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 |
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!
No comments:
Post a Comment