Tuesday, 26 July 2011

Richard III ****


The final installment of one of Shakespeare’s tetralogies, following Henry VI Parts 1 -3, the play tells the story of the rise of Richard III and his immediate decline at Bosworth Field. It is a particularly striking story, marking the end of the Wars of the Roses and placing Richard in a particularly interesting position. Shakespeare gives us a character that is the classic anti-hero. Everything he does is malicious, selfish and Machiavellian, his behavior the exact opposite of the classical hero, yet he is the main character in the play, the focus, the lead. Shakespeare invested a lot of time into making this dynamic work, this being his longest play of all bar only Hamlet, which results in a character that is charming and seductive as well as bitter and evil. It is a delight to watch from beginning to end whether you are aware of the constantly referenced Henry VI plays or not.
      
The design of a Shakespeare play is always crucial. Mendes has opted for modern dress and has imitated the uniform of various dictatorships in our modern world, giving it that necessary modern feel. The design of the set was marvellous from start to finish. The greyness wasn’t overbearing and the doors that surrounded the stage gave enough options for the action to be constantly dynamic. When the stage opened back at the interval the shape changed and gave a feeling of unification and direction; that there was now only one way the action was going and it was surprisingly powerful.
      
There is a lot of technology involved in the show and, by and large, it was all very good indeed. The scene where Richard is offered the crown over a video link was both funny and disturbing, much like Richard himself. The titles splashed across the stage at each scene change helped give the show direction and I approved of them but there was a bit too much technology. The use of microphones and supplemented cheering from crowds was fantastic and really gave a sense of drama but this wasn’t the case for all innovations. The power of good old-fashioned drums was proven in this production; when there were only a few drums they felt powerful, when everyone was on stage with one and making a lot of noise it was truly imposing.
      
One of the famous Shakespearean roles, Richard III is taken easily in his stride by Kevin Spacey, clearly wanting to give a different take on the role to the successes of the past. His dictator is very panto in his characterization; the contraption that straps his leg together and his walk as a result of it are very Hunchback of Notre Dame and his mannerisms and swift flips between smiling façade and sinister plotting are sudden and comical – it is a very funny Richard that Spacey gives us – and the result is that you enjoy his time on stage, you enjoy him and his plans and even though you know he must be defeated and that it is good that he is defeated you do mourn his passing. Spacey’s Richard is enjoying his life, he is enjoying killing people left right and center, he is enjoying scheming and deceiving his friends and the people as if it were a glorified game to him. This makes him all the more human and watchable. Spacey never once makes a mistake, a wrong line, a faulty step or anything and his Richard is confident and assured as a result, making him as terrifying as he is pantomime.
      
There is not a weak link in the cast but there are too many of them to compliment name by name so I shall settle for picking out Chuck Iwuji as a special mention. Other than Spacey’s Richard, his Buckingham was the character that stood out the most and this was all due to Iwuji’s dauntless efforts. Whether scheming in a shady room or on the television asking Richard to be King of England he is confident and subtle, a perfect performance. You often see Shakespeare on stage and lose the meaning of the lines because the actors themselves aren’t entirely sure what they’re saying. Iwuji clearly understood every word and his brilliant delivery ensured that we did as well: a rival for Kevin Spacey as the leading member of the cast in my opinion.
      

There is the undeniable feel of Sam Mendes about this production, again proving in his Bridge Project with the Old Vic that American and English actors can mix and do Shakespeare well he is developing a new style of transatlantic theatre.
      
It was not, however, a perfect show (although this may now be classed as nitpicking). The decision to have the two young princes in the tower played by women made no sense at all. There was no need for it and it only served to break the rhythm, suddenly making you very aware that you were in a theatre watching a play as opposed to being engrossed in the action. The only major criticism is of the character of Margaret. It wasn’t clear what exactly she was, whether she was a ghost or a witch or an old bitter Queen. She wasn’t incorporated well into the current action of the play and from her first appearance I wasn’t entirely sure of her context or form.
      
This show is one of the best I have seen in recent months, which is perhaps unsurprising for the Old Vic, thriving under the Artistic Direction of Kevin Spacey. As Shakespeare goes, this goes very well indeed, succeeding in almost every facet. It would be regrettable indeed to miss it.


Written by William Shakespeare; Directed by Sam Mendes; At the Old Vic; Starring Kevin Spacey, Chuk Iwuji, Jack Ellis, Gary Powell, Andrew Long, Michael Rudko, Annabel Scholey, Haydyn Gwynne; Runs from18 June 11 - 11 September 11.


John Ord (19/07/2011)

Sunday, 17 July 2011

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead ***

Trevor Nunn was due to direct the premiere of Tom Stoppard’s breakthrough play way back in 1965 as the opening show of an RSC season of new theatre in London. 46 years later he has his chance to correct the pitfalls of fate and give it a go as part of the Trevor Nunn Season at the Haymarket, which opened with Flare Path and is set to close with The Tempest. Nunn is very familiar with Stoppard’s other work as well, having directed his masterpiece, Arcadia, at the National in ’96 and this marriage looks, at least on paper, to be made in heaven.

The main theme of the play is not so divine, at least not explicitly. Stoppard’s brilliant script is, however, and dashes between the intelligent rhythmic wordplay that has become a signature of his style and philosophical musings on meaning, probability, chaos and most importantly, death, being just as hilarious as it is deflating. Drawn from the inspired suggestion from his agent at the time, Kenneth Ewing, that he write a play about Shakespeare’s ignominious duo from Hamlet, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, Stoppard proceeded to re-invent the courtiers as a Beckettian double-act and recreate the story of Hamlet from their perspective as a series of events much akin to Beckett’s Waiting for Godot. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern spend much of the play musing over similar concepts to what you imagine a younger Vladimir and Estragon would and in a wonderfully energetic fashion from the tossing of coins to the game of questions, both of which are well staged here.
      
Death is the central theme not only in Stoppard’s text, but also in Waiting for Godot and Hamlet, giving a strong point of synthesis between the two and at no point in the production does Nunn let you forget the title; as the bewildered courtiers scrabble around on stage desperately trying to find meaning and some certainty you, sitting in the audience, are aware, painfully at times, that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead.

This similarity is where Nunn chooses to style the play, opening with the courtiers alone and entertaining themselves by a leafless tree. The play continues in this melancholy fashion for distraction until the arrival of the Player and his troupe, eerily reminiscent of Pozzo and the very un-Lucky, at which point it all becomes that bit more sinister. The Player himself is ascribed a very dark nature and his input changes the mood dramatically. The opening is slow and heavy; the light-heartedness of the jokes are lost and the energy is low, struggling to pick up. The scene change brings an added dynamism with the scenes from Hamlet flowing in and out apace, leaving the pair thoroughly lost. These scenes are fantastically incorporated by both Stoppard and Nunn.
      
One of the triumphs of the production was Simon Higlett’s set. The light streaming through the floorboards was great and the scene for the boat was brilliantly done, keeping the dark tone and adding character to what had previously been a bare stage. There was some strong casting in choosing Samuel Barnett and Jamie Parker for the lead roles; their work together on the critically acclaimed and ridiculously (but justifiably) successful version of The History Boys gives them a natural familiarity that informs their close friendship on stage. It is certainly very easy to buy into the closeness of their relationship. Parker is the standout performer, launching into long speeches and confusing rationales without hesitation and with believably characterization. His confusion and desperation were believable, much more so than Barnett, who floundered around the stage fulfilling the stereotypes of camp actors. He relied on a set of expressions that became repetitious and although he was funny he didn’t capture the innocence of Rosencrantz in the way that Parker captured the desperation of Guildenstern. He was good but Parker set a higher benchmark.
      
This friendship, which is the core of the play, is somewhat undermined by the gimmicks that are thrown at it, notably the overriding campness of the whole affair. There are obvious homosexual undertones in the text but it feels as though they are trying to force a more overtly physical relationship than there should be and their mannerisms are so camp that they become tiresome, especially when accompanied by the justifiably camp Player. Mellon is played as a dark omen, a shady and untrustworthy character that reminds you of the devil whispering in your ear. The sinister nature of the Player works well and his troupe of players feel suitably exploited and desperate. Mellon himself has a presence that is much needed on stage and he works well with the leading pair, doing well after stepping in for Tim Curry.
      
This is one of my favourite plays, its dynamism and intelligence make it energetic and fun with the philosophical inquiry and the central theme of death give it a gravitas that is enlightening and fascinating. Nunn’s production lacks the cohesion and the energy that gives is that enjoyable edge, instead slathering it with a heavily Becekttian overtone and style at the expense of much of the script. It is very much a reimagining of Waiting for Godot as opposed to an extension of Hamlet or even a hybrid between the two. The text thrives on the combination of Beckett and Shakespeare, which is cut in half by Nunn. Parker is brilliant but he can’t carry the show on his own and although it’s not necessarily a bad show, it is rather underwhelming.


Written by Tom Stoppard; Directed by Trevor Nunn; At the Theatre Royal Haymarket, London; Starring Samuel Barnett, Jamie Parker, Chris Andrew Mellon, Katherine Press, Jack Hawkins; Runs from 16 June 11 - 20 August 11.


John Ord (13/07/2011)

Thursday, 7 July 2011

Being Shakespeare ****


It is probably best that I dispel now any confusion by saying that this is not, in fact, two hours of Simon Callow being Shakespeare. It is a narrative in which Callow explains what we know and can reasonably suppose about the mysterious life of Mr. William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon from his humble beginnings in the backwater Warwickshire town to his living the high-life as one of London’s elite, popular among both the nobles of the court and the commoners of the street.

The narrative itself is expertly woven from birth to death by Jonathan Bate, following the seven stages of man that Shakespeare himself outlined in As You Like It, so that it gives a solid and easy to understand pattern to the story. It is a magnificent script, delving into the history of the man himself with such startling clarity that it feels authoritative, mixing the fact and supposition about the unknown years of his life with snippits and gobbits from his work. When opening the second act, for example, a rendition of the famous Henry V speech ‘once more unto the breach’ leads not only into the second act but the fourth age, the soldier, as well.
      
The ease with which Bate weaves the words of Shakespeare into the story of his life is truly remarkable and seems effortless. Bate himself is, unsurprisingly, a Shakespeare scholar, having written a number of books on the swan of Avon and been the chief editor for the RSC edition of the Complete Works of William Shakespeare. He has the background, then, to make this seem natural and working with genius such as that of Shakespeare one can feasibly imagine the hardest part being the choice of what to draw upon and include. The various events that plagued Shakespeare himself, such as the black death, were given due significance as this show achieved something that I have not seen before in any explanation of the bard’s life. It pieced together events in his life and the work he was producing and made an educated guess as to how he would have felt, what motivated him to change his style or why he chose to write about war and honour. It made Shakespeare a person as opposed to a historical figure for study.
      
The main contributory factor to the personal nature of the show itself was not the script, but the actor at the centre of it all. Simon Callow pulled off what is an extraordinary performance as the shifting voice on stage, moving seamlessly from narrator to character no matter what the scene would be. His performances as all the characters from Bottom to Juliet are engaging and many are powerfully emotive as just as many are funny and light-hearted.
      
Humour is a large part of the show. There is a large amount of densely packed information delivered at once at many points throughout and Callow is able to offset this marvelously with some well-timed jokes about life way back when and life now and how the two compare. Having lived in Stratford-upon-Avon myself for a period I can say that from what Callow was telling us of Shakespeare’s day it hasn’t changed all that much! The sheer number of characters that Callow portrays is staggering, and all are brilliantly constructed in their fine simplicity.
      
Callow’s delivery is near-faultless. There were a few line stumbles but all of which were rapidly corrected and bearing in mind that the entire show is him talking for two hours (and it is a very wordy script, then dotted with bits of Shakespeare) I think the occasional line slip is forgivable. His mastery of the language, the script and his wonderful ability to shift both slowly and suddenly between moods and perspectives makes it far more entertaining than many would believe it has a right to be. I can’t imagine anyone else doing a better job than Callow has done here, bringing Shakespeare to life without ever being Shakespeare.
      
I particularly liked the inclusion of the reality of fairies and goblins for children growing up in the countryside and the mystery of the now dispatched forest of Arden. It gave not only a childish beginning that instantly and obviously captivated the imagination of the entire audience but it gave a wonderfully imaginative place to return to, much as Shakespeare himself did, at the end.

      
Imagination was also a huge aspect of the set. Simple and enchanting in its own way it sported very little by way of anything much. There were a couple of trees, some chairs, books, a globe, a sword and a couple of dramatic holes in the floor and walls that threw out light and flames when bidden to do so. It was simple but wonderfully effective. With the addition of plain and brief sound effects, such as a beating drum during a Henry V speech and some subtly maneuvered lighting changes the stage itself appeared to have a character akin to the man himself, transforming when bidden from Lear to Prospero amid others.
      
The show itself is a masterclass in simplicity and good acting, the result being a show that is both absorbing and entertaining, completely immersing you in the world and the mind of Shakespeare, which is exhilarating in itself never mind that it’s Simon Callow on stage proving his credentials once again. If you have even a passing interest in Shakespeare (which I would argue everyone should, but then, I’m biased) this is simply unmissable. If you don’t have an interest in Shakespeare, this will garner one. Simple and simply unmissable.


Written by Jonathan Bate; Directed by Tom Cairns; At Trafalgar Studios, Studio 1; Starring Simon Callow; Runs from 15 June 11 - 23 July 11.


John Ord (05/07/2011)

Friday, 1 July 2011

Butley ****


Butley is a play very much written from an insider’s point of view. Simon Gray was himself a lecturer of English and Queen Mary College, London as well as being a heavy smoker, drinker and in possession of a deadly array of words and witticisms. Ben Butley is also all of the above (university unspecified however) and although the autobiographical nature of the play was only confirmed to be ‘up to a point’ the similarity in the characters of the author and the lead makes for an intriguing study of what is an undeniably awful day in the life of Ben Butley. The realism of the character and the situation really strikes very close to home.
      
The homoerotic undertones of the piece are played incredibly well by the cast and you can feel the echo of Gray’s own experiences in the voices of the characters and of course the words they use. Gray himself had developed many close friendships with men over the course of his life but he wasn’t gay, though he was amused by the question and certainly loved the company of men. Butley is of a similar ilk as well, his friendship with his colleague and protégé Joseph being as close to a married life as one is likely to achieve without actually being married, a relationship made even more tense by Joseph’s homosexuality.
      
On this count and on many others Dominic West is in inspirational form, bounding around the stage with the energy of an antelope that’s been caught by a lion and is furiously lashing out in every way it can before it is brought down. People often talk of a ball and the importance of not letting it drop and if there is any performance on the West End at the moment that exemplifies this it is Dominic West’s here. He has clearly put a great deal of effort into creating the character of Ben Butley and reaps the rewards of his endeavours. The realism of the character and the ease with which he speaks the lines is remarkable, with every line, no matter how quick or witty, having a clear point of inception and purpose. There is an awful lot of hectic, chaotic madness but at every point you are aware that there is method in it. The many moments of madness are imbued with such energy that they never cease to be anything other than hilarious, further boosted by West’s talent for comedy. There are also a few moments of sudden transition from humour to seriousness and West handles them well, instantly changing the atmosphere in the room and engaging the audience.
      
He is also a very generous performer, allowing his fellow cast members their moments and giving them as much opportunity as he can, which is a dynamic that works especially well with Martin Hutson’s Joseph. Hutson gives a nervous energy to the show that plays very well with the frantic nature of Butley himself. The relationship between the two is a varied one, with moments of closeness and moments of friction interwoven in a strikingly natural and true-to-life fashion. Hutson himself also gives what is a very strong performance as the younger man desperately trying to find a way to remove himself from his relationship with Butley, his characterisation being second only to West in the show.

The other performance that really stood out for me was from Penny Downie who played Edna Shaft, another lecturer in the university English department that has been struggling with her own issues, such as an unfinished book of literary criticism and a tediously deviant student. Her performance added an air of mystery to the show as she and Butley talk and act as if they have a great deal of history but neither ever mentions explicitly what this history is. Inasmuch as Butley pushes away everyone he cares about, including his students, West and Downie certainly add a powerfully subtle dynamic between the two characters that adds a further layer to what is already an impressive script. The phone calls from the perpetually elusive Dean and the constant interruptions from Downie place Butley and Joe in a wider picture that is well illustrated by Downie’s strong showing.

      
The set design was something else that I thoroughly enjoyed with the difference between the stark left-hand side of the stage that corresponded to Joe and the cluttered and overflowing right-hand side that was clearly Butley’s domain. Lots of the physical gags were very good as well and were only able to be so because of Peter McKintosh’s apt setting.
      
The small size of the roles of the students serve to demonstrate Butley’s prowess in avoiding student contact but they are strong as well, particularly Emma Hiddleston as the keen student who wants her essays read so that she may find her way into teaching herself, suitably put down by Butley, saying that A-Level teachers are like firemen called out to quench a fire long since out.
      
All in all, I think this show was incredibly good fun above all else and a showcase of fantastic talent, particularly from Dominic West as he is allowed to indulge himself in a comedy role, taking to it like someone with prader-willi syndrome to cake and it is delightful to watch. I’d thoroughly recommend giving it a go, especially if you have a prior connection to either university, lecturers, teachers or English.




Written by Simon Gray; Directed by Lindsay Posner; At the Duchess Theatre; Starring Dominic West, Paul McGann, Penny Downie, Amanda Drew, Martin Hutson, Emma Hiddleston, Cal Brigden; Runs from 06 June 11 - 27 August 11.


http://www.butleylondon.com/?gclid=CPTpobi34KkCFUwc4QoduUhSYA


John Ord (28/06/2011)