Shakespeare

Shakespeare in Love

Leave a comment

It is always strange to go to a play or musical based on a film, particularly one you know well. With a book, you know that the adaptation will simplify and change the material of necessity, so it will take on its own life. However, since a theatre production and a film have approximately the same running time, there is always a danger that the play or musical will lose its vitality through lack of originality. The most recent example of this that I can think of is Fatal Attraction, which was utterly dire and which is one of the very few plays I can recall where I left at the interval.

However, in the case of Shakespeare in Love, I was reckoning without two things. The first being that this is a script by Tom Stoppard, and its innate quality is such that it is virtually guaranteed to produce an enjoyable evening. And the second is that the film starred Gwyneth Paltrow, who is an actress of a certain screen presence, but not exactly a distinguished Shakespearean interpreter.

The plot is familiar; a young Shakespeare (Tom Bateman) is starting out, friends with Christopher Marlowe (David Oakes) and attempting to make a name for himself with the various theatre companies in London. Viola de Lesseps (Lucy Briggs-Owen) is a young lady who loves the theatre and wants to act. Her father (Richard Howard) is rich but has made his money in trade, and secures the engagement between Viola and posh-but-poor Wessex (Alistair Petrie). Looming over all is the presence of Queen Elizabeth I (Anna Carteret), a part in which Judi Dench memorably won an Oscar for 8 minutes of screen time.

Stoppard employs many classic Shakespearean devices, but the most prominent is that Viola disguises herself as a young man and is chosen to play the part of Romeo in Shakespeare’s play, which involves (initially at least) many protagonists, including Ethel, the Pirate’s Daughter. Shakespeare is impressed by “his” acting ability but falls in love with the undisguised Viola, when he sees her at her father’s house. The balcony scenes, in which he attempts to woo her, are among the funniest and most delightful in the play. In particular, Stoppard’s sly notion that Marlowe gave Shakespeare some of his best lines is charming.

It is well-acted throughout; Tom Bateman is an earthy, lustful Shakespeare, and we believe him when he bemoans the fact that his wife Anne Hathaway’s bed is cold. He has the ruthlessness of the man devoted to art, even as we do believe that he loves Viola. Lucy Briggs-Owen has a beautiful speaking voice and the speeches are beautiful in her hands, but her facial expressions lack variety. The role of Wessex is particularly well cast, as it was rather difficult to believe Colin Firth in the role in the film. Alistair Petrie is suitably chilly and lacking in appeal.

For me, however, the script is the star of this play. A true love letter to theatre, not without affectionate mocking, we see Stoppard’s gifts at their most whimsical. Not his most intellectual play (although of course still very clever) but a witty, charming and elegant way in which to spend an evening. Oh, and the bit with the dog is very good too.

Twelfth Night re-imagined

Leave a comment

It is not often that I come away from the theatre utterly charmed. Still less does this happen at children’s theatre, which is usually well done but very much for its target audience. However, our group of two adults and a 6- and 7-year old was thoroughly enthralled by this “re-imagining” of Twelfth Night at Regent’s Park Open Air Theatre.

It was a blisteringly hot afternoon and we were in full sun, so not ideal conditions for retaining children’s attention (particularly with the repeated singing of “the rain it raineth every day,” which frankly would have been most welcome). The production retained Shakespeare’s language for the most part (albeit heavily redacted) with various instructions for the audience to take part from time to time. We were slightly concerned about how the children would react to this, but they seemed to scarcely notice the anachronistic language and became absorbed in the story. Audience participation was enthusiastic, with the wave, dancing, and blowing the wind done with gusto (including by the adults in the audience, some of whom were well refreshed by the 1:30 start time).

The cast did an admirable job, with Sarah Ridgeway a fabulous Viola. She demonstrated something of the teen idol qualities of Justin Bieber/One Direction/Five Seconds of Summer (see, I’m down with the kids) in her “wooing” of Riann Steele’s Olivia. Nick Malinowski had the most difficult task, playing both Malvolio and Orsino, but he carried both off beautifully. The rest of the cast were also excellent, with particular praise due to the musical talents of Iain Johnstone (Feste/Antonio) and Vera Chok (Maria). The traditional pronunciation of the latter character’s name (“Ma-rye-ah”) was displeasing to a small person seated behind me, who insisted on several occasions that it “should be Ma-ree-ah.”

The duel scene between Cesario (Viola) and Sir Andrew Aguecheek (Guy Lewis, who also played Sebastian) was innovative, with a ringer brought in initially and the duel itself in a format that was age-appropriate and appropriate for the weather, although I would not have liked to experience it on a cold day. The production did an excellent job of explaining the various pairings, with a “love meter” brought in to demonstrate when a character had fallen for another. There were certain lines and motions that were adult in nature (it is Shakespeare, after all) but they were done fairly subtly and in a way in which children would not have picked up on.

I would not have thought, previously, that Shakespeare could have been made accessible for young children. I was wrong; full marks to the production and to Max Webster’s sterling direction. If you would like to introduce children to Shakespeare, this is an ideal way to go about it. Highly recommended.