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.