The Taming of the Shrew at Shakespeare's Globe

Good news everyone! I love The Globe again!  I sat there last night roaring and slapping my thigh with laughter... A big change from my last two visits (the rubbish Richard III and horribly bad Henry V)... which saw me sat in my seat sporting a huge grumpy frown like a puppy with sore paws.

In order to properly review any production of Shrew, it is necessary to employ my patented  "4 question" methodology for Shrew assessment:

The 4 questions that are to be asked of any Shrew production:

1) How aggressive was The Shrew?
2) How well was the complicated 'Bianca and her Suitors' sub-plot explained?
3) How did Petruccio compare to Richard Burton's legendary 1967 performance?
4) What did they do with Kate's controversial final speech?



1) How aggressive was The Shrew?

Awesomely aggressive. Pure old school violence! WWF style punches and kicks, Judo throws and bull whipping!  Raging screams, leaping around and real red faced physical aggression.  Samantha Spiro was an absolute firecracker and a joy to behold.

2) How well was the complicated 'Bianca and her Suitors' sub-plot explained?

There are certain things that directors can to to make this whole artistic tangle seem less complicated to newcomers (and oldcomers like me who keep forgetting who's who) but often they come at an artistic expense.  Director Toby Frow pulled no punches in revealing the whole of this sub-plot in its full complexity.  I think, however, that the strong cast, great staging combined with the famous enthusiasm of the Globe's crowd  made the play's high energy vibe strong enough to support this decision.

What I'm trying to say it that it didn't really matter if you forgot which suitor was dressed as a music teacher,  which suitor was dressed as Batman and which suitor was actually Lord Lucan because the play was so funny, fast moving and visually awesome that one could just forget about the intricacies, sit back and enjoy the spectacle.

Fact: Richard Burton
WAS Petruccio

3) How does Petruccio compare to Richard Burton's legendary 1967 performance?

The reason for this question is simple. Richard Burton didn't just play Petruccio in Franco Zeffirelli's brilliant movie adaptation of Shrew... he became Petruccio.  Watching his performance was literally watching Petruccio brought to life especially for the movie.

If the expression 'benchmark performance' was to be used but once in human history, it would be to describe Richard Burton as that lovable rogue, well known throughout all Italy.

So how did Simon Paisley Day compare?  The short answer is: very well indeed.  He looked the part (whoever's decision it was to give him that awesome Hulk Hogan beard deserves to be shaken by the hand) his stature, his mannerisms and his gruff booming voice suited the part perfectly.  He was slightly more hard edged and explosive and than Burton's Petruccio and there was something about him that was slightly Edwardian (no bad thing!).

In conclusion, Burton still holds the trophy but Day (Paisley Day?) was a great, memorable and multi-layered Petruccio whom I would love to see again before the run ends.


4) What did they do with Kate's controversial final speech?

As I suspected, Samantha Spiro played it straight.  But she played it with such genuine emotion that it was a spectacle to behold.  Infact, I have not heard such a moving piece of recitation in the Wooden O since Rakatá's brilliant Henry VIII (I must type up my review of that someday).


Then with impeccable comic timing, Simon Paisley Day's Petruccio punctuated her delivery by growling "Why, there's a wench!" and thus (for me, at least) killed the air of seriousness stone dead and restored the plays ludicrous energies.

In conclusion, this was an incredible performance which combined bold physical comedy, genuine intelligent dialogue-with-the-text, strong performances, a sumptuous Renaissance set and brilliant flashes of postmodernism which helped the play break free from The Globe's "lets-pretend-it's-400-years-ago" policy.

James's Quick Facts

Best thing about the play?

The fact that it restored my faith in The Globe.

Worst thing about the play?

I guess I was kinda hoping that Christopher Sly would be brought back in the end in a dumb show but alas it was not to be.

Other things worthy of note.

This was the 4th time I've seen somebody pissing on stage at The Globe!

A Midsummer Night’s Dream at Coram's Fields Review

I turned up at the leafy (and just a little muddy) glade in Central London last night in a less than positive frame of mind.

I was tired, stressed about work, my allergies were playing up, I had forgotten to pack any food and what's more I REALLY needed to go to the Gents.

Fortunately there was a Gents by the entrance.

As I seated myself on one of the wooden park benches placed as seating around the staging area, I noticed that a lady behind me was scratching loudly on a notepad with a pencil... I also noticed that the glade was starting to swarm with gnats.

I popped an anti-histamine which got stuck in my throat, releasing foul flavours and sensations into the whole of my mouth and respiratory tract. 

The play was going to have to be pretty damn good if it was going to make me smile.. and fortunately it was..

The theme was a strange mixture which is hard to describe...  Puck and the fairies were dressed like crasher kids while Lysander and Demetrius were dressed like members of the The Beatles (circa the early days when The Fab Four still wore sharp suits and winklepickers) and the hapless workmen were dressed according to their professions. It was a bit all-over-the-place but I think that was the idea... after all, Midsummer is a summer romp and the perfect opportunity for a creativity explosion.

...and that's exactly what this production was: a huge fat exploding multi-coloured mud pie of creativity.

Right from the start, various characters would periodically and without warning launch themselves into the singing of Beatles songs, often combining four or five Beatles songs or adapting them to humorous effect (Oooh, Bottom was a weaver in the market place!).

Most of the play was completely and gloriously over-acted but Principal Theatre's Nick Bottom was an over-acting tour de force.  It was almost as though he was playing Nick Bottom, as played by Nick Bottom.. thereby creating a kind-of meta-Bottom experience.

My gold medal for most outstanding performance, however, must be jointly awarded to Hermia and Helena who not only stabilized the ship by giving well-rounded and three-dimensional performances but brought refreshing interpretations to their roles .

Oh, sorry, I don't know the actors' names because I was too stingy to buy  a programme - I don't have that much money and I'd rather spend what I do have on more tickets than programmes, okay!

Best thing about the play?

The fact that it felt like it had been written yesterday.  This is how, I think, Shakespeare should feel. Fresh and vibrant...

Worst thing about the play?

The gnats!!

Other things worthy of note.

I love the way that The Principal Theatre Company exploited the ghost-link between the Athenian royal couple (Theseus & Hippolyta) and the Fairyland royal couple (Oberon & Titania) by actually making the fairy couple a pair of strange and dreamlike alter-egos of the Athenian couple, with the transformation brought about by the will of Puck and her fairies (thus making Puck the puppet master of the play - how cool is that?).

I guess that some purists might have found the constant singing of Fab Four hits as well as the many comedy additions to the play's text irritating... but not me, it was what it was designed to be... an over the top, Punch and Judy-style romp!

A Midsummer Night's Dream at Coram's Fields is running until 4/8/2012

Henry V at Shakespeare's Globe Review

Did I mention that I don't like heritage productions?  I hate lutes and trumpets, I hate doublets and I hate the idea of cramming my beloved Sheakespeare plays into a gimmicky olde worlde straightjacket.

That said, I do love The Globe.  Their Globe to Globe festival was one of the highlights of my whole life... so I shall continue to take it seriously and not just write the theatre off as simply being a kitsch tourist trap... yet.

Anyway... Time to stop complaining about The Globe and start complaining about Henry V @ The Globe...

God, I hated this production.  I mean REALLY HATED THIS PRODUCTION.

To be fair, it must be said that if I hadn't seen two brilliant renditions of the same play within twice two months then I probably would have at least found the resolve to stay to the end.  As it was, I had to flee the theatre half way through the second abominable act.

What was so bad about this play?  Quite simply it was DRY. Not just beef jerky dry, not just Walkers Crisps dry but drier that an oven-baked bucket of sand sprinkled into a sea of silica gel.  With the exception of the irritating tennis racket noises that Jamie Parker (Henry) insisted on making after receiving the period Elizabethan style tennis balls (bleh!) this was essentially a secondary school read-through, devoid of any kind of creative spark, any kind of freshness or any kind of dialogue with the text.

For me, the play had only one exciting moment (and I use the word exciting in the 'broadest way imarginable') and that was when two wooden pendulums dropped from the upper gallows to release smoke... A naff and boring special effect but at least it was a happening of sorts.

Best thing about the play?

I already mentioned the smoke pendulums.  I suppose the second best moment was the Princess Catherine English lesson... but even that was intolerably dull compared to Propeller's brilliant bathtub scene or Theatre Delicatessen's excellent 'English lesson in a helicopter'.

Worst thing about the play?

Brendan O’Hea’s Fluellen was played not as a tough, noble warrior (as per Propeller and Theatre Delicatessen) but as a slightly distasteful 'stupid taffy' - the sort of portrayal which I think should have been abandoned long ago.

Other things worthy of note.

Whilst this production was about as enjoyable as eating dried vomit, I would still rate it higher then the Tim Carroll/Mark Rylance affront to humanity known as Richard III.

The reason is a fickle and flighty... it is purely because I like and respect director Dominic Dromgoole.  He brought the world Globe to Globe - which I consider to be probably the greatest arts event since the Renascence  (this is not a joke, I'm being serious) and secondly his speech before HaBima's Merchant of Venice was one of the most dignified and measured things I have ever heard come from anyone on a stage.

As for Mark Rylance, well I hate him for he made a Richard III into a shambolic fool but I hate him more for that he is an anti-Stratfordian.

Henry V is running at  The Globe until 26/8/2011

  

Richard III at Shakespeare's Globe Review

Sooo... What can I say about this latest Globe production of Dick 3?  I went in dreading a dull, watered down, paint-by-numbers heritage production - the type that the presumptuously titled Shakespeare's Globe are wont to put on - what I got was... well... a dull, watered down, paint-by-numbers heritage production.

Was this a self-fulfilling prophecy?  Are Globe heritage productions simply antithetical to my personality?

Richard III                                    Doc Brown   

Mark Rylance's portrayal of Richard as a wild-eyed and slightly zany old man seemed to strike a strong chord with the audience who I can only assume mistook him for Doc Brown from Back to the Future.  He injected comedy into almost every line of every scene which (to my complete bafflement and mild irritation) provoked endless roars of laughter from the enthusiastic crowd.

This would have been cool...

The accent and mannerisms Rylance chose for the part reminded me of Foggy from Last of the Summer Wine mixed with Monty Python's Gumby.  I half expected Richard, Buckingham and Catesby to roll on stage in a motorized bathtub, wearing flat caps and followed by an irate Nora Batty... oh wait... that would have actually made this baboon's bottom of a play GOOD.

What bugged me most about Rylance's Richard, apart from the fact that Rylance had stripped the character of every interesting feature, was the fact that Richard - a man who is supposed to be a scheming, Machiavellian warrior king - appeared to me about as scheming, threatening and warlike as Father Christmas at a peace rally.  At no point did I find him scary, at no point did he thrill me with his evil ways... he just tottered around the stage bobbling his head and adapting line after line for primary school comic effect.

 Director Tim Carroll tried to invest some high concept into the final battle scene by bringing on the ghosts of Richard's victims and having them aid Richmond in combat... but this was about as invigorating as squirting chocolate sauce on two week old ravioli.  Normally I choke up and have to fight  back the tears at Richard's demise but this time I was just happy to see him gone.  I was tempted to risk a one man stage invasion just so as I could jig on his grave as a final good-riddance... but any plans I might have had were thwarted when the entire ensemble piled on stage for a nauseating and presumably Elizabethan-style adaptation of Riverdance.

I wonder just how far the Globe is willing to go in its attempt to be an Elizabethan experience. I suspect that before long, the people in the box office will be wearing tunics and ruffs and interlacing their sentences with words such as prithee and forsooth.   The Globe is feeling less like a playhouse and more like The Black Country Museum and my beloved Shakespeare plays are, one by one, being stripped of their essential spark, packaged in period attire for the sake of American tourists, students with notepads and Daily Mail readers who think we should get back to good old Elizabethan family values.

On a final note, I was happy to recognize Roger Lloyd Pack (Trigger from Only Fools and Horses) who played Buckingham.  In keeping with the rest of the production, his performance was dull, lifeless and about as stimulating as a microwaved potato sandwich with a side dish of overcooked spinach.  I wanted to shout out "lovely jubly!" when he died (not a moment too soon) but missed my moment and can now only muse about how awesome that would have been.

James's Quick Facts

Best thing about the play?

The cafe latte that I drank during the first half.

Worst thing about the play?

Trying to pick a single worst aspect of this play is like sorting through a barrel of oranges and trying to decide which is the most orange.  I think the low point, for me, was the ghost/dream scene.  This is a hard scene to get right during the best of times so during the worst of times (and watching this play was one of the worst times of my life) this scene can stink like an old-time lime kiln.

Richard sat sleeping on an Elizabethan chair with his head tipped back as the actors whom he had murdered shouted down at him from the balcony  it was visually, dull, audibly bland and excruciatingly long. After the haunting/dream Richard fell to the floor in a manner so bathetic and overacted that it made me wince.

Other things worthy of note.
Johnny Flynn (Lady Anne) was for me noteworthy because I couldn't tell if he was reading his lines from a children's storybook or if this was some kind of heritage acting method.

Richard's little tiny hand was interesting for about 30 seconds while I was trying to decide whether it was some kind of hyper-realistic and gruesome representation of Richard's deformity or just a bad taste visual gag. In the end, I decided that it was simply a naff prop in a naff show.

Richard III is playing at The Globe until 13/10/12

Othello at Brockwell Park Review

Wow!  Just wow!  That ending was a real slap in the face.  Every time I see Othello, I hope that this time things will turn out differently, but so far I have been unlucky.

I always hope Othello will come to his senses just in the nick of time... make up with Desdemona and kick Iago's sorry ass.  I have a similar thing with Macbeth, I always hope that Macbeth will stare at the daggers in his hand and ask himself "what the hell am I doing!? F*ck this for a game of welly wangling! I'm going back to bed!" Again, I have so far been unlucky.


This production didn't pull any punches.  The minimalist nature of the stage combined with muscular acting made this a stark and powerful show.  The Faction Theatre Group used very few props (Desdemona's bed was represented by a canvas sheet) and the play's violence was represented by the players soaking each other in water from army canteens.

Great solid high intensity production.  We also got to bring our dog!

Othello is running throughout the summer at Brockwell Park, South London

Merry Wives of Winsor in Swahili at Shakespeare's Globe

Whilst I admit that some of the gags where lost on me as a non Swahili speaker, the brilliant thing about the Bitter Pill & Theatre Company Kenya's Merry Wives is the fact that it felt so true to the jolly roguish spirit of the fat knight John Falstaff (seen in this production wearing a loud orange shirt, yellow tie and purple trousers).

James's  Quick Facts
 
Best thing about the Play

Falstaff running away from Ford in slow motion to the theme of 'Chariots of Fire'.

Worst thing about the Play

The British weather!

Other things worthy of note.

Falstaff broke through the fourth wall at the end and 'picked up a chick' from the audience!  Awesome! 

Troilus and Cressida in Maori at Shakespeare's Globe

Troilus and Cressida in Maori is probably one of the pinnacles of human collaborative achievement.

This is a play, written 400 years ago in England by William Shakespeare, based on a poem written by Chaucer 200 years prior- based on events recorded about in Greece 3000 years ago which had transpired about 1000 years before that performed by a company based 10000 miles away who overlayed the story with their own rich history, again dating back thousands of years.


It was a rare moment indeed and I felt privileged to witness such an event.  Of course all of these statistics would have been meaningless if the play had been crap... but it wasn't.  In fact, it was ABSOLUTELY FUCKING AMAZING.


From the moment the warriors entered the stage I felt electricity.  Warriors from days of old brandished fearsome weapons, negotiations with great chieftains were made, hearts were broken and diabolical war ran amok within the wooden O.


I almost felt the warrior ghosts of ancient Greece move amongst the crowd, summoned by the cries of war and betrayal as the play unfolded.  Revealing its secrets like an ancient sage.


Personally, I think the star of the show was Aikiri /Achilles(Matu Ngaropo).  A warrior of immense power who COMPLETELY FLEW OFF THE HANDLE when his beloved Patokihi/Patroclus (Rangi Rangitukunoa) turned up dead.  At that point, the play's ancient energies became a whirlwind, warping reality and twisting the natural order of all things.

This shit was nothing short of epic.