The setting of A Midsummer Night's Dream. Photo taken Jamie Marcus Productions' Facebook page: from https://www.facebook.com/jamiemarcusproductions/photos |
Lil Literature Reviews
Saturday, July 17, 2021
A Midsummer Night's Dream
Tuesday, June 1, 2021
Wind in the Willows
Monday, April 26, 2021
NT Film: Romeo and Juliet (April 2021)
I've hesitated about writing this review. I prefer to assess a play rather than a film, and this was advertised to us as a film recorded in a theatre. Absolutely, theatrical elements are thrown at the viewer throughout the production, many of which I will enjoy discussing in this blog. Yet, the effect of a film, no matter how theatrical or Shakespearean, will always be different to the effect of live theatre.
For a start, the immediacy is changed. When watching a play, the audience has a real sense of this is happening now, even when watching a live broadcast (although this effect is best when you are in the audience next to the stage). With films however, we get a sense of this is pre-recorded. A great film will make it feel more immediate, but we always go into a film with the knowledge that there will be different angles, different takes, even different days all edited together to make up the version that we as viewers are presented with.
I realise this all sounds very biased and pro-theatre, even anti-film. I enjoy films as much as the next person, of course, and there are some films that just cannot be achieved on stage in the same way. I would even go as far to say that there are some Shakespeare films that are bloody fantastic and work better than some theatrical productions I have seen. But Shakespeare on film is difficult. It was written 300 years before the first film came out, and 400 years before the types films that we are accustomed to today. Editing is necessary, and certain theatricalities just don't translate very easily.
That said, I was very excited when National Theatre announced a new Romeo and Juliet - especially starring Josh O'Connor (I've been loving The Crown on Netflix). Let me start by saying what I loved about the film.
Photo taken from National Theatre's website: https://www.nationaltheatre.org.uk/shows/romeo-and-juliet-film |
1. The intimate atmosphere. This is something that film does better than theatre. Thanks to close-ups, camera angles and narrow alleys created on set, the whole production felt close and almost private. You have a real sense of watching without the characters knowing - the polar opposite of what many of Shakespeare's characters go through. Romeo and Juliet's relationship was steamed up by this intimacy, but we also got up close and personal with the likes of Tybalt and Mercutio in the fight scenes, revealing the anger and pride on their faces and allowing us to watch as it turns to pain.
2. Tamsin Greig. I mean what's not to love. I'd recently seen her as Malvolia in Twelfth Night in which she was absolutely fantastic and presented Malvolio to me in a new light. I was sort of surprised when I saw that she was to play Lady Capulet - I hadn't considered the role to be very big - but as the play progressed I realised why. Many of Lord Capulet's lines were also given to her. In a genius move, the stereotypical family hierarchy of mean-father-controls-daughter was completely removed from the play, I think for the better. We know that mothers can be controlling too, and something about this change made her character feel fresh and modern. By having both parents' lines, Greig was tender and maternal when Juliet obeyed, yet cold and tyrannical when Juliet refuses to marry Paris. As a result Lord Capulet shrank into the background and became more of a passive figure, but the twist was intriguing for anyone already familiar with the play and allowed Greig to shine in this commanding role.
3. Juliet's bedroom speech. Wow. For me, this was Jessie Buckley's shining moment. An element of theatricality was brought into this monologue - for how else can a monologue be convincingly achieved - as Juliet's bed was moved away from the set and all other actors circled around her to watch. Her speech was delivered as what I can only describe as an anxiety attack, questioning every person involved and how this plan could go horribly wrong. Her pacing was perfect, lingering on each cause for anxiety just long enough for the viewer to consider it before moving onto the next tragic possibility.
However, there were some elements that just didn't work for me.
First of all, the drastic cuts. I've seen a review that calls it "Romeo and Juliet cut in half but twice as good" and I have to disagree. How can taking all the comedy out of the play possibly improve it?! For me, a key point of the play is to have the happy, comedic, everything-is-fine first half, then BAM Mercutio dies and its all doom-and-gloom tragedy from there. You're not supposed to feel impending doom right from the start, that's what Hamlet is for.
Next, the love interest between Benvolio and Mercutio - don't jump to judging me because one thing I'm not is homophobic. I'm all for extra romances and gender swaps etc to speak to the LGBTQ+ community, and theatre is a fantastic way to celebrate this because ultimately theatre celebrates being human. BUT. In this particular production, it felt like a box ticking exercise. Both Mercutio and Benvolio had had their lines drastically chopped, and their characters suffered for it. You don't have time to get to know Mercutio before he dies (no, the Queen Mab speech alone is not enough), and Benvolio felt like more of a background character. Giving them a romantic subplot just did not make up for this, and in a film that is already restricted by time I feel they could have added something more effective instead. What, you ask? Try more of their lines.
Finally, and I hate to return to this, but putting Romeo and Juliet in a film doesn't always work. Yes, you get intimacy, but you also get access to how ridiculous the story actually is. Baz Luhmann gets away with it with his fantastically bizarre adaptation, and the Olivia Hussey version was exceptional. But when the actors (as brilliant as they may be) are not teenagers and it is played naturalistically, the whole story becomes difficult to digest. Combine that with the cuts to shorten the time they have to fall in love even further (Romeo only has two lines from when he sees Juliet to fall in love with her) and it becomes more and more implausible. Godwin attempted to fill these gaps with montages of Romeo and Juliet chasing each other around the stage, but it wasn't enough to justify how they fell so madly in love and why the consequences are as extreme as exile and death. In English theatre, sense rarely prevails, but it is asking much more of the viewer to follow Shakespearean reasoning in a modern film.
Saturday, April 24, 2021
NT Live At Home: Twelfth Night (2020)
Tamsin Greig as Malvolia. Photo taken from: https://www.comedy.co.uk/tv/twelfth-night-nt-live-2020/ |
Tuesday, January 19, 2021
RSC: Young Bloods (16/01/21)
I haven't reviewed anything for a while. That doesn't mean I'm not watching theatre - where lockdown has allowed, I've streamed shows and watched clips and enjoyed theatre and the arts where I can. I simply haven't been in the right headspace to actively write about the performances I've enjoyed. Somehow my voice hasn't felt relevant.
Young Bloods was all about the power of your voice. Whether that is orating to a crowd of people, exploring a character's voice, or speaking to friends and family: your voice matters. Your opinion matters.
Photo taken from the RSC Instagram: @thersc |
This theatrical experiment (I'm calling it 'experiment' because, for me, that is what it was. It felt more like watching a rehearsal than watching a polished performance. This isn't a bad thing: theatre is about experimenting). So yes, this experiment really sparked something in me. I found myself arguing with it in my head as the show continued, and wanting to talk about it with people afterwards. This feels like an achievement.
The premise of the show was to take the voices of young people and relate their opinions to extracts from Shakespeare. For example, one young person spoke of LGBTQ+ rights, so the actors took the famous balcony scene from Romeo and Juliet and cast Juliet as a male character. Within this speech, Juliet asks "what's in a name?" and this really spoke to the issues of identity that the LGBTQ+ community face today as society attempts to label and un-label them. In another example, the young person spoke of racism and xenophobia, and the actors responded with Shylock's speech from The Merchant of Venice, in which he explains that Jews have "hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions," just as Christians do. Thus, a correlation between Shakespeare's words and the words of the young people of today was formed through experimental theatre.
The result in my mind was conflicted. At once, I wanted to agree, to shout yes, we need change and we need people to stand up for what they believe in. But at the same time, a certain naivety was revealed. One of the young people said that generations before us have ignored these issues, and that our generation is being left to clean up their mistakes. She was speaking about climate change, and the actors responded with one of Titania's speeches from A Midsummer Night's Dream. Fast forward to a more recent character, and we see that Sir David Attenborough has dedicated his life to caring for the planet, putting a tremendous effort into persuading people to do better.
I'm not disagreeing with the young person's sentiment as I completely agree: climate change is urgent, and we must change our ways and do better, but it is not a new issue. Rights for minorities, protection for people and animals, the top 1% getting the best while the rest of us suffer for it - these are all issues which have been raised and fought over for centuries in one form or another, in one society or another. Shakespeare is a useful tool for bringing awareness to new issues, but we can also use literature to reflect on our own history and recognise patterns in our politics and attitudes.
What to take from this? Whatever you like.
Thursday, May 7, 2020
NT Live At Home: Frankenstein
Image retrieved from NT Live's Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/ntlive/ |
Equally, each actor brought a different interpretation to Victor. Miller's Dr Frankenstein was angry, frustrated, irritated by his own actions and generally filled with unease. He was clearly tormented by his actions and his remorse seemed genuine. However, when watching Cumberbatch's Victor, moments of theatricality and even humour were brought out in a way that I had not noticed during Miller's performance as Victor. Cumberbatch presented a man who was proud, eccentric, arrogant, and absolutely invested in science. The prospect of doing God's work was, to him, a fantastic experiment that would fuel his ego at whatever cost. Yet, surprisingly, he was not unlikable as a character.
Watching these two performances together reveals how complex these two characters are, each filled with emotion, passion, and conflicting identities that clash when they collide. Both Victor and Creature are just wanting to find their respective place in the world, but both are overcome by internal and external forces that are beyond their control.
Naomi Harris as Elizabeth and Benedict Cumberbatch as the Creature (Image from NT Live's Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/ntlive/) |
It is impossible to write about this production without acknowledging the wonderful set. Light bulbs hung from the ceiling and flashed, replicating the 'spark' that gives the Creature life and providing atmospheric lighting throughout the show. The stage itself had an inner section which could spin around, flip, sink or rise according to what scene needed to be portrayed, allowing transitions to be smooth and seamless. For me, the creative team showcased their amazing talents when the creature watches the sunrise, with grass growing on the stage, rain falling from the sky, and birds flying next to the rising sun. In other scenes, we were transported to the Frankenstein household, the top of a mountain, and up to the northern isles of Scotland.
For cast, crew, and everyone involved, this production of Frankenstein was a triumph and is sure to go down in history. It deviates from the original story just enough to bring something new, but remains close enough to the original characters that it feels like an authentic adaptation of the original book. The humanity in the Creature, the moral questioning of Victor's actions, and the societal issues of the Victorian period were all brought to the forefront creatively and in a way that was visually stunning. Shelley would most definitely approve.
Thursday, August 1, 2019
RSC Live: Measure For Measure (31/07/19)
Sandy Grierson as Angelo and Lucy Phelps as Isabella in the poster for Measure For Measure. Photo taken from the RSC website: https://www.rsc.org.uk/measure-for-measure |
There was not a weak member among the cast - all spoke their lines beautifully and every character was explicitly clear, but I will give you my top three:
- Sandy Grierson was fantastic in his role as Angelo. I imagine it must be extremely challenging to enter into such a controversial role, knowing that the audience could easily be triggered by your character's speech and behaviour.
- Lucy Phelps had her moment to shine as Isabella, and, for the first time, I found myself really liking the character. She is a complex character to play, and the religious side to her can easily be over-done, but I felt that Phelps found the perfect balance and presented an Isabella that we would not only want to support, but also befriend. Her reaction to the Duke's final marriage proposal was a simple expression, and one of extreme pain, but it was enough that I wanted to run and hug her and protect her from the nasty Duke. Phelps is definitely an actress to watch.
- Last, but certainly not least, is Joseph Arkley, who took on the role of Lucio. He stole the show whenever he was on stage, bringing an immense energy to the role. His Lucio was extremely gentlemanly and dignified, and totally oblivious to his impact on others around him. What really stood out for me, however, was the sheer difference to his Shrew part, in which he played the abused Kate as male role (see my previous blog here: https://lilliteraturereviews.blogspot.com/2019/06/rsc-live-taming-of-shrew-050619.html). Like Phelps, Arkley is definitely an actor to watch out for in the future.
Friday, July 26, 2019
Illyria: The Tempest (24/07/19)
The stage was small, but set behind the beautiful Drum Castle (photo my own) |
All of the actors doubled up and played multiple roles (the entire play was done with only 5 actors), and the characters were so well developed that it was easy to forget that they were doubling up like this.
It was wonderful to see a female "Prospera". For me, this highlighted how universal the character is, and the most important aspects of her were her bond with Miranda and her power over the island.
Sunday, June 9, 2019
RSC Live: The Taming of the Shrew (05/06/19)
One of Audibert's aims was to produce a thought-provoking production. Given current topics surrounding domestic abuse and toxic masculinity, this play would have allowed for conversation anyway, but somehow having the genders flipped really highlighted how far we have come as a society.
Joseph Arkley as a male Katherine and Claire Price as a female Petruchia. Image taken from the RSC website: https://www.rsc.org.uk/the-taming-of-the-shrew/production-photos |
Amy Trigg as Biondella. Image taken from the RSC website: https://www.rsc.org.uk/the-taming-of-the-shrew/production-photos |
However, this gender flip made victims of men in a patriarchal world, and women proved to be just as vicious as a misogynistic man can be. The male Katherine was "tamed" as per the script, but the situation did not sit any more comfortably than it would if the character was in her traditional form. The director had said that he wanted this production to start a conversation, and the discomfort that the audience felt at Katherine's humiliation was definitely a talking point after the show. My mum (who accompanied me to the show) commented that this situation would never happen "in real life" because men are physically stronger than women, but after some discussion we agreed that it wasn't actually about physical strength, but power. This play will always demonstrate a power imbalance, and gender is simply the easiest way to display this on a stage. It could be done in other, less controversial ways, such as via a colour-coordinated costume, but there will always have to be a victim of this cruel world.
Wednesday, May 15, 2019
NT Live: All My Sons (14/05/19)
The Kellers; Bill Pullman (Joe Keller), Colin Morgan (Chris Keller), Sally Field (Kate Keller) and Jenna Coleman (Ann Deever). Photo by Johan Persson, taken from http://ntlive.nationaltheatre.org.uk/productions/ntlout33-all-my-sons |
The production opened with a series of images projected onto the back of the stage, setting the scene and transporting the audience to a post-war America. The house (which would remain for the entirety of the perfomance) then glided forwards into place, and the lights came up to reveal a back garden setting. As the play was largely naturalistic, a realistic set had to be produced, and I swear you could actually live in that house, it looked so real.
I'm not usually an Arthur Miller fan, having been scarred by having to read Death of a Salesman at school, but I understand how important these plays are and why they have become modern classics. One of my favourite elements of the live broadcasts is the pre-show clip, this one being an interview with the director and creative team, in which Herrin identified just how relevant the messages in this play are today. Despite the play being set in the 1940's, the play didn't feel old fashioned or out of touch, but brought light to shocking comparisons that we can make between today's materialistic world and the aftermath of using the war for financial gain.
Despite boasting an impressive cast all around, the stand-out performances were without a doubt Sally Field (Kate) and Bill Pullman (Joe). The complexity of their marriage and what the loss of a son had done to them was made clear before Field had even entered the stage, and they bounced off each other with a perfect chemistry. During the light-hearted first act, their relationship was stereotypical and amusing, even comical at times, but the oppressive nature of their situation became clearer as the play progressed.
Unfortunately, however, I felt that Field and Pullman overshadowed the other actors. Having seen Colin Morgan (Chris) and Jenna Coleman (Annie) more recently in TV series, I expected more from them given that they were acting alongside such big names. While their performances were not bad, I didn't feel for their characters in the same way that I felt for Kate and Joe, and I think it was a lack of chemistry that let them down together. While they produced the right emotions in the right places, their performances lacked the subtleties that Field and Pullman incorporated into theirs, and so Chris and Annie's relationship felt like more of a convenience than actual love.
Overall as a production, it was fantastic - especially if you're an Arthur Miller fan already. The set was beautiful, and supporting actors provided the diversity and light comic relief that the play demands throughout. Would I go to see another Arthur Miller play? Probably. Will my friend go to another live broadcast? Definitely.