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

Bring up the Bodies - Aldwych Theatre

Bring up the Bodies book cover

I saw this in mid August, so this review is delayed. Bad me. I enjoyed this more than 'Wolf Hall', but I think that's more because I prefer the story of 'Bring up the Bodies' than because the production was significantly better.

I really didn't like the block-y metal decoration thing above the stage. I presume it was there specifically for these plays  - WHY, though? It went well with the concrete walls, but I wasn't keen on them, either. Concrete and the Tudor era just don't go well together.

Like 'Wolf Hall', 'Bring up the Bodies' was rushed and there wasn't a great deal of atmosphere. Thomas Cromwell wasn't sufficiently sagacious or in control. Some of his movements were frenetic and indicative of anxiety, which is not how Mantel's Cromwell should be. In the book he comes across as completely reliable, steady, unflappable and sure of himself. As well as a genius.

I liked the bit near the beginning where ghosts from Cromwell's past appeared, including his wife.

Regarding dramatic pauses, there was a decent dramatic pause during the interrogation of Mark Smeaton. Well done, 'Bring up the Bodies'. 

Jane Seymour was annoying. Sorry, but she was. In the book Jane Seymour is quite a complex character - she's quiet, apparently shy, doesn't really fit in at court, among her family, or with anyone else, and has an unexpected kind of sense of humour. In the play they've made her stupid. Which is a shame. Her put-on undulating voice was annoying.

Costumes again were wonderful. Jane Seymour's gown right at the end was particularly beautiful.

An indication of how good/impactful a production was is how much one thinks about it afterwards. I'm afraid I didn't think much about this one. For both productions, I felt that everything important was included, plotwise. The costumes were perfect. A lot of Mantel's dialogue was used. But...they lacked soul and genuine drama. Most of the main characters were two-dimensional and created through a very literal interpretation of Mantel's books. The plays somehow seemed a bit commercial rather than properly thought through.

Next: Julius Caesar

Wolf Hall - Aldwych Theatre

Wolf Hall book cover

I've read both Wolf Hall and Bring up the Bodies and was favourably impressed. They were gripping, intense, atmospheric, disturbing, unusual, authentic-sounding... 

Wolf Hall the play

was

not.

The costumes were wonderful. The script was very faithful to the book. The play contained all the important plot points. 

But. It was two-dimensional. It lacked tension, drama, a sense of impending doom. I found it difficult to become properly absorbed in it. I even almost fell asleep in the second half (!!!). I forced myself to stay awake because the costumes were so beautiful. I'm a sucker for swishing robes and English hoods. And because I'd paid £40 to see it.

I think one of the main problems was its pacing. It was too fast. Even a theatre novice like myself understands the importance of pausing in order to create dramatic tension. But there were very few pauses in the play. Lighting and sound effects could also have been employed to ratchet up the tension. There should have been more shadows for people to lurk in, and more people lurking in them. I felt that the producers/directors prized competence and basic faithfulness to the plot over trying to create the book's pressurized atmosphere.

Sir Timothy

The characters, again, were played competently and somewhat literally. Thomas Cromwell was a cockney (well, kind of), Anne Boleyn shouted a lot and Jane Seymour cowered in almost pantomimic fashion. One didn't get a sense of the depth of the characters. In addition, Thomas Cromwell didn't have much of a 'presence'. I tended to forget about him when he wasn't speaking. Which isn't right! Thomas Cromwell needs to have a strong, imposing, definite, slightly intimidating presence. It's true that how actors look doesn't necessarily matter - if they are good actors they'll make you believe in the character even if they don't look much like them - but I found it difficult to get beyond Ben Miles' refined looks. I think he's more suited to lord of the manor-type roles in period dramas.

I didn't like the concrete walls/columns surrounding the stage. Yes, I know it's modern and almost expected to have minimal scenery/props etc., but I found the concrete incongruous with a play set in Tudor times, in which the actors are wearing Tudor costumes.

In conclusion, my recent discovery that Boots no longer stocks Chapstick or Lypsyl gave me a much greater sense of tension and drama than this production.

Next: probably Round Two - Bring up the Bodies. Ding ding!

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! 

Jersey Boys - Prince Edward Theatre

Jersey Boys poster with the 'boys' in their red jackets

I wanted to see this after seeing excerpts from it at West End Live many moons ago. I didn't know much about the Four Seasons at all, other than that their heyday was in the 1960s, one of them had a very high voice and I liked a few of their songs. I knew the show was highly acclaimed, so I thought it would be enjoyable even if I wasn't a proper fan of the band.

However...now I've seen it, I do think you have to be fan to really enjoy it. I enjoyed it, but not massively. I probably enjoyed the meal out beforehand at Byron a little more. Byron is a member of the Sustainable Restaurant Association and its burgers are EXQUISITE. The company was good, too.

Jersey Boys tells the story of the Four Seasons - how they met, how the group was formed, how they got famous, how some of the original members left and were replaced etc. They were all (the original members, anyway) from New Jersey, hence why the show is called 'Jersey Boys'. 

I found it difficult to get into. The characters weren't particularly likeable and I hate the song 'Ces soirées-lâ', which opened the show. I started to enjoy it during the scene when the more erudite potential member of the group, Bobby, was auditioned for the band. He sang a nice song, accompanying himself on the piano, and one by one the other band members joined in, singing and playing instruments. My other favourite bit was the bit I'd seen at West End Live, when they are dressed in the red suits you see in posters, singing 'Sherry', 'Walk Like a Man' and 'Big Girls Don't Cry'. I liked their precise, perfectly synchronised dancing. 

It was fast-moving and some of the character development was thrust upon you rather than shown gradually. I didn't understand why they accused Tommy of not caring about the band and only doing what would benefit him personally, when his debts were revealed. I understand their anger at his having got into so much debt, but thought it was a bit harsh for Frankie to claim that he didn't care about the band at all. 

I found it difficult to sympathise with the 'I'm incredibly rich and famous but I still can't be happy' storyline. I know money isn't the answer to all problems, but it does help. In the end, my favourite character was probably Nick, because of (a) his desire for cleanliness, (b) his quiet demeanour, and (c) his willingness to call it a day when he felt the time was right. I can't say I warmed a great deal to any of them much, though. Sorry, Jersey Boys.

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.