Swive - Sam Wanamaker Playhouse

Swive was an intense take on the teenage and middle-aged lives of Elizabeth I, depicting the challenges she encountered on her journey towards becoming Queen, and those she faced as Queen - in particular on account of her being a woman.

Elizabeth was played by two actors: Nina Cassells as Princess Elizabeth and Abigail Cruttenden as Queen Elizabeth. There were only four actors in the play and three of them played more than one role. This was particularly impressive of the two women, who played an assortment of very different characters. Abigail Cruttenden played Catherine Parr and Mary I as well as Elizabeth.

Swive presented the teenage Princess Elizabeth as innocent but astute; anxious and highly religious. Her religiousness had an OCD-like quality involving repeating the same prayer over and over again. As Queen, she remained astute and anxious, and had a nervous face-touching tic . She was also formidable and ruthless - she carried out a horrible act that made me lose sympathy for her and which I'm not sure has a basis in reality - no, not ordering the death of Mary Queen of Scots! - something involving a fork. In Swive, Elizabeth is very clear about not ordering her cousin's death.

Elizabeth's aloneness came over strongly - the extent to which she had to figure everything out by herself, and rely on herself alone - especially after the death of her step-mother Catherine Parr, when Elizabeth was fifteen. (Although that relationship had soured somewhat after Catherine's husband's predatory behaviour towards Elizabeth.)

Elizabeth's desire to remain single and inevitable lack of an heir was a major theme. Her argument with Mary I, in which she criticised her half-sister for giving her power away to her husband was one of my favourite scenes. She had to be careful about what she said, given her and Mary's respective positions, but she couldn't resist giving Mary her honest opinion about Mary's marriage, her phantom pregnancy and religious impositions. Another of my favourite scenes was Elizabeth's argument with William Cecil (Michael Gould) about whether she would have the title 'Supreme Head of the Church of England' (her father's title, which she wanted) or 'Supreme Govenor', which she ended up having because it was considered more suitable for a woman.

The lighting - candlelight - was used to good effect in this play - it was made an integral part of the story.

 I felt somewhat short-changed because Swive wasn't a full-length play and I hadn't known this in advance. It was a single act of around an hour and twenty minutes. I felt like I'd only just properly got into it before it was wrenched abruptly from me. My other issue was the occasional jarring insertion of modern language. The characters kept saying 'OK'.

Next: Anne with an E - yes, it's a Netflix series rather than a play. It's going to be a bit like living during the Commonwealth for the foreseeable future theatre-wise.

Henry IV Part 1 - Globe Theatre

Globe stage

...the blessed sun himself a fair hot wench in flame-coloured taffeta

The drama began before the opening lines were spoken. Someone came onto the stage to rapturous applause, only to announce that Michelle Terry, who was supposed to play Hotspur, was ill, so the part of Hotspur was to be played instead by Globe stalwart James Garnon. Who, apparently, had never read Henry IV Part 1, let alone rehearsed the part at all.

How was he going to cope? Would the production bomb? Or would it rise, phoenix-like, from the ashes?

Unsurprisingly, the performance wasn't as polished or as pacy as it would have been had Michelle Terry played Hotspur. Hotspur is supposed to be young, dynamic and intense, with a kind of restless energy, which isn't easy to pull off when you're having to read from a script (and when you're not in the first flush of youth). But James Garnon did a great job, incorporating the script into his performance (e.g. pretending it was a book) rather than pretending it didn't exist, and adding in improvised actions (e.g. gently kicking his wife's bottom - in a humorous way - and playing with a groundling's hair).

Henry IV Part 1 alternates pretty starkly between comedy (featuring Prince Hal, Falstaff and 'the gang') and seriousness (King Henry's camp and Hotspur's camp). I admit I much prefer the comedic bits. My favourite part of the play is the scene in which Hal impersonates his father while Falstaff pretends to be Hal, followed by Falstaff playing the part of Henry IV while Hal plays himself. This scene was made extra funny in this production by Mistress Quickly (Jonathan Broadbent), who watched Falstaff and Hal doing their impressions very intently and seriously, critiquing their performances.

Sarah Amankwah, whose face was incredibly expressive, made an energetic, relatable Hal. Falstaff (Helen Schlesinger) was delightful and entertaining, but a little too energetic and fleet of foot for the character. I liked the fact that Falstaff added 'fat-shamer' to the litany of insults he bestowed on Hal - this play is FULL of fat-shaming, and it was good and funny to see them acknowledge it. I loved Nina Bowers as Poins and Douglas. She and Hal made an excellent doubt act, and watching her fighting as 'the' Douglas was a joy - it was refreshing to see a woman play that kind of part.

Talking of the fighting, they had swords/daggers and everything, but the fighting was 'no contact' - very well-choreographed, though, and just as dramatic as if it had involved contact. I was impressed with James Garnon who must have learnt his fight choreography in a very short time - and his lines for that scene - you can't wield a weapon and hold a script!

Next: I don't know

Oranges and Ink - Hen and Chickens Theatre

Oranges

This was a two-woman play depicting the friendship between actress, orange-seller and royal mistress Nell Gwyn, and writer and spy Aphra Behn. Nell Gwyn vs Aphra Behn would make a good epic rap battle of history. But not as good as Jane Austen vs Charlotte Brontë.

The Hen and Chickens Theatre was a small theatre at the back of a pub. The intimate setting, 17th century music and audience's close proximity to the action made it easy to imagine one was in the rooms of Nell's house in Pall Mall or Aphra's cramped quarters, lit only by guttering candle. The Restoration era costumes were wonderful.

The first appearance of Nell Gwyn (Sarah Lawrie) struck a certain amount of fear into my heart because I was worried she would conform to the one-dimensional image of bawdy, saucy, self-centred, irritating uber-extrovert (although maybe Nell was like that), but during the course of the hour-long play different sides and shades of her character emerged. I liked Aphra (Claire Louise Amias) from the get-go; more reflective than Nell, she was witty, empathetic and self-reliant, with a performative side to her character. I would have liked to have heard more anecdotes from her life.

The portrayal of Nell and Aphra's friendship was realistic and relatable. It was easy to understand why they got on so well. Humour was an important component of their friendship and they shared a love of 'lampooning' politicians and other well-known figures. Both had experienced hardship, both were ambitious and creative, and both acutely aware of the difficulties women faced in being taken seriously and treated with respect. When they each experienced personal tragedy, the other provided a shoulder to cry on - although, as with most friendships, there were moments when they let each other down and harsh words were exchanged.

I'd be interested to know how much is known about their relationship - were they known to actually be close friends in real life rather than simply acquaintances?

The play was chronological - apart from the final scene - and each scene showed their interactions at key points in their lives. It wasn't always clear how much time had elapsed between each scene, but the fact that the scenes didn't follow closely on from one another time-wise made it more interesting.

Next: The Comedy of Errors

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

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