NT Live: King Lear (27/09/18)

The Daily Telegraph, The Independent and The Stage were among those who gave five stars to National Theatre's latest production of King Lear. Director Jonathan Munby was blessed with a fantastic cast, and he really brought out the best in them and in this remarkable play.

Ian McKellen as King Lear (photo from National Theatre's website: http://ntlive.nationaltheatre.org.uk/productions/ntlout29-king-lear)

Ian McKellen took the title role, commanding the stage wherever he walked. His descent into madness was illustrated beautifully in his mannerisms, voice and expressions, and there was a seeming authenticity in his relationships with other characters. He presented an inner strength which shone through even in Lear's weakest of moments, giving the King a true supremacy.

This play would have been fantastic even without McKellen - but he brought something special to the role. In the interviews before the show, McKellen and other cast members talked briefly about Lear's age. One word in particular came up a couple of times: dementia. It is a devastating illness that has the power to rip families and lives apart. Yet, it was not discovered until 1907 - that's 300 years after Shakepeare wrote King Lear.

James Corrigan is a name which I will remember for a long time after seeing his portrayal of Edmund. Before this performance, Edmund was not my favourite Shakespearean character. I have even found his subplot to be somewhat irritating, but Corrigan presented him to me in a new light. He brought humour and wit to the role, animating his performance with sly looks and subtle expressions. His confidence coupled with his charisma created a likeable character, despite his deception and wrong-doing.

Luke Thompson put on a striking performance as Edgar, beginning the play with a fumbling nervousness as Edmund plays his tricks. His transformation into "poor Tom" was physical and filled with emotion as he smeared clay and blood over his face and body. Thompson effortlessly varied his accent to adopt different personas for his interactions with the blinded Gloucester (Danny Webb), while embodying deep regret and sorrow to the audience for his father's situation.

A striking decision for this performance was to cast a female Kent. Sinead Cusack brought a maternal aspect to the role, perhaps simply due to her gender. I think, however, it was more than that: she showed true care for Lear and was willing to go to great lengths to protect him, even risking her own life to watch over him.

I want to say something about the fact that the production originated in Chichester Festival Theatre. The Minerva is a small theatre with only 300 seats, so this is an unexpected place to find a name as big as Ian McKellen take on a role as prominent as King Lear. In choosing the role, McKellen said that he wanted to create intimacy, and that he wanted the audience to be close enough to see his button when he begs "pray you, undo this button". Creating such intimacy exposes the actors in a new light, giving meaning to every movement, every breath, every blink. Viewing the performance via a live broadcast has a similar effect, particularly with the camera following characters' reactions.

It is not often that I find myself so moved by a play which I know I will be reviewing. I went into the cinema with my analytical head on, yet, by the interval I was already mesmerised by individuals and the production as a whole. I allowed myself to be totally immersed in the story, feeling the characters' emotions until the final scene of the play reduced me to tears. If I get the chance to watch this production again, I will definitely take it. Five stars well deserved.

NT Live: Julie (06/09/18)

Last week, I took my boyfriend to see the live broadcast of Julie: the National Theatre's adaptation of Strindberg's 1888 classic, Miss Julie. Starring Vanessa Kirby in the title role, I arrived at the cinema with high expectations for Polly Stenham's shiny new production.

Photo from National Theatre's website: https://www.nationaltheatre.org.uk/shows/julie

In advance of this new adaptation, I read the original to see what key themes I needed to look out for. I'm so glad I did. Not because it was difficult to follow or understand or anything, but because the original play has something that the new play lacks.

The original is set in a Count's household in Sweden, and deals with issues of religion, status and sexuality. It explores what it means to be free and the constraints of society. I've seen a few productions of classics (such as Julius Caesar and Macbeth) and so am familiar with the difficulties that directors can face when attempting to bring traditional themes into a modern setting.

The play opened with flashing lights and pulsing music, as dancers stumbled around in an intoxicated performance: it was clearly a 21st century party. A screen came down to hide the party and we were downstairs in the kitchen; Christina (Thalissa Tiexeira) and Jean (Eric Kofi Abrefa) kicked off the dialogue with the opening scene.

The set was aesthetically pleasing - everything was symmetrical and white, and all dishwashers and rubbish bins were hidden within the kitchen counters. This gave the kitchen a modern yet clinical feel, representative of the society which we learn Julie feels trapped in.

As I expected, Vanessa Kirby was fantastic as Julie, bringing sexuality, childishness and insanity to the role all at once. She wore a long skirt which she was constantly fiddling with and pulled up past her knees whenever she sat down, and the straps of her bralette were rarely on her shoulders.

As Julie's character spiralled into insanity and self-loathing, certain elements were adapted. A staple moment for me was when she kills her bird: traditionally, Jean uses a knife to decapitate it on a chopping board, as if it were a piece of meat for cooking. In this new version, Julie takes the bird to the blender and quickly turns in on, leaving a bloody mess. Having Julie kill the bird herself in such a violent way changes the meaning of this moment. The scene is no longer linked to the execution of Saint John the Baptist, but becomes a moment of taking control in a messy, impulsive way.

As we walked home, we discussed the moral of the play and what message we were taking away from it. I'd like to say we discussed misogyny or racism or sexuality. Unfortunately, we talked about the dangers of drugs and excessive drinking and how people, especially those of a high profile, get themselves into that state. While this is not a bad moral for a play to have, it is not what the directors said they were going for in the pre-show interview.