What I look for:
A sense of the overall comic or tragic arc of the production: are we moved by the tragic loss of greatness or convinced by the happy ending??
Coherent paragraphs rather than a list of features.
Telling detail that make a production work: “Actress Samantha Spiro is a prime example of an actress letting the character take over her personality. As Lady Macbeth, Spiro was able to simply tie up her dress in the role of the beloved wife and hostess while she was also able to zip up a pair of pants, thus having the true power in the marriage of the Macbeths. Spiro was able to capture the power and authority that Lady Macbeth had over Macbeth. She was visibly a catalyst in the triumph and downfall of Macbeth. Through her intense emotions of love and care, the audience was able to tell that she was worried about Macbeth when he was seeing ghosts, and we also knew she had literally gone insane with constantly washing of her hands. Spiro was absolutely a great actress and really gave her part to the play.” (2013 review)
On the groundling role: Usually standing in the same spot for 3 hours is not anyone’s idea of a fun time, but after watching the cast of Shakespeare’s Globe Theater act out The Tempest any audience member would argue that standing for 3 hours while watching The Tempest is worth the aches and pains in your legs. While standing in the audience you experience the personalities of the characters and the actions being performed. You see the expressions clearer and get first hand interactions with the performers. Even with small negative details, a performance so up close and personal is truly a performance worth experiencing. (2013 review)
More: Being a groundling during this performance of The Tempest completely changed the experience of seeing a play for me. We were so close – putting our elbows on the stage – it felt as though we were part of the action and, at times, we were. Having groundlings gave the actors “extras” to play with and interact with to make the play more engaging. Watching a play is one thing, but being interacted with and brought into the play throws it into a whole other category of entertainment.
Not only did actors walk among us at certain points, but they interacted with us lowly groundlings as well. Specifically, Caliban (James Garnon) always was sure to make faces or burp directly at a groundling. Personally, I was drenched with water – wine – by the clown Trinculo (Trevor Fox) when he was drunkenly stumbling around the stage. Not that I liked being drenched, but it was very engaging how the actors entertained the groundlings. One interaction that I loved was when Caliban took a program from a groundling and brought it on stage where he shared it with some of the other characters. Improvisations like that really made the play for me. (2013 review)
A 2015 review of Hamlet:
Hamlet Fails to Meet Expectations
Let me begin by saying that I had extremely high expectations for this show. Since the production was announced with Benedict Cumberbatch in the lead role, it was the talk of the town. Unfortunately, it was not worth the hype. Cumberbatch and his counterpart in villain Claudius (Ciarán Hinds) were both clear standout performances. If not for them, I am not sure I could have made it through the show. Do not get me wrong, I was tremendously grateful we managed to get into the hottest play ticket in London. However, without Hinds or Cumberbatch as talented star power, it would have been a generally lackluster production.
In terms of things with which I did not have issues, I should obviously begin with the set. I loved the elegance of Elsinore that set designer Es Devlin put together. When the lights went up and the set was visible for the first time, I was not alone in gasping aloud. The simple tones of blue were complemented with beautiful furniture that combined to immerse me in the show from the beginning. I cannot imagine how high the set budget must have been, but they did a lovely job.
The performances by the two male leads were also quite well done, as previously stated. There is no doubt that Hamlet’s monologues are some of the most famous in Shakespeare’s canon, and Cumberbatch did not disappoint. His “to be or not to be” speech felt sincere and was refreshingly stripped down compared to the extravagance in the rest of the production. My only issue with him was that he was cast at all. Like in so many Hamlets, the lead actor seemed too old to be a believable college student by any means. Director Lyndsey Turner attempted to remedy this problem by forcing him to act as childish as possible during his bouts of insanity. He was made to put on a soldier’s outfit and march through the castle. Unfortunately, this felt like just another extravagant choice intended to distract from the lack of substance beneath it.
Claudius was well-cast with Hinds, who played him as clearly evil. I was already a fan of his previous work, but I believe he gave an objectively good performance here. As much as I enjoyed him, I wish he had gone even further in his tyranny. Although his relationship with his late brother’s wife is supposed to be so visibly passionate and happy that it makes Hamlet uncomfortable and angry, there were no more than fleeting glances and touches between Hinds and Gertrude (Anastasia Hille). I want to buy the love between them that supposedly causes Claudius to murder his own brother, but this was yet another disappointing aspect of the show.
Ophelia (Siân Brooke) is not normally my favorite character, but Brooke did a good job of convincing me that she might not be so bad. She is just a pawn in her father’s political plans who cannot act freely. Brooke acted well and demonstrated a profound devotion to and love for Hamlet that felt truly sincere. As terrible as it sounds, I enjoyed watching her descent into madness caused by her father’s death. I believed in her insanity. Her final scene with Hille was chilling as she plays the piano and sings in the midst of the destroyed castle. However, I did not understand Turner’s decision to make her an amateur photographer. It could have been an interesting statement, but it fell flat in the end.
Another odd choice was the entire staging for the second half of the show. The second act sees the stage covered in dirt and bones as an overly literal representation of Elsinore’s decay at the hands of evil Claudius. At the end of the first act, Claudius raises his arms and sets off cannons of dirt and debris. It is a powerful statement, but it lacked any nuance. Turner’s decisions for this production felt like she doubted the audience’s intelligence and ability to come to their own conclusions. If we cannot tell that Claudius is evil by his actions alone, we are shown him somehow manipulating nature to literally ruin Hamlet’s childhood home.
Overall, the production is worth seeing for the strong performance from Cumberbatch. He is truly the highlight of this production, and without him, it would definitely not be as successful or perhaps even watchable. What could have been a unique avant-garde production turned into a mess that could not decide what it wanted to be.
Rating: 2½ stars out of 5
A 2013 review of a great Hamlet:
I would give the production of Hamlet 4 out of 5 stars. I felt that the show was very compelling and I thought Jonathan Slinger (Hamlet) did an excellent job in the role. I really enjoyed his portrayal of Hamlet and David Farr’s (director) choice in the overall use of the stage. I did have an issue with the lighting, fencing theme and the final scene of the show.
Jonathan Slinger was a very good Hamlet. I did question at first if he was too old for the role seeing that Hamlet is most often portrayed as a younger fellow, but I do not believe that the age was actually a factor in this show. Hamlet is a tragedy and Slinger’s representation of Hamlet helped with the overall feeling that the play was a tragedy.
I believe that Slinger portrayed Hamlet as one who was falling apart. This was partially evident through the clothing. At the beginning, Slinger was in a suit and glasses which made him look very put together. As the play went on, he would lose his tie, buttons would become un-done and he started looking disheveled. Slinger then spent most of the rest of the show in a strait jacket like outfit. This really played up that fact that Hamlet was falling apart with everything that is going on around him.
Another thing that David Farr’s Hamlet did well was their use of the stage. Having seen All’s Well That Ends Well the night before where the stage usage was very little, it was nice to see Hamlet use the whole back portion of the stage also. I also thought it was excellent that there was a roof to close off the space and really give a true space. Though I questioned the dirt and the removal of the floor to expose more dirt, I think it both added and took away from the show. It added another level when they buried Pippa Nixon (Ophelia), but the way that they had the soldiers carried the floor boards off the stage to reveal the dirt took away from what else was going on.
I did not like the lighting. I felt that there were a lot of times that the florescent light was too abrasive. It did not seem natural. Yet I can understand why they chose to use a mixture of the florescent and warm lighting to help with the differentiation of Hamlet and his mood swings of crazy.
Another issue I had with the show was the blocking of the actors. I felt that they spent a lot of time facing the back wall. This became an issue because from where I was sitting, there were a lot of dropped words and lines that I missed. While I understand the difficulties of blocking a show on a stage like that one, I think that there also needs to be some sort of thought into what the audience can and cannot hear.
Lastly, I questioned the use of the sprinklers at the end of the show. At first glance it seemed normal. There was an army coming to burn down the castle, and when the fire began the sprinklers went off. When I thought about it more, I wondered if it was a metaphor. Throughout the show many of the cast members would pray and ask for forgiveness of their sins. At the end, most of these same cast members were dead. The water seemed like a metaphor for the cleansing of these sins. I was able to talk to the actors at the Dirty Duck that night to ask what they were really thinking. I was told that the director, David Farr, decided to use them because they were being used for As You Like It and he figured that they might utilize them at a different time, but the actors told me that they liked my idea much better.
Overall, this was a very good performance. Hamlet is a play that I had seen done many times and in many different ways, but this was my favorite performance. It kept the audience riveted the entire time and you wanted to see what Slinger was going to do next and then what Nixon was going to do. Their portrayals of these characters losing it all and going insane was done flawlessly and I couldn’t keep my eyes off them. Tragedy’s aren’t always the favorite plays for people, but this one was very good.
08/16/08
Review for A Midsummer Night’s Dream
If I could sum this play up in two words it would be smashing success! From my vantage point, I could almost reach out and touch the actors’ legs, and see the spit flying out of their mouths. Standing so close to this performance really engulfed me in the play and enhanced my experience. I could not have asked for a better rendition of Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream, with the fabulous all-around acting, creative costuming and set-design, and the uproariously funny comedy.
Every single action and movement in the play seemed so well thought-out, I was thoroughly entertained the entire time. Each transition went completely smoothly and the acting was flawless. Each character played their part fabulously almost as if they were made for those roles. Bottom was probably my favorite character. The way he spoke either as the donkey or as the man was hilarious. All of his actions were so comical. It was amusing when he mixed up certain words, for example, he said deflowered once when he meant to say devoured. I especially liked his scene towards the beginning when he kept trying to get the other townspeople’s roles of the maiden and the lion in their mini play by acting them out, showing he can do them the best. I also found the role of Helena humorous. She always had funny expressions on her face and had amusing reactions to certain situations.
The fairies were also high up on my list of favorites. They not only acted and danced well; they also had really neat costuming. They had a mystical and mischievous air about them that was very intriguing. My front of the stage spot proved even more beneficial when the fairies slid right at us and looked us straight in the eye. I could see each intricate detail of their extensive make-up jobs from feet away. Not only were they covered in glitter, but each of them was also perfumed. The bright costumes really helped add to the creepiness of the fairies and made a great contrast to the costumes of the other characters, which were more deep or natural colors.
I also found it neat that the director used the same actors for the king and queen in Fairyland as the king and queen in real life in the play. He made an interesting point to make the two characters of higher authority in both lands parallels to each other. The little things he thought to do to make this performance of A Midsummer Night’s Dream memorable were genius. The only flaw I can even see in the performance is that in the very end when all characters were dancing, I would have liked to have seen each couple dancing together, and not separate with another member of the cast. If that would have been done, I would have been able to get even more closure on the couples. Although they did do great jobs with making the pairings and their love for each other seem believable, seeing them together at the very end would have topped it off.
Although romance and a happy ending add a very nice touch, the play wouldn’t be what it is without its comedy factor. This performance had the perfect amount of comedy: not too much and not too little. I loved every minute of it, and no matter what was happening at the time, heartbreak or romance, there was always something funny thrown in which I loved. My favorite scene of all time was the very end during the play the townspeople put on for the three couples. I laughed so hard while Bottom’s character killed himself that I cried.
The constant comedy, exceptional acting, and remarkable costuming made this my favorite play that I will probably see the entire trip. I’m going to have to say I even enjoyed it more than the Broadway performance of Lion King that I saw tonight. The director was brilliant and the outcome never ceased to amaze me. I give this performance of A Midsummer Night’s Dream a perfect ten out of ten and would see it again in a heartbeat.
September 11, 2008
Review of Hamlet
The RLC’s performance of Hamlet was impressive. The play was successful in moving me. From start to finish (with a few exceptions) I was captivated with the action on stage. I was slightly skeptical in seeing a modern version of Hamlet, because sometimes these things can go terribly wrong. My seat in the theatre was ideal for noticing small details that I would not have noticed from “the cheap seats in the back”.
David Tennant’s performance as Hamlet was spectacular. By his second scene I could already tell that he was playing Hamlet from the angle of pulling the character throughout the progression of the play. His first actions were erratic and unplanned. I did not see him as “acting” mad. The character was mad with anger and grief. He was acting like a man with nothing left to lose. He didn’t care what people thought of him. As the plot progressed, it was clear that Hamlet’s actions were becoming more planned and precise. His actions became more controlled after the scene when he killed Polonius (Oliver Ford Davies). By the final scene, Hamlet seems to have his actions thoroughly planned out, but he never gets to execute them. This contributes to the tragic outcome of the play because as Hamlet gets what he wants, he loses everything at the same time, including himself. I also felt that all the soliloquies were believable. I could feel his struggles with moral questions. His costume also reflected his madness (as well as other characters). Clothes (such as shoes) were either on or off to reflect the madness.
Laertes (Edward Bennett) was well done. This man was so collected at the beginning and after his sister and father died, he began to fall apart. This contributed to another tragic aspect of the play. Everyone is brought down by Hamlet’s struggle. Laertes and his family became tangled in the mess. Laertes reminded me of someone who has never known tragedy in his life and suddenly has to deal with it like an adult.
A technical aspect of the play that I enjoyed was the lighting (by Tim Mitchell). It caught my attention from the beginning, when the only light came from the flashlights and their reflections. The chandeliers were beautiful and also the candles. The lighting contributes to the play because it calls attention to the actions on stage. It helps remind the audience that a play is a work of art and this is just one of endless variations of the art.
There were several aspects in which I was less impressed. Ophelia (Mariah Gale) was my least favorite aspect of the play. Her acting in the first half was sub par. I did not believe her; the acting was weak. Her body language seemed forced, especially when she was saying goodbye to Laertes. It did not look natural at all when she was sitting, leaning against the suitcase. She seemed stiff.
I also did not like how props were used. Sometimes I felt overwhelmed (such as in Gertrude’s bedroom) and other times I felt like they could have added more, such as in the first scene. If I would have used the first scene as a guide for how props were to be used throughout the play, I would have said props use was going to be minimal. I was surprised however. The budget for the performance was too big—they could do whatever they wanted and sometimes it went too far.
Oliver Ford Davies’ performance as Polonius was disappointing. I do not feel like the character was taken seriously enough. The comic relief was unnecessary. The character of Polonius should be a respected advisor to the king and queen, not a crazy old man. In addition, I was disappointed with Patrick Stewart’s performance as Claudius. He could have put a lot more into his role. He seemed like he was just “there” and not fully present on stage as his character.
My one complaint with the blocking is that many times there were actors completely downstage on the left and right sides, while the main action was center stage. On such a large stage, their position looked unnatural and detached from the focal point. I did like the use of the different entrances and exits.
Overall, I find that this production’s strengths far outweigh its weaknesses. The strength of David Tennant’s performance as Hamlet is definitely a key element. The final scene shows Hamlet as finally getting what he wants, only to loose his mother, friends, and himself in the process. He does not lose himself in the final bloodbath; he just seems to have nothing left to live for. His life had been consumed by revenge and when it had been granted, his life was over also. The final scene at the Courtyard Theatre embodied this notion. The play was even able to end on a hopeful note as Fortinbras steps onto stage with light behind him.
8/21/08
The Taming of the Shrew
William Shakespeare
Unlike many I enjoyed The Taming of the Shrew. I did not always agree with all of the interpretations of the director, like costuming and all of the sexual innuendos .But I did find the comedy within and thus the tragedy within the comedy.
The beginning was a little strange. It grabbed your attention but that was about it. It reminded me of a dance performed by men crashing a bachelorette party in the recent Mamma Mia movie. The only way I could relate this dance to the rest of the play was the giant chested blow-up doll being tossed around held the resemblance of Bianca. This clearly starts us off with the distasteful, overly done sexual humor the director has guided the play with. Not only was this dance inappropriate with the blow-up doll but all the hip gyration and the use of a stripper is only the beginning of sexuality being overused. The only part of this dance that I did like was the absence of women, besides the stripper, it showed the theme of women not having a choice but to serve their men and how they are to appear only in the background.
The fighting scenes between Petruchio, Steven Boxer, and most of the other characters of the play were comically funny. They were very poorly choreographed, making the fight seem very fake, yet not fake enough to show actual humor. They simply made them look low budget. Other than this the actors did a great job. Sean Kearns was fabulous as Hortensio. He never stopped acting. His eyes were even acting and relayed many comical aspects to the play. Where some actors “die” between lines many of The Taming of the Shrew actors did not. Grumio, William Beck, was superb. I found myself watching him between his and everyone else’s lines. He made me feel that he was actually being ridden as a horse and beaten to pulp. The mere act of his biting his nails or nervously moving his eyes watching for the next wallop to come from Petruchio was enough to captivate my attention. Now, only if Bianca, Amara Karan, and Katerina, Michelle Gomez, could’ve taken lessons from him. We could’ve gone without the fake puke, but that was a judgment call from the director not the actor himself.
In Katerina’s case, I thought Michelle Gomez did not completely click with her character. Firstly, her deep, husky voice made her sound older than the age portrayed by Shakespeare. For a person with poor eyesight this could very confusing. Secondly was the squawkiness of her screams. Who would have thought that with such a deep talking voice a crow squawk would come out as her scream? She reminded me of a bratty toddler rather than a stubborn feminist. Along these lines, Michelle was directed to be an arrogant, insufferable woman rather than the expected feminist. As a feminist it was hard to relate with her, how could a crowd of all sorts find it in them to sympathize with her? I, myself, wanted her to be shut up some how, at the beginning was found myself siding with Petruchio more than Katerina. This soon ended when he physically and emotionally abused her. I believe Petruchio was instructed to be meaner than what Shakespeare had in mind. With the severity of Petruchio’s behavior I found it difficult to believe that Katerina had found herself at the end and the she had found the happy-medium between her complete feministic attitude and respect for her husband.
The switching and co-mingling of Christopher Sly and Petruchio, both played by Stephen Boxer, was very confusing. I very much deterred me form fully enjoying he play due to wondering what exactly was going on. I thought I might have missed a part of a scene that happened in the one corner that I could not see or might have fallen asleep until I started hearing the same confused questions I had from the people sitting around me. The end when Katherina throws Christopher Sly’s clothes at his feet; was this just a cruel joke on Sly who thought he really was Petruchio or Katherina’s revenge to not just Petruchio but a male chauvinistic society? I could not find the meaning behind this act and will probably always wonder about it when I think back to this play.
All in all I did not hate this play. It was not my favorite and the Royal Shakespeare Company is not by far my favorite acting company. They have lots to work on and deffinately need to find a new director for this particular play.
September 11, 2008
Review of Taming of the Shrew
I have mixed feelings about the RLC’s production of The Taming of the Shrew. I will say that it was moved after the performance; it met its goal in that aspect. I believe the director was extremely successful in what he was attempting to do with this play: shed to light the realities and problems of a male-dominated society that thrives on de-humanizing women. The problem I have is: can a play that was originally meant to be a comedy work at all on that level? The director, Conall Morrison, created a tragic play out of a comedic one. The result was quite disturbing. At times it was unclear whether I should laugh or cry. I felt the audience around me with those same confused feelings about what the play was trying to evoke.
First, I found the technical aspects of the play to be in order such as blocking, acting, props, and effects. The play exceeded my expectations in that regard. The blocking was excellent; from my seat (on the second level), the play felt like a lively chess match. Space was used brilliantly by Kate (Michelle Gomez) and Petruchio (Stephen Boxer). Each of their personalities were shown from the beginning by their movements and exchange of energy with one-another. As Kate became more dominated, she moved less. When she did move, her movements were not lively, they were depressed as she succumbed slowly to Petruchio. This aspect really caught my attention and made Kate’s character feel tragic in this aspect; she was losing part of herself. By the final scene of the play, Kate seems to barely have the energy to lift her own head. Each and every movement sucks the life out of her.
The acting was superb. I believed all the roles. I was completely revolted by Petruchio, which was necessary component in order for the play to make its point. The audience must find nothing to sympathize with in Petruchio. However, if we do not identify with a character, how will the audience ever “get something” out of a play? This flaw occurs because the play was written as a comedy. How does a character with no depth suddenly receive depth? The same is true for Kate. If there was nothing to desire of her character from the beginning, how can we sympathize and identify with her? I feel that the answer lies in the fact that her humanity is visible. Kate obviously desires love, but it from her father (David Hargreaves) or Petruchio, who only desires power. As terrible (or bitchy) as Kate acts, I can still forgive the character because no one deserves to be treated so poorly. I especially enjoyed Michelle Gomez’s performance because of her sharp facial features and deep voice.
The other characters’ acting was adequate. Bianca (Amara Karan) did not do anything special. The three suitors, Hortencio (Sean Kearns), Gremio (Peter Shorey), and Lucentio (Patrick Moy) all blend together in my mind. They all seem to be the comic relief—such as clowns or mechanicals.
One aspect that is important in performance is setting and time and the director close to alternate between the past and modern times. In my opinion, it was an appropriate choice. By the end of the play, everything had merged: Sly, widow, setting, and time. It was interesting how everything became one and it made me think more than I would have if he play had stayed all in some distant era.
I was also dissatisfied with the use of sex in the performance. Sometimes it was used to enhance humor (such as in relation to Bianca), and other times it was used grotesquely (such as in the final scene where Petruchio rapes Kate). Other examples fall right in between, such as Petruchio grabbing himself. How do I know whether to laugh or cringe?
After discussing the many aspects of this performance, I have come to a conclusion about whether the play was successful for me as an audience member. I will say, “no.” I came to the Courtyard Theatre expecting a comedy. I hesitate to say that maybe The Taming of the Shrew made me think too much, but it might be the case. This play destroyed identities (like a tragedy) instead of establishing ones (like in a comedy).
King Lear
The performance I saw of King Lear at Shakespeare’s Globe Theater in London, England was memorable because it was the production’s final performance. The acting was excellent and the cast seemed to exude extra zeal for their last show. David Calder, who played Lear, was exceptionally strong and believable. I enjoyed this play because even though I don’t like King Lear, the cast and director Dominic Dromgoole put on a phenomenal performance that brought out the best in William Shakespeare’s tragedy.
King Lear was the strongest character in the play, which was appropriate as he was the central figure. Calder made Lear believable because he was strong in the beginning during the opening scenes with his daughters instead of portraying his character as weak or senile. His original strength made his downward spiral into insanity dramatic and genuine. The scene where Lear realized that he was going mad and ran offstage in distress with the fool was especially striking. Calder portrayed Lear’s insanity in such a way that I felt sympathy for him, yet I still respected Lear since he began as such a strong figure. This was especially true in the final, tragic sequence with Lear and his dead daughter Cordelia, played by Jodie McNee. Although Cordelia herself was somewhat bland as a character, it was heartbreaking to see Lear’s grief over her death. The tragedy of Lear’s ruined life is extremely evident. Another actor might have easily made him into a cartoonish and ludicrous joke instead of a representation of a man’s downfall.
There were a few scenes where Lear’s insanity was amusing, however. I appreciated those scenes since they provided some comic relief. For example, there was a humorous scene where Lear imitated Edgar, who was pretending to be insane. Then, he asked Edgar, who was played by Trystan Gravelle, if he had been abandoned by his daughters as well, as though this is the only logical reason for why someone would be wandering around in a storm. Another time, Gloucester, played by Joseph Mydall, asked Lear to borrow his handkerchief, and Lear said he could, but “I’ll need to wipe it off first.” The only complaint I had with the actor who played Lear was that he spoke rapidly and his words slurred together during his insane period. Although this is a realistic representation of an insane person, it was difficult to understand what he was saying. In general, I enjoyed Lear’s acting because I felt that he was genuine and realistic in his portrayal of a man’s demise.
As for the quality of the other characters’ acting, I found that none of the actors were truly outstanding. Reagan and Goneril, played by Kellie Bright and Sally Bretton respectively, were both somewhat irritating because they screamed a lot, and their husbands were forgettable. The fool, played by Danny Lee Wynter, was also simply annoying. In several scenes, he was frolicking around Lear and I could not understand what his purpose for being on stage was. However, despite this, most of the actors’ performances were enjoyable. Edgar, Edmund, and Gloucester all gave solid performances. I thought that Edgar and Edmund had nice chemistry; their fight was intense and well-choreographed. These actors were all decent, and I did not generally find fault with any of them mainly because Lear was so dominant onstage.
The only aspect of the play I had a real problem with was the set. It was a bit sparse and I would have liked to see more in that area. The set was noticeably bare during the storm scene especially. Shakespeare portrays this as a wild, tumultuous scene in the text, and it would have been helpful to see some storm effects onstage as a way to enhance the stormy mood. I know that plays set in Shakespeare’s day would not have had advanced technology to provide special effects, but I think there are other ways that the production could have provided some storm effects. For example, they might have used a fan of some type to create the appearance of wind and blue or black streamers to create the effect of rain. Without these additions, I was forced to imagine what the storm might have been like which distracted me from focusing on what was actually happening on stage.
Overall, King Lear was a phenomenal production, and David Calder led the cast with a powerful and real performance that was fitting for their final show. Shakespeare’s words were brought to life wonderfully, so that even someone like me who doesn’t enjoy the text of King Lear could appreciate the play’s power.
Review of Romeo and Juliet
This production of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet was interesting. Many factors made it unusual compared to other plays we saw during the course of the trip, but it was fun to switch things up.
The most notable difference for me was the costuming. Dressing everyone in various articles of white clothing with names written on them was an unconventional strategy, and I have mixed feelings about this decision. The costumes were a definite focal point, which I’m not sure is a good thing. The outfits did look crisp and clean, but I think in a drama like this, clothes are not and should not become a main focus for the audience. However, they did in a sense convey a sort of timelessness and absence of classes and stereotypes, because the costumes were of many different styles and time periods. Therefore, I appreciate the costuming, but did find it distracting from the play itself.
The complete lack of constructed sets was also unique. The room itself provided a backdrop with its dark carved wood, and for me that was enough. Actors would walk into the end of one scene in preparation for the beginning of the next, and when their new scene started, they were presumed to be in a different location than the previous scene. The production relied very heavily on imagination, but it worked because the actors and the dialogue were strong enough to stimulate the viewer’s imagination to create a set. Few props were employed, but each was necessary and became more important because of the fact that not many existed. For example, the ring Juliet asks her nurse to give Romeo stands out and becomes an even more significant token. Likewise, Juliet’s deathbed, pure white until her death is discovered, caught my attention and highlighted her tragedy.
The talent of the actors was hit-or-miss. Santiago Cabrera as Romeo and Max Bennett as Benvolio showed skill in making Shakespearean language seem modern through their tone and their actions. They didn’t try to sound like they were waxing eloquent in the language of Shakespeare’s time, but rather like they were living their lives in the present. This made the story more relatable.
Juliet Rylance, who played Juliet, was also able to lend a modern air to her part. Her voice conveyed her sorrow over her tragic situations. However, in some instances it seemed as though she was trying to hide her true feelings from both the audience and the characters, when the audience was already aware of her real thoughts. This just makes the audience confused. For example, when Juliet met the County Paris at the friar’s place, she truly seemed to enjoy his company, and was even flirting with him. This is fine, but she gave the audience no sign that she was actually just pretending. This threw me off, because I wanted to see, even as an aside glance shared with the audience, what I knew she was actually thinking: that she liked Romeo, not Paris. Instead, I thought maybe she really did kind of like Paris.
I was not thrilled with Ann Mitchell’s performance as the nurse. This is partly due to her attire, which was much too sophisticated and stylish for the dowdy, simple character I expected to see. Rather than a lighthearted and loving nurse, Mitchell’s character seemed more like a depressed, chain-smoking aunt of Juliet’s.
I had mixed feelings about Capulet, who was played by Martin Turner. I liked the way he handled the dance scene when Tybalt, played by Ifan Meredith, wanted to fight Romeo. Capulet seemed amiable enough, and his character seemed interesting. However, I was a bit startled at the very end when, after finding Juliet dead, he let out a loud moan and fell to the ground. This seemed unnatural and overdone.
The musical numbers in Romeo and Juliet were done quite well. I was impressed to hear the actors sing so harmoniously. Also notable was the dance scene at Juliet’s house, when the music starts off properly and then changes to fun and lively music with the entrance of Romeo and his clan. This was effective in showing the difference between the two houses and also foreshadowing the drawing together and driving apart of the houses throughout the play.
The tragedy in the play didn’t really work for me; I was not very sad in the end, despite the fact that many people died. Romeo had a hard time expressing any grief over the deaths of Mercutio and Juliet. His voice remained calm and he seemed to feel nothing. If he, as the good friend of one and the husband of another, did not feel the tragedy, I’m not convinced of it, either. Also, I didn’t see enough animosity between the heads of the two households throughout the play to make the reparations at the end very significant. I liked the blocking for that, as Capulet helped Montague stand, but I needed more from them before that time.
Overall, attending this play was a very positive experience. The setting for the production suggested that I was witnessing a time-honored tradition, which is true, and the interpretation was also compelling. This production of Romeo and Juliet was an excellent ending to the trip.
The Taming of the Shrew
The Taming of the Shrew did not impress me. I had high hopes for a play performed in Shakespeare’s hometown, and those hopes were not met. The main theme of this play, power, was taken to an extreme by the actors and the director, Conall Morrison, that I did not appreciate. Morrison and his actors cannot take all the blame, however. Plot devices used by William Shakespeare himself made the play lengthy and wearisome. I honestly found little enjoyment in any aspect of the play.
The actors were distracting and over-the-top. They seemed to take the themes Shakespeare emphasized in The Taming of the Shrew and blew them grossly out of proportion. For example, Michelle Gomez played Kate, the lead, as an immature, loud, and ridiculous character that was impossible to respect or even tolerate. She often ran across the stage shrieking and throwing things. She was unable to even normally converse with the other characters. What could have been depicted as a bold, strong, and assertive female lead was turned into a joke. I was disappointed with this portrayal because it detracted from Kate’s ultimate position as a powerful woman wrongfully tamed by an equally powerful man-a point Shakespeare seemed to be highlighting in the text.
Also, the physical comedy and interaction between the actors did nothing to enhance the themes or general plot of the play. In a comedic play, physical comedy is often important, but the physical antics of the characters were unneeded and not humorous whatsoever. A good example of this occurs when Tranio and Lucentio (played by Keir Charles and Parick Moy, respectively) jump about onstage and high five each other during a scheming session meant to bring Lucentio and Bianca together. For me, this physical activity did not enhance the scene; it only served to irritate me instead of provide comic relief. Another physical exchange occurred between Petruccio (played by Stephen Boxer) and Kate, who are meant to have a significant chemistry due to their strong personalities. Their intelligence and wit is highlighted in Shakespeare’s text through verbal sparring. However, in this play, I did not see a spark between the two lead actors. Instead of engaging in a sharp banter, they had an odd physical exchange which involved much slapping, hitting, kicking, and screaming. At one point, Petruccio pulled Kate’s skirt over her head. It made me feel as though I was watching a fight between two immature children instead of two intelligent adults. If the actors had any sort of chemistry, this physical violence might have succeeded, but in this play, it most certainly did not. It only seemed to make Petruccio’s power seem excessively strong and Kate’s bold nature seem nearly animalistic.
Morrison’s directing choices furthered the extravagant depictions of Shakespeare’s themes in this play. The strip club scene in the introduction emphasized the modern version of male power, but it was a bit too abstract and chaotic in its presentation for me to appreciate it as a representation of Shakespeare’s theme. Other choices in the play’s direction only served as distractions from the plot and its themes. Some were meant to make a modern-day comparison, such as the costumes transforming from traditional to modern throughout the play. Other choices seemed to have no logic behind them, such as the dance sequences and chaotic scene changes. The decision to play Stephen Boxer in the roles of both Christopher Sly the beggar and Petruccio, a fictional character in the play within the play, was a casting decision which confused me as an audience member. Many of these choices had neither rhyme nor reason behind them, in my opinion.
Despite many abstract and extreme presentations at a frenetic pace from the cast and director, the play was still a bit wearisome at times and only Shakespeare is to blame for that. In general, the play was too long and that was definitely apparent after three hours and twenty minutes. Shakespeare included too many bulky and time-consuming plot devices such as the many disguises by Hortensio, Tranio, and Lucentio (to name a few). Also, the entire plot line involving Lucentio, his fake father, and his real father seemed generally unnecessary.
After watching the play, I thought it should have been called The Raping of the Shrew instead of The Taming of the Shrew. Boxer presented Petruccio as such a cruel, domineering man who violently overpowered Kate that the name only seems appropriate. Shakespeare’s idea of male chauvinism was certainly taken to an extreme in this production. The cruelty and violence from Pertruccio and Kate’s resulting robotic manner were depressing and unsettling. I would have liked to see this theme presented in a less aggressive manner. I would not recommend this production to anyone expecting a more traditional take on Shakespeare’s play.
Review of The Taming of the Shrew
August 9, 2008
Going into the theater to see The Taming of the Shrew, I had few to no expectations. I was not very familiar with the play and, this being our first performance to attend, did not know what to expect of British theater and interpretations. I would now say that my lack of expectations was a blessing, as it enabled me to not feel overly disappointed with this director’s take on Shakespeare’s classic comedy. Although the play had some redeeming qualities, overall I felt that the director poorly interpreted Shakespeare’s story and distorted it into something it was never intended to be.
My greatest issue with the show may have been director Conall Morrison’s representation of Katherina, the elder daughter of Baptista Minola. While Michelle Gomez plays her role as Katherina flawlessly, the character herself is flawed. In my mind, Katherina is a woman who is stubborn in her passion for feminism. She should be immovable, but not out of selfishness or greed, but rather out of her strong will and belief in women’s self-sustainability. I feel that a true Katherina is feared or hated by men for her strength as an individual. Morrison’s Katherina shows none of these crucial characteristics. She is certainly feared and hated by men, but simply because she is prone to tantrums and has an inability to speak or think rationally. I could overlook her lack of feminine independence or pride if she stood for anything at all, but this Katherina never demonstrated any passion except for rage and inconsolability. Her transformation is simply from being manic to being robotic. She is an insult to all women in both the beginning and the end.
Due to Katherina’s irrationality, she, as well as other characters, lacks a depth necessary to draw the audience into the play and make them understand and feel connected to the characters they are witnessing. Because the play begins with a Katherina who does not speak except in screams, I never got to know her. Throughout the play she remained a sort of disconnected character with whom I did not sympathize or connect. I found Conall Morrison’s Petruchio played by Stephen Boxer to be more of the same. He had strong characteristics which Boxer depicted completely and convincingly, but I found myself unable to understand him because of these powerful traits. He was cruel to all, misogynistic, and self-righteous; nothing about him appealed to me. While characters do not have to be likable, they do have to seem real. Petruchio, however, was one-dimensional and predictable, which are perhaps the worst things a character in performance or literature can be.
A final annoyance was that all of this was done under the name of comedy, and it was not a comedy. Making changes to a script is fine and necessary (especially when working with literature as old and timeless as Shakespeare’s), but it should still at least fall under the same genre as the original. A director cannot change the entire motive of a production without it resulting in a sort of disconnect. I mentioned that I arrived at the theater with few expectations, but I could actually say that I arrived with one expectation: that the performance would be comical. However, the play not only failed to make laugh, but it left me feeling disheartened. In this way, Morrison’s production was an insult to Shakespeare’s The Taming of the Shrew. Overall I believe this show’s greatest flaw was twisting, distorting, and destroying Shakespeare’s masterful comedy by employing unnecessarily rigid characters who lack depth and bring gravity as opposed to lightheartedness.