Queen Anne - Theatre Royal Haymarket

Blenheim Palace, gifted to the Churchills by Queen Anne

OK, I know I said my next review would be of GBS classic Pygmalion, but I regret to say I never got round to it.

Unfortunately, I am a flawed human being. And you know who else was a flawed human being? Queen Anne. 

I've felt sympathetic towards Queen Anne for a long time. Whenever she's mentioned it's invariably either in the context of her appearance (omg she was FAT! She was buried in an almost square coffin because she was FAT!) or her seventeen pregnancies, none of which resulted in a child who lived to adulthood. She's treated either as a figure of a fun or a figure of abject tragedy; you rarely hear about her achievements, her views or her personality.

Queen Anne presented her as a multidimensional human (played by Emma Cunliffe), showing her development from an extremely fearful, naive princess, painfully lacking in self-confidence and relying completely on her best friend, the dominant Sarah Churchill (Romola Garai), to a considerably more self-assured, somewhat less naive and still kind and generous Queen. I enjoyed the portrayal of Anne's relationship with her husband. George of Denmark (Hywel Morgan) was depicted as a gentle, benign, simple character, who loved Anne and delighted in playing silly games with Sarah Churchill's young son. As a couple - especially towards the end of George's life, when they were both in ill health - Anne and George contrasted sharply with the glamorous, ambitious, able-bodied Churchills. I felt extremely sympathetic towards the royal couple, as they quietly and tenderly supported each other in their trials.

Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough: another flawed character. More flawed, arguably, than the titular queen. Despite Sarah's manipulative behaviour towards Anne, one couldn't help admiring her vivacity, quick-thinking and determination. And, despite Sarah's protestations to the contrary, one believed the Duke of Marlborough (Chu Omambala) when he insisted that, underneath her artful facade, she genuinely cared about Anne. The relationship between Anne and Sarah and its progression was fascinating and plausible. It was easy for Sarah to take Anne's friendship for granted when Anne was needy and vulnerable and Sarah was so much more capable physically, socially and, as she believed, intellectually. Sarah only realised the value of the friendship when it was too late. I found it refreshing to see a period play about women's friendship that wasn't focussed on women's inferior status in society. Not that there's anything wrong with that focus; it just struck me as unusual that this play didn't have it.

This was a relatively long play (three hours, including interval) but was engaging and thoroughly absorbing. The set was minimal but atmospheric. There were wood-panelled walls, multiple doors and what seemed to be real candles affixed to the walls. Other lighting was low. Costumes! Excellent. Perfect. Hairstyles? Ditto. Appearance of Jonathan Swift, satirist, essayist, political pamphleteer, poet and cleric? Check. Actor who played wise old financial adviser in Poldark? Yes, he was there too, in a vaguely similar role. I highly recommend this play.

Next: I don't know.

photo credit: Feathering the Nest Blenheim Palace via photopin (license)

King Lear - Hampstead Parish Church

King Lear flyer

King Lear has for many years been my least favourite Shakespeare play and I had no intention of ever seeing it again. My heart sank when I saw it had been selected as the Hampstead Players' winter production for 2016 and, I admit, I only went to see it out of loyalty to the H. Players; Nicolas Holzapfel (King of France) in particular. The reasons for my dislike of King Lear are as follows:

• King Lear is a massive whinger and it's difficult to sympathise with him.
• The eye gouging scene.
• It's unadulteratedly mis and grim and depressing.
• I'm generally not a fan of plays where most of the characters' names are place names, i.e. Gloucester, Kent, Basingstoke etc. I seem to have a mental block where these are concerned and find it difficult to keep track of who's who.
• The eye gouging scene.
• Its extreme length.

However...this production was excellent and I'm glad I went to see it. And no, that's not just because of my association with the H. Players. It was fast-paced and had been adeptly pared down, which made it more absorbing and easier to follow. It helped that I was sitting in the front row and could see every facial expression and was able to feel part of the action. I hadn't realised how many famous Shakespeare phrases King Lear contained, including 'Childe Rowland to the dark tower came'. I'd thought that had originated with Robert Browning. All the references to madness and Bedlam were interesting, especially having recently gone to the Wellcome Collection's exhibition on Bedlam, which I would recommend! I was also impressed that this production contained humour, which I can't recall witnessing in any other production of Lear.

I admit I still struggled to sympathise with Lear, convincingly played as he was by David Gardner. I find it hard to get past the whole asking his daughters which one loves him best gambit, and his shoddy treatment of Cordelia. I really enjoyed the scenes with Lear and his Fool (Gaynor Bassey-Fish), though. I liked the attitude of the Fool towards Lear; it was simultaneously compassionate and unwilling to put up with his nonsense. Cordelia (Megan Britton) was appropriately cherubic and sympathetic, and her appearance later on in the play in camo gear made her appear more capable and action-oriented than one might expect. Her sociopathic sisters, Goneril (Margaret Pritchard Houston) and Regan (Emma Lyndon-Stanford) were played with subtlety rather than as full-blown pantomimic eeeeeeeeevil queens (although they do carry out unconscionable deeds, no question). Goneril's discomfort in the first scene, when compelled to flatter Lear, was evident. I found the scenes featuring Edgar (Matthew Williams) and his father, Gloucester (Bill Risebero), following the latter's blinding, moving. Edgar's character trajectory was probably the part of the play I found the most compelling.

Honorable mention goes to the Russian cavalry-esque trenchcoat circa 1905 sported by Albany (Jolyon Bohling) towards the end.

Is King Lear now my favourite Shakepeare play? We-ll, no. But it has been bumped up a few places. I would probably now put it above Titus Andronicus, The Two Gs of Verona, Love's Labours Lost and maybe even King John in my estimation. So, well done, Players!

The only weak link in this production, if it can be described as such, was Lear's crown, which thankfully only appeared in the first scene. It was a lovely stereotypical crown, but gave off a slight primary school nativity vibe. Which makes me wonder...does King Herod feature in nativity plays? I don't know, never having seen or experienced one.

Next: As yet unknown

Cymbeline - Barbican

Cymbeline tile

I've been to the Barbican estate a lot but this was my first visit to the theatre. Sitting in the back row of the Barbican theatre was like being ensconced in a warm, comfortable, cosy yet spacious concrete womb. I nearly had the entire row to myself. I liked the visible orchestra balconies on either side of the stage.

Yes, I chose to pay more to see the RSC's Cymbeline rather than the Globe's. As you might have guessed from the Taming of the Shrew post, I am not a fan of Emma Rice's Globe regime and am not sad that it will be brought to an early end. And that's not because I'm a fuddy-duddy or stick-in-the-mud or traditionalist or any other label leveled at Rice Regime critics. It's because I believe it's valuable to have one theatre - ONE theatre - out of the approximately 160 theatres in London and goodness knows how many theatres in the UK, in which to perform 16th/early 17th century plays in a more or less authentic manner in order to give people an insight into how they would have appeared to audiences at that time. Which actually helps people to better understand the works of Shakespeare and his contemporaries. Plus, the Globe's Cymbeline was set in London: 2016. I live in London: 2016, and I like escapism. Oh, yes, I forgot, the Globe's production was actually called Imogen, which was a good, feminist innovation. However, I'll see your Imogen, Globe, and raise you a FEMALE CYMBELINE (Gillian Bevan)!

It was interesting seeing this play soon after The Two Gentlemen of Verona. Both plays contain some of the same themes - the separation of lovers, a woman disguising herself as a man and finally 'unmasking' in the presence of her lover, female constancy and male fallibility in love...However, Cymbeline, as a later play, is MUCH BETTER than The Two Gs - the characters are significantly more complex and interesting, the plot contains more layers and twists, and the setting  - Ancient Britain - is more intriguing.

This production was highly atmospheric and absorbing, which was just as well because it was three hours long (not including interval). The costumes were modern but they weren't tied to any particular era and were quite eccentric, which helped to convey an otherworldly atmosphere. Innogen (Bethan Cullinane) started off wearing a blue denim top and white tutu, which Posthumus (Hiran Abeysekera) ended up wearing during the battle scenes. The main focal point of the set was a tree stump, which was progressively uprooted throughout the course of the play. 

I've read Cymbeline but had completely forgotten about the subplot involving Cymbeline's missing children. The scenes featuring Arviragus/Cadwal and Guideria/Polydore and their adoptive father Belarius were some of my favourites in the play. Guideria (Natalie Simpson) was my favourite character - I only realise now that the character was written as a man. I'd thought it was an unusually fierce, kick-ass female character for Shakespeare. The matter-of-fact way in which she fought and killed the manipulative potential rapist Cloten (Marcus Griffiths) was darkly comic. The instant platonic love shown by Arviragus and Guideria towards their (unknown to them) sister was funny and heart-warming. The 'fear no more the heat of the sun' speech was delivered as a beautiful song by the two siblings. 

Another strong, memorable part of the play was the battle scene, in which Posthumus fought for Britain incredibly skilfully and savagely dressed in Innogen's bloodied tutu. The denouement scene was quite funny because there were so many things to reveal. I'm sure I wasn't the only person to have completely forgotten the whole poisoning subplot. I also liked the use of projections in the background showing English translations of Latin and other languages, when the characters spoke in different languages, and map projections, showing the areas that the characters were talking about.

photo credit: Plashing Vole DSC_0615 via photopin (license)

Next: surprise!

Wallis...'a certain person' - Upstairs at the Gatehouse

Me as Edward VIII - no, not in this production!

I've been interested in the Wallis Simpson/Edward VIII/abdication story since long before I went to a fancy dress 'drag' party as Edward aka David in 2011. Was Edward incredibly selfish in refusing to do his duty, not to mention cruel in putting his shy younger brother with a speech impediment in the position of having to accept the throne? Or should he be admired for refusing to take on a role to which he didn't feel suited and choosing to follow his heart instead? Was Wallis really as horrible as she is usually painted? Can we agree that the Downton Abbey Christmas Special storyline featuring Edward was the most ridic storyline in the show's history?

As is customary at Upstairs at the Gatehouse, the sets were exemplary. I love walking into a theatre and feeling instantly transported to the time period in which the play is set. The swing music helped, too. The sets included simple art deco patterns on the walls, a cream divan, a beautiful old telephone, and, in Edward's rooms, pictures of George V, Charles I and Queen Victoria, and tennis rackets in presses beside a fireplace! Be still, my beating heart. The costumes were excellent, too. The play covered the period from 1931, when Wallis and Edward first met, to 1936, so it was appropriate for there to be costume changes aplenty. I particularly loved Wallis' wide-legged black trousers, her jewellery and black dress towards the end. Lady Thelma Furness' blue v-necked dress was also authentic-looking. Edward looked suitably dapper, although I was disappointed that he never appeared in characteristic plus-fours! There was a reference to his golf-playing, though.

I found the play amusing and engaging; it was interesting to see the progression of Wallis and Edward's relationship after their initial fiery encounter at a party, and Edward's callous throwing-off of Thelma in favour of Wallis. You could understand Edward's attraction to Wallis - she was supremely confident, unwilling to play by upper-class societal rules and able to coddle him to his satisfaction without sucking up to him. Emma Odell made a convincingly self-assured, witty, alluring Wallis, with arch and mischievous facial expressions. You couldn't help feeling sorry for her at the end, stuck with an immature man and shunned by society. Grant McConvey was a suitably petulant, raffish Edward, if a bit too youthful. I don't normally like stories where the characters are mostly cynical and selfish, but I couldn't help enjoying this one. The genuinely loving relationship between the gay butler (Robert Hazle) and the maid who agreed to be his beard (Katie Arnstein) provided a touch of necessary humaneness.

This was a play 'with music' - the butler accompanied himself on the piano during set changes, singing songs relating to the public's perception of the characters. The musical interludes were a positive addition to the play, although I wasn't keen on the 'debauchery' song. I thought the play went on a little too long - the scene with Stanley Baldwin and his wife could have been shorter - but it was very enjoyable and made you wonder whether Wallis really would have been happier to have ditched 'David' after learning that he would have to abdicate - and therefore face extreme and potentially permanent societal disapproval - if he was to marry her.

Next: The Go-Between

Richard II - Globe Theatre

Another throne...set of Richard II

Despite arriving earlier than usual at the Globe AND there being a tube strike, the groundling queue was sizeable when I got there, comprising a party of around twenty American students. However, on being released into the Globe, the students, sheep-like, gravitated towards the end of the stage build-out, allowing me to slide triumphantly into the exact place I would've chosen had I been first in the queue! Yesss!! It's these little Globe victories that I enjoy nearly as much as the performances themselves. Well, not really.

The stage build-out was one of the most interesting I've experienced at the Globe. There was a short runway leading from the main stage to another stage, leaving a 'corridor' on either side for groundlings to stand sandwiched between both stages, if that makes sense (see picture below). I was next to the runway, meaning that I was surrounded by three walls, allowing me to lean backwards as well as forwards. It was a roomier position than usual.

Anyway: Richard II. It began with the coronation of the child Richard II in a shower of gold confetti. He clutched a wooden toy horse that was to make a poignant reappearance later on in the play. The adult King emerged as the last flakes of confetti floated to the ground, dressed in the same cream outfit as his youthful counterpart. In a bigger size, of course.

Charles Edwards did a good job of portraying Richard's evolution from narcissistic, capricious, pampered monarch, complete with parasol and band of sycophantic followers, to a broken, imprisoned, (almost) friendless, deposed king. After Richard exiles his cousin, the hard-faced Henry Bolingbroke (David Sturzaker), for six years, and seizes his father's land, Bolingbroke takes advantage of Richard's ill-advised trip to Ireland, returning to England with an army. Things quickly go downhill for Richard from that point. His friends melt away and he ends up having to hand his crown over to Bolingbroke - literally.

I enjoyed the scenes where Richard is flanked by his tittering, fashionably-dressed, flattering courtiers. The four courtiers gave excellent performances in their transformations from complacent favourites to desperate, fearful people (dead people, in some cases).

One of my favourite scenes was the one in which Richard visits his dying uncle (Bolingbroke's father), John of Gaunt (played by William Gaunt!). Richard is unsympathetic towards his uncle and looks forward to taking his possessions after his death. Gaunt is witty on his deathbed and strikes unease into the heart of the King by describing him as a 'dying man' - Richard initially thinks Gaunt is talking about himself, but he isn't! It was good to see a vulnerable person verbally socking it to Richard.

The comic interludes featuring gardeners, real plants and the parents of former Richard II favourite Aumerle (Graham Butler) shuffling on their knees towards the new King were a welcome relief from the seriousness of the rest of the play.

My standing place looking out into audience

Music normally plays a big part at the Globe but there didn't seem to be much of it in this production. Brass instruments.

This play wasn't one I'd particularly want to see again. The production was great; it was the play itself...it didn't fully engage me. It didn't have the drama and tension of (for example) the Henry VI trilogy, the humour of Henry IV or the utterly compelling protagonist of Richard III. There wasn't even a big battle scene, like in Henry V. There were no ghosts. Or proto-feminism. Or dancing. Apart from one 5 second dance near the beginning. Someone dressed in quasi Arabian garb? Or was that the dream I had last night? I felt a bit sorry for Richard towards the end, but wasn't that bothered about what happened next. 

I also would've liked a proper jig at the end. There was music but no dancing, as far as I can remember. The final music sounded at first like the Laurel and Hardy theme music. Which is not a criticism!

Next: As You Like It

King John - Globe Theatre

King John set

Black-hooded monks, incense, organ music, candles aplenty...what more could you want from a performance of Shakespeare's rarely performed play King John? Robin Hood, perhaps? He didn't feature but the character of The Bastard provided one with all the outspokenness, courage and rebelliousness (albeit not against King John) that one might desire.

It was good to be back at the Globe. Unlike usual, as soon as one entered the theatre - and, as a groundling who had queued for over 1.5 hours, I was one of the first to enter the theatre - there were people on stage - hooded monks - playing instruments and intoning religious chants. Combined with the incense, one immediately felt as though one was in medieval times in an ecclesiastical setting. I felt that the Globe went the extra mile for this production when it came to the music and props, perhaps in order to compensate for the fact that most people wouldn't be familiar with the play. The organ and Tibetan singing bowl in particular were used to excellent effect.

Most of the action took place in France, which I hadn't expected. King John (Jo Stone-Fewings), his mum, Eleanor of Aquitaine (Barbara Marten), and his recently-discovered illegitimate nephew, The Bastard (Alex Waldmann), set off for France with an army, because John feels threatened by his rather angelic young nephew, Arthur (Laurence Belcher), whose claim to the throne is strong. John allies himself with King Phillip of France (Simon Coates). John's niece, Blanche of Castile (Aruhan Galieva - who had a beautiful voice), marries Louis the Dauphin (Ciaran Owens) in a match that will strengthen John's claim to the throne. There follows a dramatic breaking of allegiances, an excommunication, a potential blinding with hot irons and a succession of deaths. There was a reasonable amount of sword fighting, which I enjoyed.

There weren't many female characters but the ones that there were were memorable. I often find myself pleasantly surprised by Shakespeare's parts for women. Eleanor of Aquitaine is portrayed as a formidable elderly woman, prepared to fight if need be. Blanche makes it clear that she's not happy with her marriage to Louis and that she can't automatically support his cause just because they're married. Constance (Tanya Moodie), Arthur's mother, is fiercely protective of her son and is determined to see him fulfil what she believes to be his destiny. None of them is reluctant to put forth their views in a forceful manner.

King John isn't portrayed as pure evil, as I'd expected. He certainly isn't a paragon of morality, but he is no worse than many of the shady, scheming monarch/courtier characters in Shakespeare's plays.

I loved the music, the costumes (wimples!) and the atmosphere, but wasn't overly keen on the plot. I've found other history plays, such as the Henry VI trilogy and Richard III much more exciting and tense. And...there was NO JIG. NO JIG at the end! Why not? Globe, if you can still find it in you to perform a jig after the carnage and destruction of Macbeth, why not after King John?? Songs are great, but don't make up for a jig.

Next: Richard II

King Charles III - Wyndham's Theatre

King Charles III  promotional material

Vivat Rex. This 2014 play by Mike Bartlett depicts the lives of key members of the British royal family in the period between the death of the present Queen up to and including the coronation of the next monarch. Charles takes over after the Queen's death, but is soon faced with a dilemma - should he sign into law a bill restricting the freedom of the press, even though he disagrees with it? Debate ensues between the King and politicians as to the limits of royal power, and what the consequences will be for the monarchy if he adheres to his principles. The play was written in blank verse, which gave it a poetic, Shakespearean quality. 

I enjoyed the actors' portrayals of the royals. Their voices and mannerisms were done extremely well and the costumes were recognisable. Tim Pigott-Smith was sympathetic as a principled and naive Charles III. 

Apart from the face, Kate (Lydia Wilson) looked exactly as she does in real life - glossy chestnut hair slightly waved at the ends, severe black dress showing off her very slim figure, stiletto heels...Her voice was perfect, too. 

Harry (Richard Goulding) was convincing, with characteristically rumpled hair and a desire to spend most of his time away from the palace. He forms a relationship with a stereotypical art student, Jessica. My favourite usage of blank verse in the play occurred when Jessica described her past indiscretion of sexting a boyfriend to a member of palace personnel, in the hope that he would stop the papers from hounding her. She described it as 'sending a token of my love' or something.

At the beginning of the play, William (Oliver Chris) and Kate came across as benign, benevolent and slightly condescending. But as the play progressed it became clear that Kate was more invested in the future of the monarchy than one might suspect and that she was playing the long game. Hilary Mantel was correct when she described the way in which Kate is depicted in the media: 'In those days she was a shop-window mannequin, with no personality of her own, entirely defined by what she wore. These days she is a mother-to-be, and draped in another set of threadbare attributions. Once she gets over being sick, the press will find that she is radiant. They will find that this young woman’s life until now was nothing, her only point and purpose being to give birth.' 

It was refreshing to see Kate depicted as a cunning strategist. I like the idea of her being like that in real life. She was a more interesting character than William, who was more conventional in his approach to the situation. Towards the end of the play the actions of the dapper duo - masterminded by Kate - took a turn for the sinister. I felt a little chill down my spine when Harry informed Jessica that he must break up with her...having been ordered to do so by William and Kate!

Set: concave brick wall with doorways through which people (including the ghost of Diana) entered and exited, a frieze near the top of the wall showing indistinguishable faces, a rectangular plum tiered stage not covering the stage proper, which had parquet flooring...Candles. Good set, helped evoke atmosphere.

Music: chorus at outset, reminiscent of Philip Glass. Also helped evoke atmosphere. 

I enjoyed this, but didn't love it. I was amused by the funny parts but not deeply affected by the more serious elements. 3.5 stars out of 5.

Next: Sunny Afternoon

Henry VI - Globe Theatre

Harry the Sixth 

Last weekend (27 July) I went with a friend to see Henry VI Parts 1, 2 and 3 as a groundling (i.e. standing in the yard) at Shakespeare's Globe. Physically it was easier than we'd expected - easier, actually, than standing for Henry IV Parts 1 and 2 in 2010. We wondered whether they'd abridged the plays significantly in order to fit them all in on one day. I hope not.

Anyway, Play 1, Henry VI Part 1, Harry the Sixth. It was a lot better than I'd expected. I went knowing nothing about the play itself and only a little about the historical figure of Henry VI. Since the three plays were among Shakespeare's first, I had been concerned that they wouldn't be up to his usual standard and - dare I say the b-word - boring. But no, I was very impressed. Henry VI (Graham Butler) was portrayed well as a very pious, naive person who was aware of his ineptitude as King, but who wasn't made into a caricature or a figure of fun. He was a complex character.

Given his small role in the first play I thought it worked very well that Henry VI was visible pretty much all the time - even in scenes where he had nothing to say - sitting reading on the scaffolding 'throne' in the background, and reacting with fear at certain points. One had a reasonable insight into his character before he spoke his first lines.

Joan of Arc (Beatriz Romilly) was amazing. I loved the scenes in which she performed some very skillful sword-fighting with various men - and won. I spent much of the first half thinking how incredibly progressive Shakespeare must have been to have created this strong female character, to whom he had given some of the best lines, and through whom he was clearly making a point about how women who break the patriarchal mold have, in the past, been assumed to have derived their powers from some demonic source. Until she did actually turn out to be a witch, summoning evil spirits to help her. I was more than a little disappointed. Why did you have to do that, Shakespeare?

The Houses of York and Lancaster

Play 2, The Houses of York and Lancaster, Henry VI Part 2. We didn't get as good leaning positions for this one. We were right on the edge of the stage. OK, this was the one where the Duchess of Gloucester (Beatriz Romilly) was shamed after helping to perform some kind of dark magic to see into the future. That was one of the major storylines. The other was Jack Cade (Roger Evans), a commoner who wanted to be King. There was a song about Jack Cade in the second half, which was good. The use of the scaffolding to make percussive music was clever and evocative. I liked the Jack Cade song. It was my favourite part of this play. I was kind of hoping he would become King.

The True Tragedy of the Duke of York

Play 3, The True Tragedy of the Duke of York, Henry VI Part 3. This was another very good one; I preferred it to the second play but didn't enjoy it as much as the first. The first half was extremely dark, involving a prolonged scene showing the psychological and physical torture of the Duke of York (Brendan O'Hea) at the hands of an almost pure evil Queen Margaret (Mary Doherty). It was uncomfortable to watch and made darker and more tense by the fact that it was performed during a thunderstorm (we were protected from the rain by the edge of the Globe roof, so could enjoy the dramatic effects of the storm without being personally affected by it - queuing for a ridiculous amount of time does pay off!). In the second half there was some light relief in the form of Lady Bona, played by a man (David Hartley), and a very camp King Louis XI of France (Brendan O'Hea), who stormed about the stage bashing all the musical instruments (drums, cymbals etc.) when he didn't get his way. Richard, Duke of Gloucester (Simon Harrison), later to become Richard III, played a big part in the second half of this play, killing poor Henry VI.

The final play was followed by a good, energetic jig. The preceding two plays had not contained jigs, so I was glad that the one at the end of the third play was of an admirable quality. When we left the Globe we were soaked to the underwear within approximately twenty seconds.

Next: The Cripple of Inishmaan