The Knight of the Burning Pestle

KotBP title page, 1613 edition

This was a strange one. I wish I could get the soundtrack to it because it featured some good songs, including 'My jolly red nose'. The play's premise was as follows: a London grocer and his wife - the 'citizens' (Phil Daniels and Pauline McLynn) - go to see a play entitled The London Merchant. Soon after the play begins they interrupt it from their seats in the audience, insisting that the grocer's apprentice, Rafe (Matthew Needham), is given a part because grocer characters are underrepresented in plays. Rafe, a sweet, ordinary kind of young man, agrees, and adopts the character of the 'Knight of the Burning Pestle', carrying about a wooden pestle in a mystical glowing casket. Over the course of the play the grocer and his wife periodically interrupt the action, demanding that Rafe appear in varied scenes and guises of their own choosing. In the second half they demand to see him speak with a princess dressed in burnished gold, become King of the May, and command an army. There was also a demonic giant barber. A satire on chivalric romances, it was sillier, funnier, more arbitrary and entertaining than I'm making it sound.

The lack of a plot and the randomness of the action struck me as unusually modern for a play of that era. The idea of members of the audience giving a running commentary on a play also seemed modern, but I suppose it was done in a minor way in A Midsummer Night's Dream, when Hippolyta and Theseus watch and comment on the mechanicals' play. The contributions of the citizens do not consist only in stopping the play and putting forward their points of view. While the actors try to get the play back on track and continue with the original scenes, the citizens rustle paper, eat liquorice and offer it to other members of the audience, and talk loudly amongst themselves in the manner of stereotypical impolite theatre-goers.

My favourite character was definitely Old Merrythought (Paul Rider), a jolly, tubby, Father Christmas-like man who sings all the time and refuses to be melancholy about anything. Merrythought claims he would sing even upon seeing his sons on the gallows: 'Down, down, down they fall; Down, and arise they never shall.' When, later on in the play, he sees the coffin that he believes contains one of his sons, he does indeed sing. One of the Knight's squires, the 'dwarf' (a large man), also had some good songs, including one outside a castle where the Knight's party are to stay the night.

My favourite scene was possibly the one in which Rafe comes on as King of the May, accompanied by his entourage dressed as Morris dancers.

It was interesting to see this in the same week as Shakespeare in Love, as I have seen both plays described as 'a love-letter to London and the theatre'. I enjoyed all the references to London and its environs in KotBP; Hoxton, Mile End, Waltham Forest.

The theatre was festively decorated with festoons of greenery and dried oranges and a kissing bough suspended over the front of the stage. The music, played on seventeenth-century instruments, was as excellent as usual. The musicians wore Santa's elf-style hats. The costumes in general were bright and colourful - there was a lot of velvet and unlikely colours and nods to an earlier era. It was a good choice of play to see at this time of year; quite panto-ish. There was even a man dressed up as a woman (the princess).

Next: King Charles III

Shakespeare in Love - Noël Coward Theatre

Shakespeare & Viola

Vivat Regina! VIVAT REGINA! This was a play version of the film comedy of the same name. It tells the story of William Shakespeare as a youngish playwright (circa 1594), losing his writing mojo and regaining it through the power of romantic love. Having fallen passionately in love with noblewoman Viola De Lesseps, Shakespeare is inspired to write Romeo and Juliet, which he does throughout the play; the themes and emotions in Romeo and Juliet reflecting what is going on in his own life.

I'm a bit sceptical about films being adapted into plays or musicals, as it seems very commercial, a way of making easy money. However, I enjoyed this one very much. It had a different feel to the film, which I also enjoyed. Maybe there was more emphasis on theatrical processes (i.e. auditions, rehearsals etc.) in the play than in the film? Or maybe one just got that impression because the set was made up of wooden balconies, in the manner of those in an Elizabeth playhouse, thereby constantly reminding one of the theatre?

The set was excellent; not only were there wooden balconies, but there were also eight chandeliers with REAL candles in them, which periodically glided down from on high. A luxurious-looking four poster bed with bright red coverings was wheeled on and off. 

Theatre directors and producers, if you truly want your play to evoke a 16th century atmosphere, include stuff like candles, wooden props, sumptuous fabrics and beautiful music made by authentic Tudor instruments. Maybe include the occasional puff of smoke, too. Don't just rely on costumes and acting. WOLF HALL and BRING UP THE BODIES, I'm talking to you. I was able to feel fully absorbed in Shakespeare in Love in a large part because the set enabled me to believe that the action was taking place in Elizabethan London. The excellent seats in the stalls probably helped, too.

The music was great. Beautiful singing by a man with a very high voice accompanied by Tudor instruments.

My favourite characters were Christopher Marlowe (David Oakes, who was also in The White Queen. Say what you will about The White Queen but there were lots of very attractive people in it) and a youthful, bloodthirsty-minded John Webster (Colin Ryan). The portrayal of Christopher Marlowe was similar to my fond imaginings of him: attractive, well-educated, composed and slightly smug. Webster provided the most humorous moments of the play for me. Denied the part of Ethel in the play Shakespeare is writing, he hangs desultorily about the actors during all the rehearsals, silently gurning. 

I liked the idiosyncratic elements of Viola De Lesseps' (Lucy Briggs-Owen) character, but wasn't keen on some of her facial expressions as Thomas. Particularly during the scene where Alleyn (Doug Rao) and Shakespeare (Tom Bateman) are encouraging her to kiss 'Juliet' more ardently. I thought there she went from 'idiosyncratic' to 'idiotic'. Strange, vacant expressions.

One of my favourite scenes was the boat scene, where Viola travels home from a rehearsal as Thomas, and Shakespeare only realises that she is Viola right at the end, when the boatman reveals this fact. It was amusing and touching, and I enjoyed the bucket-sloshing sound effects. I liked the relationship between Shakespeare and Viola. In fact, I got so into it that I forgot that Shakespeare was married, so I was suitably shocked and appalled on Viola's behalf when she discovered this fact.

The play ended with an energetic jig, performed in character, which I appreciated, and a rendition of 'Vivat Regina' as Queen Elizabeth I took her curtain call. This was such an absorbing, entertaining, feel-good play that I was properly disappointed when it was over.

Historical quibble: Shakespeare actually wrote Twelfth Night seven years after writing Romeo and Juliet. However, we can pretend that he started writing it immediately afterwards but that it took him seven years to complete because it was so important to him. There.

Next: The Knight of the Burning Pestle

The Man Born to be King - Hampstead Parish Church

Set of The Man Born to be King

The Man Born to be King is a radio drama series, based on the life of Jesus, written by Dorothy L. Sayers and first broadcast by the BBC in 1941-2. The Hampstead Players adapted and performed the last three of the twelve plays in the cycle, which depicted the final few weeks of Jesus' life, his death and resurrection. I generally avoid seeing or listening to detailed depictions of Jesus's death and the events leading up to it because I find it depressing and upsetting. Yes, I know it ends well, with Jesus rising from the dead etc., but it's still a horrific story. I can't say I 'enjoyed' this play much - particularly the second half - for that reason; it was intense and relentlessly discomforting. But this shows that it was well done. It was very powerful and I have found myself thinking about it a lot since having seen it. The church setting unsurprisingly suited the play really well, and good use was made of the pulpit and other church accoutrements.

The first scene was a great introduction to Judas (Nicolas Holzapfel), and the foreboding music that played as he and Baruch, a zealot (Barney Lyons), took to the stage was perfect. I liked the scenes featuring Baruch and Judas - Baruch enabled one to get a greater insight into Judas' personality and motivations, in addition to being an intriguing character in his own right. The scene at Jesus' trial, when Baruch realises that it was Judas who had betrayed Jesus, was particularly powerful. One of the most emotionally powerful scenes was that in which Judas betrays Jesus to Caiaphas (Harlequin) and Annas, Caiphas' father-in-law (Catherine Martin). Caiphas and Annas worked extremely well together throughout the play. Caiaphas' eccentricity contrasted effectively with Annas' calm, superior demeanour. Judas was portrayed successfully as an extremely intense tortured soul.

Jesus...I was looking forward to seeing the interpretation of the play's protagonist. I wasn't disappointed. Alessandro Predari looked exactly right for the part (well, he was how I imagine Jesus to look like, anyway), with black hair and beard and a kind face and gentle demeanour. Tall and very thin, he had an otherwordly, ethereal presence. But there was a sense of strength and dignity about him that came across particularly well in the trial scene. It was believable that people wanted to follow him. Even I, in the audience, craved Jesus' approval.

The Last Supper and Gethsemane scenes - very intense*. Was anxious for Judas to change his mind, but knew it wouldn't happen. The disciples do screw up a lot (the characters, not the actors). I can't claim that I definitely would not have denied Jesus, but I think I would at least have managed to stay awake with him in the garden.

The trial and death scenes were performed to great effect. I've never felt much sympathy towards Pilate (David Gardner), but in this play he is shown as doing absolutely everything he could possibly do to save Jesus. It was good to get a greater sense of his personality and I enjoyed his interactions with Flavius, his clerk (Hoda Ali). The bit where Jesus, on the cross, asks John (Moray Jones) to be a son to Mary (Natasha Blumenthal) and she to be a mother to John was very moving.

I know it can't be easy for an amateur company to obtain high quality, authentic costumes, and I'm truly thankful that this play wasn't performed in modern dress - or, god forbid WWI or WW2 garb, which seems to be popular nowadays (see 55 Days by Howard Brenton) - but I wasn't keen on the black leggings visible under many of the tunics, or the overtly modern sandals. The soldiers' outfits were good, as were those of the Sanhedrin. However, I felt that the scene in which an anguished Judas repents of his betrayal of Jesus in front of the Sanhedrin, was diminished by Caiphas' tunic coming undone at the top and displaying his bare chest. Not seemly for the High Priest of Israel!!

This was a looooooooong play - three hours including an interval - making it either the second or third longest play I've ever seen. I thought the second half could have been cut down by fifteen minutes or so, by taking out one of the scenes featuring the Sanhedrin. I would have preferred more of a focus on Jesus and the disciples towards the end; I felt that the scene in which Jesus appeared to the disciples was rather rushed. I wanted Thomas to feature more! However, the play remained compelling and engaging nonetheless. 

*Sorry, word overuse.

Next: Definitely at least one more thing before the end of the year.

The Comedy of Errors - Globe Theatre

CoE set - elaborate, with lots of props!

This is the third CoE I've seen at the Globe, but it doesn't seem a particularly common Shakespeare play to be put on. Perhaps because of its unashamed silliness and lack of beautiful passages? Its frequent references to servant-beating and less frequent but still rather disturbing references to domestic violence? Or because a purely comedic play is more difficult to perform successfully than people tend to think? Whatever the reason, all the versions I've seen at the Globe have been very well done and VERY funny.

The CoE is about a pair of identical twin masters and a pair of identical twin servants who have been separated for a long time - each master with a servant - who all end up in Ephesus. After the opening scene the play involves many instances of mistaken identity, as the master and servant pairs split up and meet members of the other pair. Hilarity ensues. Of course, neither the two masters nor the two servants encounter each other until the final scene.

There's potential for a lot of physical, slapstick comedy in the CoE, which, in this production included an octopus being tossed about, a turkey covering the head of one of the Dromios for a prolonged period of time, a food/scenery fight and a nod to Harry Potter in the form of two servants clearing up the mess from the food/scenery fight with brooms and then wordlessly deciding to play Quidditch with a golden ball that had fallen off part of the scenery.

I thought Egeon, father of the Antipholuses, was a weak link, as I couldn't hear much of what he said. And I was leaning against the stage (albeit to the far side).

Things that were especially good about this production: 

• The opening scene-setting 'Arabian'-type song! 
• The costumes! Renaissance-style costumes with a classical antiquarian twist (or classical antiquarian costumes with a Renaissance-style twist). Bright and colourful and made you feel as though you were in different climes, despite the chilliness of the night.
• The set! I liked the columns and statues and the way in which the signs on the houses could be turned, to show what the building was.
• The fact that the two Antipholuses and Dromios each had distinctive personalities.
• The bit at the end where the two Dromios were alone together for the first time was adorable, as they were both shy of each other and didn't know how to behave.

The basic plot is so ridiculous and funny and unrealistic that it's not difficult to dismiss the more...unsavoury...elements of the play mentioned in the first paragraph as just part of the silliness and hilarity. However, the allusions to wife-beating, plus the nagging-wife-who-drives-her-husband-to-distraction trope do make me feel uncomfortable and lessen my enjoyment of this play. I also think too much of the humour comes from the Dromios talking about their beatings at the hands of the Antipholuses. My favourite Shakespeare comedy has to be The Merry Wives of Windsor, which is not only extremely funny when done right, but also kind of proto-feminist.

Next: The Man Born to be King

Julius Caesar - Globe Theatre

The general himself

CAESAR - CAESAR - CAESAR - CAESAR!

I haven't been particularly keen on other Roman plays of Shakespeare's - namely 'Antony and Cleopatra' and 'Coriolanus' - so I didn't have great expectations for this one. But, as it turned out, I enjoyed it very much.

There was a little puppet show put on for the groundlings in the queue just before entering the theatre proper, about the history of Julius Caesar prior to the events shown in the play, which was useful for Roman history ignoramuses such as myself.

I managed to get a very good leaning position despite being about fifteenth in the queue. Well done, self. There was a triangular build-out from the centre of the stage. During the fifteen minutes before the start of the performance, actor workmen put the finishing touches to a Roman balcony structure with colonnades. Then members of the Roman public infiltrated the yard and everyone chanted 'Caesar! Caesar! Caesar!', which was fun and created the right sort of atmosphere. And then Caesar himself strode through the yard to the stage, in triumphal procession.

The first half focussed on the plot to kill Caesar and its accomplishment. It was very gripping, tense and full-on. Music is always used to good effect at the Globe. On this occasion there were low, gutteral-type horns that reminded me of 'Lord of the Rings', for some reason, and the usual drums etc. The two leads (Brutus and Mark Antony) both conveyed well the complexity of their characters - one felt some degree of sympathy for them both. Both were also extremely attractive. I'd seen Luke Thompson, who played Mark Antony, last year in 'A Midsummer Night's Dream' and 'Bluestockings', and found him attractive then. Tom McKay, who played Brutus, I'd never seen before (other than in 'The White Queen'; thank you, Google), and I didn't immediately find him attractive but he grew on me during the play, until, by the end, I found him the most good-looking person in it. I don't know...there's something about Jacobean garb combined with Roman accoutrements...Ahem.

The women's parts weren't up to much, but they were played well. Both women, Portia and Calpurnia, were defined solely in relation to their husbands and one of them ended up committing suicide. Although, thinking about it, almost everyone did in this play.

The 'Friends, Romans, countrymen' bit was very good, with the crowd rapidly transferring their sympathies to Mark Antony. 'Julius Caesar' was the perfect kind of play for the Globe as it involved crowd scenes, so the groundlings were able to act as the crowd/mob. I felt that this production made excellent use of the Globe's space in this regard.

I didn't enjoy the second half as much, as I felt that most of the dramatic energy and interest in the play lay in the plotting and carrying out of the murder, and its immediate aftermath. However, I enjoyed the appearance of Caesar's ghost and loved the bit where Brutus sees Strato as Caesar. I was genuinely moved when Brutus, upon seeing Cassius' dead body, said:

Friends, I owe more tears 
To this dead man than you shall see me pay.
I shall find time, Cassius, I shall find time. 

I can understand the feeling of having to 'put off' grief for a more convenient time.

The weather, despite raining lightly near the beginning, held out. A thunderstorm would have suited the atmosphere of the play, but I'm glad it didn't happen.

The jig was one of THE best I have ever seen at the Globe. Possibly the best. It went on for a long time and there was much foot-stamping and gutteral horn blowage.

Next: The Comedy of Errors

Bring up the Bodies - Aldwych Theatre

Bring up the Bodies book cover

I saw this in mid August, so this review is delayed. Bad me. I enjoyed this more than 'Wolf Hall', but I think that's more because I prefer the story of 'Bring up the Bodies' than because the production was significantly better.

I really didn't like the block-y metal decoration thing above the stage. I presume it was there specifically for these plays  - WHY, though? It went well with the concrete walls, but I wasn't keen on them, either. Concrete and the Tudor era just don't go well together.

Like 'Wolf Hall', 'Bring up the Bodies' was rushed and there wasn't a great deal of atmosphere. Thomas Cromwell wasn't sufficiently sagacious or in control. Some of his movements were frenetic and indicative of anxiety, which is not how Mantel's Cromwell should be. In the book he comes across as completely reliable, steady, unflappable and sure of himself. As well as a genius.

I liked the bit near the beginning where ghosts from Cromwell's past appeared, including his wife.

Regarding dramatic pauses, there was a decent dramatic pause during the interrogation of Mark Smeaton. Well done, 'Bring up the Bodies'. 

Jane Seymour was annoying. Sorry, but she was. In the book Jane Seymour is quite a complex character - she's quiet, apparently shy, doesn't really fit in at court, among her family, or with anyone else, and has an unexpected kind of sense of humour. In the play they've made her stupid. Which is a shame. Her put-on undulating voice was annoying.

Costumes again were wonderful. Jane Seymour's gown right at the end was particularly beautiful.

An indication of how good/impactful a production was is how much one thinks about it afterwards. I'm afraid I didn't think much about this one. For both productions, I felt that everything important was included, plotwise. The costumes were perfect. A lot of Mantel's dialogue was used. But...they lacked soul and genuine drama. Most of the main characters were two-dimensional and created through a very literal interpretation of Mantel's books. The plays somehow seemed a bit commercial rather than properly thought through.

Next: Julius Caesar

Wolf Hall - Aldwych Theatre

Wolf Hall book cover

I've read both Wolf Hall and Bring up the Bodies and was favourably impressed. They were gripping, intense, atmospheric, disturbing, unusual, authentic-sounding... 

Wolf Hall the play

was

not.

The costumes were wonderful. The script was very faithful to the book. The play contained all the important plot points. 

But. It was two-dimensional. It lacked tension, drama, a sense of impending doom. I found it difficult to become properly absorbed in it. I even almost fell asleep in the second half (!!!). I forced myself to stay awake because the costumes were so beautiful. I'm a sucker for swishing robes and English hoods. And because I'd paid £40 to see it.

I think one of the main problems was its pacing. It was too fast. Even a theatre novice like myself understands the importance of pausing in order to create dramatic tension. But there were very few pauses in the play. Lighting and sound effects could also have been employed to ratchet up the tension. There should have been more shadows for people to lurk in, and more people lurking in them. I felt that the producers/directors prized competence and basic faithfulness to the plot over trying to create the book's pressurized atmosphere.

Sir Timothy

The characters, again, were played competently and somewhat literally. Thomas Cromwell was a cockney (well, kind of), Anne Boleyn shouted a lot and Jane Seymour cowered in almost pantomimic fashion. One didn't get a sense of the depth of the characters. In addition, Thomas Cromwell didn't have much of a 'presence'. I tended to forget about him when he wasn't speaking. Which isn't right! Thomas Cromwell needs to have a strong, imposing, definite, slightly intimidating presence. It's true that how actors look doesn't necessarily matter - if they are good actors they'll make you believe in the character even if they don't look much like them - but I found it difficult to get beyond Ben Miles' refined looks. I think he's more suited to lord of the manor-type roles in period dramas.

I didn't like the concrete walls/columns surrounding the stage. Yes, I know it's modern and almost expected to have minimal scenery/props etc., but I found the concrete incongruous with a play set in Tudor times, in which the actors are wearing Tudor costumes.

In conclusion, my recent discovery that Boots no longer stocks Chapstick or Lypsyl gave me a much greater sense of tension and drama than this production.

Next: probably Round Two - Bring up the Bodies. Ding ding!

All's Well that Ends Well - Hampstead Parish Church

All's Well that Ends Well leaflet fragment

I haven't updated this for aaaaaaaagggees because I haven't been to the theatre since March, not because I have been seeing things without writing about them. Apologies to all my readers for leaving you on tenterhooks, especially my dear Russian reader(s).

Last week I went to see 'All's Well that Ends Well', performed by The Hampstead Players, not once, but twice. That is, I saw it twice, not that they performed it only twice. Egads.

I wasn't overly keen on AWtEW when I saw it at the Globe in 2011, so, while looking forward to it, I wasn't excited enough to get diarrhoea beforehand, as I did prior to the Players' production of 'As You Like It' last year. AWtEW is a strange play - neither comedy nor tragedy, it contains complex and not altogether likeable characters, and has a plot that becomes particularly complicated and difficult to follow in the second half if you're not listening carefully enough.

However, I was pleasantly surprised. I really enjoyed it. Both times I felt fully absorbed and engaged in the story, which couldn't have been presented more comprehensibly. Sarah Day was sublime as Helen. She immediately engaged the sympathies of the audience and very effectively conveyed her emotions through subtle facial expressions and gestures (and verbally, of course...!). Her feelings towards Bertram were clear from the first scene, before she'd uttered a word. I enjoyed the scenes featuring Helen and the Countess of Rossillion (Moragh Gee), which were credible and quite touching. I can't think of many mother/(surrogate) daughter relationships in Shakespeare. 

Bertram was well played by Nicolas Holzapfel as rather a peevish spoilt brat. There were glimmers of good nature about him, though. I liked the fact that in the opening scene he hugged Helen with what seemed to be genuine affection before he left for Paris, which showed that he did care about her - he just didn't want to marry her.

I enjoyed the scenes in Florence, which were channeling the 1950s, for some reason. I loved Mary Clare's sarcastic, wordly (but virtuous!) interpretation of Diana. 

One of my favourite scenes was the interrogation of Parolles. It was very funny and reminded me of the scene in Henry IV Part 1, when Falstaff is robbed by Hal's friends without knowing it was them, and, when made by them to recount what had happened the next day, exaggerating and basically lying about what had happened.

Features of the production that I thought were particularly good:

• The fact that chairs had been placed on either side of the 'stage'. This was beneficial to the audience, as more people were able to have a close-up view. I imagine it was more satisfying for the actors, too, to have closer contact with the audience and to more easily feed off their 'energy' (<--- theatrical expression alert!). I think all plays performed at the church should adopt this seating layout.
• Pacing. It was fast-moving, which helped to keep it engaging. Very polished.
• The music between scenes was a good touch.
• Everyone played their parts to an extremely high standard - no weak links at all.
• I liked the silhouette of Bertram and Helen that appeared when they were about to make love in Diana's bed.

A good time was had by all, methinks.

And tomorrow I'm going to see...Wolf Hall! 

Jersey Boys - Prince Edward Theatre

Jersey Boys poster with the 'boys' in their red jackets

I wanted to see this after seeing excerpts from it at West End Live many moons ago. I didn't know much about the Four Seasons at all, other than that their heyday was in the 1960s, one of them had a very high voice and I liked a few of their songs. I knew the show was highly acclaimed, so I thought it would be enjoyable even if I wasn't a proper fan of the band.

However...now I've seen it, I do think you have to be fan to really enjoy it. I enjoyed it, but not massively. I probably enjoyed the meal out beforehand at Byron a little more. Byron is a member of the Sustainable Restaurant Association and its burgers are EXQUISITE. The company was good, too.

Jersey Boys tells the story of the Four Seasons - how they met, how the group was formed, how they got famous, how some of the original members left and were replaced etc. They were all (the original members, anyway) from New Jersey, hence why the show is called 'Jersey Boys'. 

I found it difficult to get into. The characters weren't particularly likeable and I hate the song 'Ces soirées-lâ', which opened the show. I started to enjoy it during the scene when the more erudite potential member of the group, Bobby, was auditioned for the band. He sang a nice song, accompanying himself on the piano, and one by one the other band members joined in, singing and playing instruments. My other favourite bit was the bit I'd seen at West End Live, when they are dressed in the red suits you see in posters, singing 'Sherry', 'Walk Like a Man' and 'Big Girls Don't Cry'. I liked their precise, perfectly synchronised dancing. 

It was fast-moving and some of the character development was thrust upon you rather than shown gradually. I didn't understand why they accused Tommy of not caring about the band and only doing what would benefit him personally, when his debts were revealed. I understand their anger at his having got into so much debt, but thought it was a bit harsh for Frankie to claim that he didn't care about the band at all. 

I found it difficult to sympathise with the 'I'm incredibly rich and famous but I still can't be happy' storyline. I know money isn't the answer to all problems, but it does help. In the end, my favourite character was probably Nick, because of (a) his desire for cleanliness, (b) his quiet demeanour, and (c) his willingness to call it a day when he felt the time was right. I can't say I warmed a great deal to any of them much, though. Sorry, Jersey Boys.

The Duchess of Malfi - Jacobean Theatre at the Globe

I can't bring myself to refer to the new theatre at the Globe as the 'Sam Wanamaker Playhouse' because (i) the Globe pays more than enough homage to Sam Wanamaker as it is, and (ii) this atmospheric, authentically Jacobean-style theatre deserves an atmospheric, authentically Jacobean-style name. So I will henceforth refer to it as Blackfriars.

Much as I was looking forward to visiting this new theatre, I was prepared for there to be obvious concessions to health and safety. Events I've attended before that have been advertised as 'candlelit' have often involved fake candles or a single candle or were candlelit for sixty seconds out of a possible hour. However, Blackfriars fulfilled my wildest expectations. There were five seven big candlelit chandeliers over the stage, which were lit/extinguished/moved up and down during the performance; a single candle attached to each of the wooden columns at the sides of the stage; and candlesticks carried on by members of the cast. There were no in-your-face exit signs. At the beginning of the play, electric lighting was still visible from outside the theatre, but about twenty minutes into the play the shutters were closed.

The ceiling was beautifully painted with clouds, cherubs, suns and a female figure. The back of the stage was similar to that of the Globe, with three entrance/exit points. The back panels were also well-decorated - I loved the dark brown and gold colour scheme. The theatre was considerably smaller than I'd expected, which meant that even from the upper gallery (and with contact lenses of an outdated prescription) one could easily see the actors' facial expressions. 

The widowed Duchess of Malfi (Gemma Arterton) was a really interesting character. She wasn't an idealised example of 17th century womanhood, but a determined, intelligent, witty person who just wanted to get on with her life, and wasn't prepared to allow her scheming, unscrupulous brothers to dictate to her. Her brothers try to prevent her from marrying, but she marries her steward, Antonio, in secret, after having wooed him. The first half was quite funny, but things rapidly took a turn for the seriously macabre and grotesque in the second half, which featured Ferdinand (one of  the brothers)'s use of mentally ill people to torment the Duchess, and multiple murders. The lighting was used to great effect during the night scenes, when the only light came from hand-held candles. One scene, featuring Ferdinand and the Duchess, took place entirely in the dark, with no candles, and ended very dramatically and horribly. James Garnon was excellent, as usual, as the calmly evil Cardinal.

The costumes were amazing - even better than the usual Globe costumes - they were probably made more intricately because they wouldn't be exposed to the weather. I loved the Duchess's sparkling bodice. The music was good but understated. Not as rollicking as Globe music often is. The jig was slow, intense and fitting to the mood of the production.

My only negative comment would be that I thought the hand-held candles were overused. Pretty much every other character came onto the stage holding a candlestick of some description. It was great for the scenes that were supposed to take place at night, but otherwise unnecessary. I understand that audience members want to see actors' faces, but it looked forced to have almost every actor holding a candle up to his or her face.

The intimate, dimly-lit nature of the theatre made it very easy to focus fully on the play, and absorb oneself  into it. The experience was a bit like having a very vivid dream. It really is a unique theatrical experience and I would strongly recommend it.