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

The Comedy of Errors - Globe Theatre

Bare Globe stage

This was my first visit to see a Shakespeare play at the Globe since the end of Emma Rice's reign of terror.

It was extremely refreshing to enter the hallowed wooden doors after 1.5 hours of queuing and to see...nothing. A basic Globe stage. No added features. No huge lighting rig, no set, as such, no props, not even a build-out! I have nothing against sets, props and build-outs, but after Emma Rice's apparent attempts to completely disguise the Globe or make it into a modern theatre, finding a stripped-back stage was as comforting and restorative as imbibing a strawberry granita on a hot day in Sicily.

The Comedy of Errors is one of my favourite Shakespeare plays. I know it's probably the least intellectual play - but it's so funny! I love the bits where Antipholus of Syracuse goes home with Adriana, who mistakes him for her husband, and Dromio (of Syracuse) stands guard at the house, preventing Antipholus of Ephesus from entering his own home. Dromio's finger acting in this scene through the hole in the door was amusing. In this production I also particularly enjoyed the scene in which the doctor(?) tries to exorcise the Ephesians. It was a nice touch to have Antipholus of Ephesus proficient at karate/some form of martial art. I always like the scene at the end when the two Dromios speak to one another for the first time. It's usually sweet and moving, and it didn't disappoint this time. The poor Dromios are treated very badly; I'm always taken aback by the (albeit comedic) violence meted out towards them.

Observations:

• The music comprised an odd assortment of (mostly percussive?) instruments. Each cast member played an instrument. There was also a song at the beginning of the second act, which was entertaining.
• The first scene could have been performed in a way that made the convoluted story easier to understand. I always find it funny in TCoE the way the audience tries to find stuff to laugh at in the serious first scene before nothing funny has actually happened.
• I felt Antipholus of Syracuse (Colin Campbell) could have paused for longer before certain lines to achieve greater comedic effect. I liked his relationship with 'his' Dromio, and the fact that they were both Irish.
• I loved Dromio of Syracuse (Beau Holland). Cute and adorable. She reminded me a lot of Imogen Doel as Tranio in The Taming of the Shrew (the last Shakepeare play I saw at the Globe, incidentally).
• I found the character of Luciana (Mogali Masuku) to be less irritating in this production than she usually is. 
• The costumes were a kind of modern take on Jacobean clothing. Since most of the actors played more than one character - and they were all musicians, too - they had a 'basic' outfit, which they layered with their costume proper when in character (if that makes sense). They all wore Doc Martens. I hope the Globe still does SOME plays in authentic Elizabethan/Jacobean clothing, but I won't quibble with the costume choices for this one, since TCoE is pretty fantastical.
• It was interesting that Antipholus of Ephesus (Andrius Gaucas) refused to shake hands or show friendliness towards his twin at the end - does that always happen? I can't remember but I don't think so.

So far I am pleased with what I have seen of Michelle Terry's tenure as Artistic Director at the Globe.

Next: Ballet Shoes

Cirque du Soleil 'Amaluna' - Royal Albert Hall

Peacock feather motif was used in different ways in Amaluna

The great physical courage of the Cirque du Soleil performers can be contrasted with my own woeful lack thereof in not daring to use the Royal Albert Hall's lifts. I did enter one with my theatre companion but lost my nerve when the doors re-opened unexpectedly on the same floor, and slunk out shamefacedly to take the stairs.

Amaluna was loosely based on Shakepeare's The Tempest. Miranda and her mother, Prospera, live on an enchanted island inhabited by lizards and other magical beings. A shipwreck fortuitously brings both Miranda and Miranda's nurse/governess(?) love interests in the forms of Ferdinand and the ship's captain respectively. I had thought while watching it that the nurse/governess character was Prospera, but have now been informed by another review that Prospera was actually the woman with the electric cello. There were numerous powerful, prominent female characters who could have been Prospera or Ariel. Caliban appeared to be represented by the lizard. None of this mattered, though; the awakening of love between Miranda and Ferdinand was easy to perceive and understand.

While most of the acts were indeed dangerous and death-defying, I found watching them to be more restful, mesmerising and somehow calming than a sitting-on-the-edge-of-one's-seat experience. They were beautiful and fluid and consummately elegant. Even the splashing of water out of a pool was done incredibly elegantly. There was a good amount of variation in the acts. My favourites were the aerial hoopist (was this Ariel? the goddess of the moon?) in her glittering blue costume, who 'hooped' down into the half-globe-shaped pool; Miranda's contortion performance on the side of the pool and her antics within the pool (I loved the use of water - how often do you get to see people underwater in a show?); the perfectly-timed men on see-saws routine; and the good old-fashioned gymnastics display sans equipment towards the end. One particularly imaginative turn was a balancing act involving a performer picking up whalebone-shaped pieces of wood with her toes and fashioning them - using balance alone - into an impressive boat-like structure.

We would have benefited from being closer to the stage for some of the acts. The juggling, for example, was quite difficult to fully appreciate from our vantage point.

I admit I wasn't keen on the clowns in love storyline. The female clown, who was the nurse/governess character, seemed to be channelling Rafiki from The Lion King. These clowns were a huge amount more preferable than traditional clowns, though. And I understood their purpose.

photo credit: Larah McElroy Peacock feather via photopin (license)

Next: Timon of Athens

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!

The Two Gentlemen of Verona - Sam Wanamaker Playhouse

This encapsulates the 60s vibe of  The Two Gs of Verona

The Two Gentlemen of Verona was another play in my 'Seeing all of Shakespeare's plays, no matter how un/appealing' series. I was really looking forward to going to the SW Playhouse again to experience its magical, intense, dreamlike atmosphere in all its 1600s authenticity, so you can imagine my chagrin when I looked up the play beforehand and discovered that this production was SET IN THE 1960s!!!

It was highly discombobulating to see a play set in the 60s - with 60s outfits and a set involving flashing neon lights and modern instruments and a sound system no less - being performed in a small, wooden, candlelit theatre. With big candlelit chandeliers swaying gently overhead. It simply did.not.work. Despite my anguish about Emma Rice's new regime at the Globe, it's not the case that I'm completely against modern/other era plays ever being performed at the Globe Theatre. However, I am against modern era plays ever being performed at the Sam Wanamaker Playhouse - unless, say, it's a modern play set in a cave or something. Otherwise, the candles are sorely wasted.

I can see why The Two Gentlemen of Verona is not an oft-performed play. The plot was pretty weak. I felt that the cast pulled out all the stops, but they didn't have much to work with. The titular two gentlemen of Verona, good friends Valentine (Guy Hughes) and Proteus (Dharmesh Patel), go to Milan in order to work for a while at the Milanese court. Proteus regretfully leaves behind Julia (Leah Brotherhead), the woman he loves, while Valentine falls in love with the Duke's daughter, Silvia (Aruhan Galieva), in Milan. When he arrives in Milan a bit later, Proteus also immediately falls for Silvia, forgets about Julia, and spectacularly betrays Valentine in order to carry out his wooing, which makes him either exceptionally naive, immature and mercurial, or a sociopath. Either way, a sympathetic character he was decidedly not.

The play is described as a comedy, but it's not. There were a few funny moments, but they mostly came about due to modern interpretations; for example, Valentine fleeing the court and joining a band - that is, a music-playing band - made up of notorious hippies. Music was used to good effect in this production. Comedy-wise, there was also a whole plotline about Launce (Charlotte Mills) and his dog, Crab (played by a person, Fred Thomas, not a real dog), which was supposed to be funny but which I didn't really get. It just didn't appeal to my sense of humour and I don't think I ever figured out exactly who Launce was. I generally don't like seeing people playing dogs, either.

I liked the interpretation of the final scene. Proteus assaults Silvia and threatens to rape her (see what I mean about it not being a comedy?) and only stops when Valentine intervenes. Julia is also there and she and Silvia watch in horror as the two men reconcile with each other. Proteus gets no comeuppance at all and the women are left feeling betrayed and shocked - Silvia by Valentine's happy reconciliation with the man who almost raped her, and Julia by Proteus' general assholery and assault on Silvia. In this production, Julia and Silvia both cry while the two 'gentlemen' embrace, which is a realistic reaction and one that I can imagine not being performed in Shakespeare's time.

photo credit: ArtGrafx Trippypoos via photopin (license)

Next: Cymbeline

Titus Andronicus - The Rose Playhouse

How the cutting off of hands was depicted in this production

Horrific. Foul. Gratuitously violent. Sadistic. Gut-wrenchingly awful. Full of vengeance. Enough to make you despair of humanity.

OK, enough about Leave voters, what about Titus Andronicus?*

Titus was another play I only went to see in order to achieve my goal of seeing all of the Bard's plays. I studied it at university and hated it because of its being all of the adjectives above. It's one of Shakespeare's early plays and I feel that a certain amount of macho posturing went into the writing of it.

As it turned out, Jung Han Kim's production turned out to be one of the best possible versions of Titus Andronicus I could have seen as a deplorer of extreme violence. It was highly conceptual, artistic and unpredictable, with each tiny movement carefully crafted and choreographed. The severed heads of Titus' sons were represented by head-shaped scrunched up bits of newspaper, and the cutting off of hands was shown through the pressing of hands into trays of blue paint. The production included the kinds of things that are usually included in parodies of 'artsy' plays - actors barking like dogs and writhing around on top of each other; drinking water from bottles and spewing the water into buckets (repeatedly); smearing blue paint across faces; tossing newspapers up into the air; a disgusting scene showing Tamora, Queen of the Goths, giving birth to a poo  - BUT it all somehow 'worked'. [Apart from possibly the poo scene.] I was absorbed for the entire thing, alternately disgusted, horrified and moved.

The scene depicting the rape and mutilation of Lavinia (Miranda Shrapnell) was harrowing and distressing to watch (even without fake blood) as I suppose it should be. The rapist sons of Tamora were truly animalistic. One couldn't help hoping that they would get their comeuppance - which of course, they did, in a horrible fashion. Seeing Lavinia stumble home after her ordeal was heartbreaking. I was impressed with the cast of eight, three of whom played more than one role - very different roles - and two women played men. Charles Sandford was sympathetic as the hapless Titus and Laura Hopwood chilling as the psychopathic Tamora. The part where she ate the infamous piece of pie containing the remains of her sons was memorable - it was basically three or so minutes of her just eating...and savouring.

The Rose Playhouse, site of the Rose Theatre, built in 1587, is an archaeological site. It was the perfect location for Titus Andronicus: dark, cavernous, sparse. Most of the play took place on the viewing platform, with the shadowy, watery, concrete-y archaeological area behind, but at one point the actors ran out to an area at the back of the archaeological site, from which their voices echoed. It was very atmospheric. I would definitely recommend seeing a play at The Rose.

*A late referendum joke, I know, but it made me giggle. I don't really think you're as bad as that, Leave voters.

Next: Pride and Prejudice

photo credit: Blue via photopin (license)

The Taming of the Shrew - Globe Theatre (+ mild rant)

Set of The Taming of the Shrew

I'd never been interested in seeing TTotS before due to its misogynistic nature (the wonderful 10 Things I Hate About You notwithstanding), but having recently made the momentous decision to see all of Shakespeare's plays, to the Globe I hied. I thought there was a decent chance that this production would be subversive, given Artistic Director Emma Rice's comment that she wanted it to be a version 'for the 21st century'.

Talking of Emma Rice...much as I would like to be supportive of her as new Artistic Director, I admit I'm not happy about some of the changes she's introduced at the Globe. Lights galore, speakers, amplification and, possibly most shockingly, fewer productions with Elizabethan/Jacobean costumes and music...

Is this the end of the world as we know it?

I'm hardly a traditionalist. I've seen and enjoyed plenty of modern/other era adaptations of the plays of Shakespeare and his contemporaries. But isn't the Globe meant to be THE ONE place where you can see these plays performed with more or less the same appearance and feel that they would've had in Shakespeare's day? Isn't that the Globe's whole raison d'être? Other theatres very rarely put on Shakespeare's plays in Elizabethan/Jacobean garb, and one doesn't get many opportunities to hear music from that time, either. If the Globe no longer does this, it just becomes another modern theatre - putting on great plays, sure - but plays that would be equally suited to the National Theatre or anywhere else. I don't understand why Rice would choose to discard the features that make the Globe unique. She might as well encourage members of the public to fire paintballs at the Globe's white exterior walls in order to make it more colorful and friendly and less like a scary, stuffy old theatre.

One innovation of hers with which I do agree, however, is her introduction of gender-balanced casts. This innovation is obviously as unElizabethan as a prominent lighting rig, true. But, unsurprisingly, I favour the balancing of Globe authenticity with modern ideals of equality and diversity. There's nothing that contravenes such ideals in dressing up in Elizabethan garb (especially if women can play men's parts and vice versa) and playing music from that time. Plus, if a character is played well, it's easy to forget the sex of the actor playing him/her. Equality arguments aside, women playing men and vice versa is arguably a less visually obvious departure from Elizabethan ways of doing things than a prominent lighting rig.

Lights, speakers...unauthentically Shakespearean action!

OK, enough about the New Globe Regime. This production of The Taming of the Shrew was set in Ireland in 1916, at the time of the Easter Rising. So...the costumes reflected that era, the music was played by an Irish band, the cast was Irish (or did very convincing accents) and there was the occasional Gaelic phrase thrown in. Katherine (Aoife Duffin) was such a force of nature in the first half it was impossible to imagine her becoming downtrodden. Her face was incredibly mobile and capable of admirable feats of gurning. The first half was extremely funny, involving slow motion wedding slapstick amongst other things. I hadn't expected it to be that funny. My favourite plot line was that involving Vincentio (Louis Dempsey) and his servant, Tranio (Imogen Doel), who pretends to be Vincentio while the real Vincentio pretends to be a teacher in order to get close to and woo Bianca (Genevieve Hulme-Beaman), Katherine's petulant younger sister. Tranio was both very cute and very funny, clearly delighted at assuming the role of master and full of amusing mannerisms.

The second half was predictably depressing as, following her marriage to Petruchio (Edward MacLiam), Katherine immediately became downtrodden; a shadow of her former self. I have to say, I'm impressed at Shakespeare's having created such a believable, cleverly emotionally abusive character at a time when the concept of 'emotional abuse' can't have been well-developed. It seemed pretty clear to me that Katherine went along with Petruchio's demands in this production purely because she knew that unless she did so she would get no food or rest. So...I suppose that's more subversive than Katherine having a complete personality change and genuinely growing to believe that women should be men's doormats. However, even with this interpretation, her final lengthy speech extolling female subordination was a bit much. I would've preferred it if the guests at the party at the end were revealed to be humouring Petruchio, having recognised him for the abuser that he is, and for the police to come and take him away during Katherine's final speech.

There was a lot of spitting in this production. I don't mean ordinary actorly spitting; I mean deliberate spitting as part of the play.

Next: Titus Andronicus

Pericles - Sam Wanamaker Playhouse

Scene of a Shipwreck

Shipwrecks and pirates and brothels, oh my! If Bar Mitzvah Boy suffered from too little plot, Pericles suffered from too much. No sooner did the titular Pericles, Prince of Tyre, set foot on a ship than a storm began a-brewing and he ended up stranded and friendless on foreign shores. The shipwrecks and coincidences and comings back from the dead and Marina's ability to talk herself out of ANYTHING might have made this play farcical and Comedy of Errors-esque, but it had such a strong fairytale quality and atmosphere it was easy to suspend disbelief and take it seriously. I felt that one wasn't supposed to see it as taking place in this world, but in a mystical, magical, ancient otherworld. Having never seen Pericles before but knowing it wasn't an oft-performed play, I was apprehensive. But I found this production beautiful and moving.

The Sam Wanamaker Playhouse may have an irritating name (must everything at the Globe be a paean to Sam Wanamaker?) but it's a wonderful, unique theatre and I would thoroughly recommend seeing a performance there. Each time I've gone I've left feeling as though I've just had a vivid, intense, amazing dream. Because it's so small it's easy to forget about the other members of the audience and absorb yourself fully in the play. And the candlelight! It's always used to good, dramatic effect and, again, it somehow helps you feel as though you're the only person in the audience.

Pericles started off a bit weirdly, with Pericles (played by Globe stalwart James Garnon) leaving town on discovering an incestuous relationship between the woman he plans to marry and her father. It was weird because you assumed that this elaborately set-up plotline would go somewhere (e.g. that the woman would materialise later in the play at an inopportune moment), but it didn't. However, I appreciated the randomness of it.

My favourite scene had to be Pericles' first meeting with the woman he would marry, Thaisa (Dorothea Myer-Bennett). It's Thaisa's birthday and a party is held in her honour, to which various knights are invited (and which Pericles gatecrashes). It's all very festive and they play a game where Thaisa has to guess the Latin mottoes inscribed on the backs of the knights' shields. Entertaining. Original. The bedraggled, recently-shipwrecked Pericles doesn't have a shield but gives her a branch instead. And there is a dance! Excellent. THIS was when I was expecting the incestuous woman to turn up.

I loved the character of Marina (Jessica Baglow), a young woman of great integrity, who managed, with words alone, to get herself out of every single undesirable situation. And she faced many such a situation, from an evil adoptive mother to pirates to brothel-keepers. The scene in which she was reunited with her long-lost father, Pericles was genuinely touching. The subsequent appearance, from the rafters, of none other than the goddess Diana, in Pericles' dream, was the crowning moment in the play. 

photo credit: Scene of a Shipwreck via photopin (license)

Next: Wallis

Othello - Bridewell Theatre

Tower Theatre company's image

This was my first experience of Othello in any form. I'd never even read it before. Not good for an ex-English student, I know. The Tower Theatre Company's compelling production proved an excellent introduction to the play.

The transformation of Othello (Ray Johnson) from sympathetic, loving bridegroom (albeit not without problems: prejudice and the disapproval of his father-in-law) to desperate, vengeful maniac was plausible and disquieting. The plausibility of his descent into jealousy was aided by Martin Maynard's believable performance as the manipulative Iago. Iago was played in a subtle, understated way, certainly not as a stereotypical villain. He came across an an 'ordinary bloke' who happened to be a sociopath. Which is how most male sociopaths probably come across, hence why it is difficult to identify them.

Amy Wackett was sympathetic as the innocent Desdemona and I really enjoyed Emily Carmichael's performance as the put-upon Emilia, wife of Iago. The development of Emilia's relationships with Iago and Desdemona were interesting to watch. It was a relief when Emilia defended Desdemona.

This was a very physical production with kisses, extended fights, bum slaps, stabbing, (spoiler alert) smothering, strangling...It was all performed to an impressive standard. Incidentally, Othello's physical manifestations of torment were uncomfortably reminiscent of my mental state towards the end of my last job but one.

Every part was well-played; one felt that even the unnamed characters had definite personalities and stories. I enjoyed the relationship between the messenger (Mai Le Dinh) and soldier (Ken Thomson) - was it a burgeoning romance? I also liked the serious, slightly pompous military attache (Nicolas Holzapfel).

The set was minimal, with three 'levels' and a basic 'house' with doors facing the audience on the second level. It had a metallic, forbidding feel to it, which suited the atmosphere of foreboding. The costumes worked well; while it was a 'modern dress' production they weren't strongly tied to any particular era and were different enough from contemporary fashions to allow one to easily imagine the action taking place in an alternative universe*. The costume colours tended to be dark and muted and were very well co-ordinated, particularly in the women's outfits. I loved Desdemona's purple get-ups. Even the shoes matched!

The use of mobile phones and iPads was innovative and amusing. A ringtone is heard. 'What trumpet is that?' Iago checks his mobile. It was all done in a suitably subtle way; there was no shoehorning of modern accoutrements or references.

My only 'criticism', if you can call it that, is that I would've liked to have seen more evidence of the fact that this was taking place in hot climes. I think more suggestion of the heat would have added to the atmosphere of tension.

*With the slight exception of the John-Travolta-in-Saturday-Night-Fever outfit that appeared in the second half.

Next: Not sure. I know I said I was expecting a Pride & Prejudice review...well, I'm not sure whether that's ever coming. Sometimes, like many of the characters in Othello, you just can't have what you want or expect.

As You Like It - Globe Theatre

Set of As You Like It complete with earth
piles for burying recently deceased
Duke

I always forget how long this play is and how many elements it contains...When I think of it I always think of Orlando wooing Rosalind as 'Ganymede' in the forest, but that only starts in the second half of the play! The best time to see a production of As You Like It at the Globe is on a warm, sunny Spring day. Conditions were not optimal when I saw it (cold and cloudy), but I still manged to get into the spirit of it.

The costumes at the Globe are always of a high standard, but I was particularly impressed by those in this production. The women of the court all had late Elizabethan double-bump hairstyles and Rosalind and Celia's first outfits and wedding outfits were extremely elaborate and, in the latter case, dazzling.

Michelle Terry was a vibrant, exuberant, self-assured Rosalind. Because she naturally has a low voice her 'transition' into a man wasn't as dramatic or played for laughs to the extent that it is in most productions, which was refreshing. I enjoyed the development of Rosalind's relationship with Orlando (Simon Harrison). The fact that the actors playing Rosalind, Celia and Orlando were on the more mature side of the age spectrum for their characters (i.e. in their 30s rather than 20s) gave the characters a stronger, more confident quality. Orlando is usually portrayed as naive and slightly vulnerable; in this production he came across as quite worldly wise and dominant. I think he guessed that Ganymede was Rosalind early on.

I thought the production could have made more of the bucolic nature of the Forest of Arden. How? I don't know. I'm influenced by the first AYLI I saw at the Globe, which made me feel as though I truly was in a forest. Maybe it was just the weather. But no, I think it was also the music in the first production and their use of a fire. They may have had pretend trees, as well, but maybe that was just my imagination.

At the risk of sounding curmudgeonly, I wasn't keen on the inclusion of modern props for entertainment's sake. A modern map, an umbrella and one of those shopping bags on wheels made an appearance. Oh, and a bicycle. I don't have a problem with actors making modern cultural references during a comedy (e.g. riding on brooms pretending to play Quidditch in A Comedy of Errors) - it doesn't detract from the spirit or atmosphere of the play. I can imagine actors in Shakespeare's time making ad lib references to current events to amuse the audience. But using modern props in an otherwise authentically costumed and 'propped' play seems to defeat the purpose of the Globe. It's supposed to be as it would have been in Shakespeare's day! 

I really enjoyed the tap dance, though, performed by two of the men of the forest, so maybe I'm being inconsistent. The parts featuring Touchstone (Daniel Crossley) and Audrey (Sophia Nomvete) were some of my favourite scenes in the play (they were in the tap dance scene). In this production Touchstone genuinely seemed to care for Audrey, which was nice. He was an understated Touchstone, but funny nonetheless.

Next: Secret Cinema presents Star Wars

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

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 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

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! 

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