, The Barbican, London. September 2016.

I'm easily swayed into going to the theatre and this time it was my friend the Upstart Wren who was keen on seeing this.  I have a love/hate relationship with the RSC but Doctor Faustus is a play I like a lot and so I was quite happy to accompany her.  It all started well, trains were on time, we found the Barbican with no problems and our seats were excellent...

The opening was promising too - the roles of Faustus and Mephistopheles are shared between two actors and at each performance the decision as to who plays which role is decided by striking matches, however as the characters were dressed identically at this point I can't remember whether the owner of the match that went out first played Faustus or Mephistopheles - already not a good sign for the play!

I got more hopeful as the start did show Faustus surrounded by books, but my reading of him is that he feels he has learnt all he can from the books he has but wants more which is why he makes his pact but in this version he starts by throwing books away in disgust and I had the feeling that he was bored by them not that he was a renowned scholar.

It just went downhill from here on. The text had been drastically cut but the time filled with lots of modern dance and whitewashing of the stage. I never felt that the good and bad angels were actually fighting for Faustus, they merely seemed bored and one of them could barely speak the line.
A moment of levity came with the appearance of the deadly sins although even this became smug and self referential as covetousness appeared to look like Antony Sher's Richard III - a role he played for the RSC...

image from Findingshakespeare.com

My biggest discomfort from the play came ultimately from the feel of the piece. I found it to be incredibly anti-Semitic in tone.  At times, to stress the evil events, a black and white film is played at the back of the stage - this reminded me utterly of the propaganda films created by Goebbels during the late 1930s and early 1940s, also the words Faustus speaks to conjure throughout the play were certainly not the Latin of the original and had, to my ear, the harshness and cadences of Hebrew. 

I'm not the only one who has been made uncomfortable with this - other have commented that the students/devils have the look of Jewish scholars.

I'm pleased I saw this version of the play for it reminds me how good the Globe's version from 2011 was. I think that cutting out all of the humour from the play (like Shakespeare Marlowe's plays are a good balance of comedy/tragedy) was a mistake, the play felt unbalanced. I've also read the play since seeing it and I don't think I like the additions either. 

Ultimately I never believed in either of the leads - possibly because Mephistopheles looked just like Richard O'Brien when he played RiffRaff in The Rocky Horror Picture Show.

Theatre 2015: Review Twenty-Two

Richard II, Shakespeare's Globe, London. August 2015.

This was a surprise addition to my theatre going calendar as I was lucky enough to win tickets to this on Twitter. Well I actually won tickets to any Globe production this season but as it is my friend's favourite Shakespeare play (probably) we decided that this was the one we'd see.

It was also my friend's first visit to the Globe after listening to me rave about it for the past few years so I was a little nervous how she'd take to the space - it isn't for everyone after all,  To add to the pressure she'd also accompanied me to see Richard II in 2013 when we saw the RSC version.

I found this production much clearer in terms of plot narrative, starting the play with the coronation of a child  (which segued into an adult very well) showed that this version of Richard was all about a king who hadn't known any other way of life, hence why he was so spoilt and petulant.  The action unfolded naturally after this and there was a lot of humour in the staging, this childishness was also very movingly reprised at the end in a scene that did bring a lump to my throat.

This Bolingbroke was a charismatic and alluring figure, more so than the king, and thus it was easy to see why people did follow him so swiftly.  He also managed to foreshadow his future as shown in Henry IV (parts one and two) which was a nice touch. In this version Aumerle was more of a sycophant to Richard than anything else and his treachery treated very well.

This isn't a play that allows a lot of interaction with the Groundlings and what there was came naturally and wasn't over played, as with the rest of the season however I did find that the space was used a little too much for entrances and exits.

The comic scenes were typical Globe moments and worked wonderfully within the play, they kept the plot moving and were not at all comic asides or pauses in the action. The love between Richard and his Queen was another beautiful thing to watch.

My main criticism with this play remains the same as before - unless you listen very, very closely to the words - you are left not entirely sure why the king is as 'bad' as he is and why he has to abdicate. There is no flowing hair or homosexual undertone in this version and I came away feeling that poor Richard really got the thin edge of the wedge. My friend and I were debating this after the show, and both agreed that occasionally we found his lines to be rushed and wondered if this was a directorial choice and a way of showing his instability and unsuitability...

I am revisiting this play on the very last day of the season and I am pleased to have a second chance to see this play as it is deceptively complicated and there are a lot of little details I want to see again.

Theatre 2014: Reviews Thirty-Six and Thirty-Seven

Henry IV parts I & II (RSC), Theatre Royal, Norwich. October 2014.

This past week I have spent a little over 6 hours in the theatre watching the two parts of Shakespeare's Henry IV and even now a few days on I am really not sure what I thought of the two plays.

Overall I enjoyed the duo but not as much as I'd expected, and this isn't just because the theatre seats weren't that comfortable for that length of time - after all I am happy to spend this much time at the Globe on wooden benches in the rain...

Whilst saying that I enjoyed the plays overall I am hard pressed to think of any specific moments except the choreography of the battle in part I and the deathbed scene and aftermath in part II. Both of these captivated me wholly and were a wonder to watch, and the latter did move me. The speaking and singing in Welsh during part I were also impressive.

However it would be fair to say that had these plays been renamed Falstaff part I & II it would be a fairer account of how the plays were staged/directed. As I never warmed to Sir Antony Sher's version of the character this was a bit of a problem.  I felt no chemistry at all between him and the rest of the cast, especially Prince Hal, and thus when he was rejected at the very end it didn't feel a surprise or a betrayal - something I keenly felt when seeing the DVD of the Globe version and from reading the texts.

The direction of Hotspur in part I also caused me some problems as he was played as completely unlikeable, again not something I've come across before. For sure he should be hot-headed but there was no reason at all for Henry IV to prefer him over Hal in this version and rather than hoping that the underdog would win I wanted to cheer when he was killed.

Possibly the biggest problem for me was that from the circle I couldn't tell Prince Hal and his companion Poins apart and for much of the production (whether intentional direction or not) I felt that Poins was more imposing than Hal and thus I mistook him for the prince in many scenes.

It all sounds very negative, and after part I that is certainly how I felt, part II did improve the experience for me but it all felt very worthy and the joy that I've found in Shakespeare (even in the versions of Macbeth and Richard III at the Trafalgar studios) was missing here.
My complaints could be because the staging didn't work so well in a traditional, dark, proscenium arch theatre where the acoustics were not the best but I think that my unease and dislike of the production are deeper than this and again it is that I prefer the Globe's interpretation to that of the RSC.

I'm glad I saw this, and after the recent treat that was Two Gentlemen of Verona, I am a little disappointed in my reaction but it does confirm that I am right to travel to London regularly rather than struggling to Stratford.  I will keep trying the RSC versions at the cinema however!

Theatre 2014 - Review Twenty-Nine (cinema)

The Two Gentlemen of Verona (RSC Live), Royal Shakespeare Company, Stratford. September 2014.

According to all of the publicity this is play that the RSC haven't performed on their main stage for around 40 years and this alone made me want to see the production, however Norwich to Stratford is not the easiest journey whether by car or train and so the fact that they too broadcast selected plays into cinemas is a blessing.

I didn't know anything about this play at all prior to sitting in my seat and the broadcast started with a few interviews with the main cast members and the director. This helped set the scene and also made it easy to spot who was who when the main action started.

It wasn't that easy to see when the main action started as there was an incredibly long, wordless prologue (which included some audience participation - shudder!) and as this also featured the two male protagonists I don't think I was alone in thinking that the sound wasn't right coming through from Stratford.

Once this bit was over the story fairly raced through and even with no prior knowledge of the play it was one of the easiest plots to follow that I've seen from Shakespeare. That coupled with the modern dress made it very easy to forget that this was a 400 year old play as it felt very up-to-date. It was nice that the modern dress, set and music didn't seem at odd with the areas that were kept more 'Shakespearean' elements, or of course the original words.

A dog is major character in the play and the live dog in the play was very good, but as I've seen mentioned elsewhere it must be a little disheartening for the main actors to be working their socks off for three hours yet the dog get a round of applause for just appearing!

The play itself felt very safe, and the 'baddie' never seemed quite evil enough. His neglected lover, Julia, also seemed to forgive him a little too easily. I can see why the play hasn't been performed in full on the main stage for such a long time because of these points - although how much of this was the directors view rather than the original material I will find out when I read the play.

I enjoyed the performance very much but due to the slightness I am pleased that I did wait for the RSC Live broadcast and didn't make the trek to Stratford.  However the trailer for the two winter plays Love's Labour's Lost/Love's Labour's Found and the little bit of back story to the setting of these does have me looking at the theatre brochure and the train times!

Theatrical Interlude 5 (2013)

A Life of Galileo (RSC), Swan Theatre, Stratford-upon-Avon, March 2013.

I saw this play a few weeks ago now on an over night trip to Stratford. I'd hoped to see something by Shakespeare in his birth place but unfortunately the dates didn't work out this time.

In the end it didn't matter as I loved every minute of this play. The theatre itself reminded me of an indoor (and if I am honest more comfortable Globe) and the staging very much of The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime.

However as time has now passed since I saw this (Mr Bookworm and I went to the States to indulge in our other interest - space travel) all I can think of to say about A Life of Galileo is that if it transfers or tours I urge you all to go and see it.

At times it isn't easy watching - Galileo (in this version) was very lucky that his daughter was a forgiving person or he could have been in a whole heap worse trouble. It is however intelligent, fun and very thought provoking and I am sorry that I didn't have the time to write a proper review while it was fresher in my mind.

From a lot of books I've read about theatre it seems that you are either a Beckett or a Brecht person. I've now seen one of each and at present I feel I am more drawn to Brecht, but that could just have been thanks to the new translation...I shall have to try more of both to come to an informed decision!