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

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

Nell Gwynn - Globe Theatre

Sumptuous set of Nell Gwynn

Having seen Blue Stockings two years ago, I was excited to see Jessica Swale's latest offering. Following Nell's journey from humble theatre orange seller to successful actress and mistress of Charles II to aspiring playwright, Nell Gwynn was a big ball of wit, exuberance, ribaldry and joy. It was definitely my favourite Globe production of the year.

Gugu Mbatha-Raw was sympathetic and engaging as the courageous, determined, witty Nell. After being persuaded by actor Charles Hart (Jay Taylor) to try her hand at acting, Nell discovers she has a gift for it and quickly becomes indispensable to the company of players, much to the discomfort of Edward Kynaston (Greg Haiste), the company's established actor specialising in female roles. When the King shows an interest in Nell she is torn between her rewarding theatrical career (and Charles Hart, with whom she is romantically involved) and the prospect of a more comfortable - albeit potentially insecure - life with Charles II (David Sturzaker), with whom she has fallen in love.

The play was bawdy but not gratuitously so. Nell's humour was so infectious and her character so sympathetic that you couldn't help laughing along with her. The humour wasn't restricted to bawdiness; it was very witty and contained modern references (e.g. King Charles' anti-austerity remark). Kynaston was extremely funny as a stereotypical thespian, keen to demonstrate all the moves he had learned at 'fan school' in an attempt to intimidate Nell, and insisting on having an incredibly detailed backstory for the minor character he ended up playing. Nancy (Amanda Lawrence), the menial responsible for mending the company's costumes, was also a source of much of the play's humour. I loved it when it transpired that she had a perfect understanding of French as a result of having worked in France under Molière. 

My favourite scene was that in which Nell mocks the King's new mistress, Louise de Keroualle (Sasha Waddell), during a performance attended by the King and Louise. After Louise boasts to Nell that she intends to come to the performance wearing a 'grand chapeau' that will reduce Nell to insignificance, Nell comes on stage singing a song in French making fun of Louise, accompanied by other actors carrying an elaborate hat too gigantic to be worn.

The set was wonderful, complete with Royal Box and other theatre accoutrements. The costumes were excellent, including the many wigs. The music was great; songs entertaining.

One of the main themes of the play was the dearth of complex female characters in plays; once admitted into the company Nell tries to get Dryden (Graham Butler) to write more realistic and believable female characters. It was interesting to see this theme in the context of a play set in the seventeenth century, as it is of course still very relevant today.

Next: Probably Pride & Prejudice (guest post)

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

The Knight of the Burning Pestle

KotBP title page, 1613 edition

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next: King Charles III

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

The Duchess of Malfi - Jacobean Theatre at the Globe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blue Stockings - Globe Theatre

Set of Blue Stockings

My last visit to the Globe this season, I had high hopes for this play, and I wasn't disappointed. Well, actually, I was disappointed in one thing: the weather. It rained continuously. Continuously! It started raining while I was queuing outside the theatre.

I enjoyed the play very much despite the rain. It was excellent; witty, fast-paced, exuberant and uplifting. It followed four young women ("bluestockings") studying at Girton College, an all-female College at Cambridge University, in 1896-97. Having had to persuade their parents to allow them to go to university in the first place, the women faced ostracism and disparagement from male students and lecturers, not to mention society at large. Men who supported the women's right to study could face negative consequences themselves, in the form of (for example) being held back in their careers. The play showed the run-up to and the outcome of the vote that was held in 1897 in order to determine whether women should be allowed to graduate from the university. As it stood, women were allowed to study and attend (most) lectures, but could not graduate. No women were allowed to vote; it was open only to the University of Cambridge Senate and graduates.

Great performances by all; many members of the cast had been in A Midsummer Night's Dream, so it was good to see them again. Off topic, but this year's Globe version of AMND was probably the best I've ever seen. On topic, I liked the relationships between the four women students and the fact that, while they were all highly intelligent, passionate and determined people, their distinct personalities shone through. The tension between openly promoting women's rights and the fear of being seen to be too radical and harming the progress made thus far was shown to good effect.

A variety of male attitudes towards the higher education of women were touched upon, which I thought helped make the play realistic. There were men who were completely and utterly opposed to women's presence at university, men who supported it, and men who were somewhere in between - some respecting the women's determination to study while considering them ultimately misguided; others simply bemused at why the women would want to study when they were unable to graduate.

Set of Blue Stockings with banner informing
audience that women won the right to
graduate from Cambridge in 1948

There was more audience participation in this production than I have ever experienced before at the Globe. When Dr Henry Maudsley (Edward Peel), retrogressive psychiatrist, gave a speech right at the beginning about women not being suited to intellectual pursuits, there was a reasonable amount of booing, followed by cheering when Miss Welsh (Gabrielle Lloyd), a female lecturer/Mistress of Girton (?) had her say. I enjoyed the audience participation. It heightened the atmosphere and created a sense of community/common feeling among the groundlings without becoming pantomimic. I wish it could happen more often in plays at the Globe; I imagine it's people's reverence for Shakespeare that holds them back during his plays.

There's a lot more I could say about this play...music and costumes were good, 1890s jig was excellent...Highly enjoyable play about what is sadly still a pretty current, relevant issue.

Globe Theatre Groundling Etiquette

The first blast of the trumpet against the monstrous
regiment of impolite groundlings

The one, cardinal rule of groundling* Globe etiquette is, as far as I am concerned, the following: 

If you would like a good stage-leaning position, you must be prepared to queue for it. 

Nothing annoys me more at the Globe than a person who didn't bother to queue, sidling up behind me as I stand in my excellent leaning position FOR WHICH I HAVE SPENT AT LEAST THE LAST HOUR AND A HALF QUEUING, and imploring me to squeeze up in order to grant them leaning space beside me. 

Usually the person who does this is short and thinks that they are entitled to a good leaning position by virtue of their height. But no, sorry, short people with entitlement issues - if  you would like a good leaning position you must queue for it just like anyone else. If you are capable of standing for two and a half hours to watch a play, you are capable of queuing. And if you can't be bothered to queue but still feel you desperately need to lean, you can generally obtain leaning positions at the less desirable sides of the stage. 

Another annoying thing is when groundlings try to save leaning positions at the stage for their fellows. This happened recently on the famous three-plays-in-a-day day for Henry VI Part 2. Someone tried to save leaning positions for two or three other people when we were actually inside the Globe, at the stage. I didn't know whether the people for whom she was saving places had even queued at all, or whether they had gone to the toilet at the critical juncture of groundling entry into the Globe, or what. But whatever the reason, it's not fair to expect groundlings who have unambiguously queued to have to pass up their long-awaited places for people who aren't there at the moment of entry into the Globe. 

Summary: Queue, queue, queue if you want a good stage-leaning position. And don't leave the queue (apart from at moments when the queue is not about to go into the Globe).

*audience member who stands rather than sits in an Elizabethan-style theatre

Gabriel - Globe Theatre

Set of Gabriel

This afternoon found me once more at Shakespeare's Globe, to see the final performance of Gabriel, starring trumpeter Alison Balsom. Again, I didn't know anything about this production other than that it was set in seventeenth century England and would feature a reasonable amount of Baroque trumpet music. It's fun going to a production knowing very little about it beforehand.

Set in 1690s London, Gabriel turned out to be a series of vignettes featuring a variety of characters covering the spectrum of society  - Queen Mary II and her sickly nephew, the Duke of Gloucester, coarse watermen, musicians, a theatre director, a tapster...What these scenes had in common was that they all referred to the trumpet in some way. One of the themes of the play was the idea of people who felt voiceless being able to give expression to their thoughts and feelings through a musical instrument (namely the trumpet). Each scene was followed by music by Purcell or Handel.

Did I enjoy it? The first half felt very promising to me; the first fifteen minutes in particular were funny and exuberant and exciting. The costumes looked authentic and I couldn't fault the music and singing. However. There was a lot of bawdy and lavatorial humour, which I generally find funny in small doses, but in this production it was too much. It felt gratuitous. It seemed as though the writer was trying to compensate for the seriousness and grandeur of the music by making the non-music speaking bits as light, frivolous and farcical as possible. There was a big contrast between the music and the spoken vignettes, which featured flatulence (this scene I actually found pretty funny), full-frontal male nudity (more than once) and simulated oral sex.

I thought the second half dragged, but I enjoyed the scene with Queen Mary II (Charlotte Mills) and William, the Duke of Gloucester (Joshua James), which was amusing and poignant. The starling given to William by the Queen as a pet was well done and enjoyable to watch - it was a model bird manipulated by an actor. There were lots of little touches that added favourably to the atmosphere of the piece, such as the wooden boards representing London landmarks that were held up while a boatful of musicians was being punted down the Thames, to represent the movement of the boat. I also liked the parody of A Midsummer Night's Dream.

I suppose vignettes are almost inevitably unsatisfying as it's hard to give the characters much depth or show development. At the end Dominic Dromgoole, Artistic Director at the Globe, came on to give a little history of the show, and because of it being the final performance, the cast members threw roses into the audience. Finis.

Next: Blue Stockings 

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