Category Archives: Historical

Julius Caesar – September 2006

Experience: 6/10

By William Shakespeare

Directed by Sean Holmes

Venue: RST

Date: Friday 29th September 2006

As Steve put it afterwards, this was effectively a radio play on stage. Not as a criticism, more as an appropriate way of describing the production. The set was non-existent, apart from microphones dangling from above (at first I thought they might be light bulbs). We could just see the musicians at the back of the stage, to left and right. Props were brought on as necessary, but were few and far between. A tailor’s dummy served as Caesar’s statue, and for the storm scene we had actual rain and a thunder board at the back. Otherwise, all was created by lights and acting. When Cassius and Brutus withdraw to Brutus’ tent, a square of light delineates it for us – a lovely touch, very simple and effective. I gather some people have been very unhappy with this set up, but it worked fine for me – text, text, and more text.

This also meant there was no time wasted in scene changes – the action flowed very quickly, and you had to keep your wits about you. The costumes were also simple. The opening revellers had vibrant coloured robes, the soldiers wore red tops and leggings, Roman senators had togas, and the women had simple shift dresses. For the assassination, all white robes were used, with the togas being made of some wipe-clean, non-absorbent stuff. Very practical, even if the slight sheen of the surface did look a little strange. Lots of gore was used, naturally enough, and there was even a small patch left at the front of the stage for the second half – normally these things are scrupulously cleaned up at the interval, but not this time.

The play opens with the revellers enjoying themselves with some Asian-sounding music and dance. It looked for all the world as though they’d been so impressed by the DASH Dream, that they thought they’d try a bit of Asian culture in this production as well. It struck me as out of keeping, especially when I’d seen the rest of the production, but then there’s many aspects of Roman culture I don’t know about. Anyway, the rabble is cleared by two Roman senators, and although I could hear the lines perfectly well, I didn’t feel there was much going on with the characters on stage. The rabble just did as they were told, and there was no sense of them reacting to the senators’ telling off, either to grumble or to be ashamed. This lack of reaction permeated the play, so that it was more like a rehearsed reading at times. However, the lines were delivered clearly, and so I got a great deal out of this production, despite the unusual style of performance.

For the next scenes, Caesar’s arrival, and Cassius’ wooing of Brutus, etc., the staging was interesting. Cassius and Brutus were left at the front of stage, with Caesar and the rest heading to the back. Those actors stayed there, in plain sight, and the cheering offstage was made more apparent by this group being lit at those points. It was very clear who was who and what was going on, including Cassius’ duplicity in seducing Brutus to his cause. The soothsayer was a bit disappointing. He crept up the ramp leading to the stage, reminding me of Hamlet’s ghost from a couple of years back, somewhat melodramatic in such a sparse production.

Brutus’ soliloquy was probably very good, but sadly I was seized with a coughing fit, out of the blue, and not only missed a lot of it, but probably spoiled things for some of the audience. Sorry. I felt terrible about it, not least because I wanted to get out of there to spare everyone, but the ramp to the stage was on the near side, blocking that exit, and I didn’t know if I could make it all the way along the row to the other aisle without causing even more of a disturbance. While I debated this, not an easy thing to do when I was trying not to choke, the fit started to ease, so I held on, but not before I’d had to let out several racking coughs. Not an experience I want to repeat anytime soon.

The plotting rattled on in the meantime, and again there was little background reaction to Brutus taking over the conspiracy and leading it down the path of virtuous failure. Cassius really should be doing more here, I feel, but at least the dialogue was crisp and intelligible. Off they go to encourage Caesar to go to the Senate, and the idea that he might lose out on the crown really got across, both to Caesar, and to the audience. Of course, he didn’t want to look like a total wimp either, but he might have put up with it if there hadn’t been anything at stake. The wipe-clean togas were a bit of a giveaway, but all went to script (and to history, for once), and soon Caesar lay dead, pumping blood like a vampire drive-through. The interval came soon after, following Mark Antony’s brief soliloquy over the corpse. So far, so good, though nothing spectacular.

One point to mention, though. During Antony’s speech, at the line “And Caesar’s spirit, ranging for revenge,” Caesar’s body did indeed rise up and stood there, joining in the speech, mouthing along to “Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war”. The ghost then wandered off gradually, reappearing as required, leaving the bloody and torn toga to represent the corpse being shown to the masses. Interesting staging. We’ve seen before that there are limited ways to get a dead body off stage – they can either be carried off or walk off. Otherwise they just litter the place up (as in Venice Preserv’d, I seem to recall, at the Citizens, many years ago. And that was a small stage, gradually getting smaller as the bodies mounted up). This was as good a way of handling it as any other, and certainly got across the point that this was Caesar’s ghost we’re seeing, handy later on for those who don’t know the play.

The second half was where this production came to life. Antony’s manipulation of the populace was masterly, as usual, so much so that he had to rein back the riot he’d provoked to add the finishing touch – the details of Caesar’s will  which showed how much he’d loved the people of Rome. All balderdash, but when can you ever trust a politician? This was much more lively than anything that had gone before, and the whole production gained energy from it. Brutus’ magnanimity, fine in itself, is once again the conspirator’s Achilles’ heel, and civil war ensues.

I’ve mentioned the effective use of light to create Brutus’ tent. The scene between him and Cassius was well played, still not in as much detail as I’ve seen before, but with much more emotion evident. I especially noticed the mention of Portia’s death, and how it affected Cassius, genuinely, I think. It seemed odd to have Brutus then deny all knowledge of the event when the other generals gather to discuss strategy, but it looked like he was either unwilling to discuss the matter, or checking to see if the information was good. Most likely the former. Again, Brutus overrules Cassius in matters of strategy, and they head to their doom.

Caesar’s appearance to Brutus was simply done, with Caesar’s ghost standing at the back of the stage, and spotlit during his lines. The microphones that I mentioned at the start were used to good effect here, as they had been throughout the play, giving a bit of echo and amplification to the ghost’s voice.

The short scene with Antony, Octavius and Lepidus came over much better than I’ve heard before. It’s clear what’s going on, and also that Antony is as guilty of treachery in advance as the conspirators. Octavius seems to be playing his cards close to his chest, though from his comment ”some that smile have in their hearts, I fear, Millions of mischiefs”, it’s clear he views Antony much as Antony views Lepidus. All predators on the prowl.

The setting up of the battle scenes was excellent. A rush of soldiers across the stage, leaving battle debris behind them – in an instant we’re there. As soldiers die, they lie there, and when they’re needed as another character, they simply get up and join in again. Simple, effective, and with the earlier rise of Caesar, easy to accept. In some cases, soldiers have cloaks thrown about them, which they can throw off to become another character – Brutus, Cassius, etc. This speeds things up enormously, but despite the potential confusion of so many short scenes, the final act comes across very well, and was quite moving. The final tableau, of Octavius and Antony standing over the defeated Brutus’ body, echoes their earlier meeting, as Antony realises he’s got into bed with as ruthless an operator as himself, and starts to shake.

Although this production was lacking in some areas, I found it interesting and stimulating. It’s nice to see a completely different approach and get a new perspective, though I wouldn’t want to see so little passion in every production.

© 2006 Sheila Evans at ilovetheatre.me

King John – September 2006

Experience: 3/10

By William Shakespeare

Directed by Josie Rourke

Venue: Swan Theatre

Date: Saturday 9th September 2006

I found a lot of this terribly dreary, and could hardly keep my eyes open. The Swan felt very stuffy and I longed for a breath of air. The repetitive wordiness of the play just started to wash over me, and there wasn’t enough business and action to keep my attention. Like the bastard Philip, dubbed Sir Richard, I became frustrated that nothing was going on.

This was a disappointment, as much of the cast are also in Much Ado, which was excellent. This is not a criticism of the actors, as they were giving perfectly good performances – the production just didn’t have that sparkle about it. The bastard was definitely the best role, and Joseph Millson got a good deal of the humour out of the part. In fact, I thought there was more humour in his performance, if only the audience would have appreciated it better. Maybe it wasn’t so much a leaden production as a leaden audience. But I have seen it done better, especially the Cardinal. It’s as if the cast haven’t yet found out what a good play it can be.

Good points? The bastard, desperate for a fight, constantly being frustrated by all the peace treaties that get agreed! His comments on the “wooing” between Blanche and the Dauphin were entertaining. Blanche was good – it’s a small part, but she made her presence felt. As she was talking about her divided loyalties pulling her in two different directions, Eleanor and the Dauphin were actually holding a hand each – a human tug-o-war.

Not so good points: Constance’s grief at losing her son did go on a bit.

© 2006 Sheila Evans at ilovetheatre.me

Richard III – YPS – September 2006

Experience: 3/10

By William Shakespeare

Directed by Jennie Buckman

Company: RADA

Venue: Swan Theatre

Date: Friday 8th September 2006

They were performing on the set for the RSC’s Much Ado About Nothing – a Cuban bar – with a pole, light bulbs strung round the place and bits of broken up tarmac on the stage. This made for lots of crunching sounds as people walked, danced, etc., and left lots of bits on costumes. At times, given how much Richard was leaping about, it was like a crunchy soft shoe shuffle. Very unfortunate. The RADA set itself was a simple white sheet, hung over the back balcony, and used for silhouettes, projection, and with a slit for a doorway. Very effective.

The costumes were very retro. Doublet and hose for the men, period dress for the women. While it’s nice to see lots of lean and muscular masculine legs, there was no benefit in choosing this style. It didn’t add to the production. There were some costume changes, because of the doubling.

Overall, this production needed better editing of the text. The already excessive one hour twenty-five minutes overran by 15 minutes – a long time to expect young kids to sit still on a gym floor. I was toiling towards the end, because of the long drive up. The opening was strangely drawn-out, and for me it added nothing to the production. For about five minutes before the start, there were two couples standing in the front corners, chatting quietly to each other – whispering sweet nothings, judging by the actions. A couple of servants appeared at the curtain, and shortly afterwards the house lights went down. The King came through the curtain, with the Queen, and the three couples began a dance. While this was going on, Richard of Gloucester crept slowly onto the stage, finally launching into one of the most famous opening lines of all time. At least he could indicate the King when talking about “this sun/son of York”. And we were shown, in mime, the initial stages of Clarence’s arrest. Otherwise a slow way to start a play that already has time problems.

From there we jump straight into Richard’s hyper performance – waving his arms around like he’s trying to use semaphore as well as speak the part, striding the length and breadth of the stage just to show us his legs do work. This was definitely over the top, and I wondered at the time if such a young actor would be able to handle the demands of this role.

Fortunately, the next scene we get is Anne escorting King Henry VI’s body to church. Despite her early attempts to outdo Richard in the histrionics department, this gradually settled down into a nice exchange between these characters, Richard displaying his brass neck to full advantage, and Anne managing to find it in her heart to call a truce, if not forgive entirely. I don’t know if this is a really tricky scene to do, or if it’s so well written it’s almost infallible, but at least the performances were shaping up.

Other good points: the servants we see at the start turn into the two murderers, both excellent performances. First murderer, Forest, is played with a Welsh accent, and displays a perfectionist’s commitment to the important task of bumping off a member of the royal family. He lays out his bundle of implements carefully, checks them all, and then puts on his apron and large red rubber gloves with precision. All this business takes him right through the dialogue, so he’s ready for action when Clarence wakes up. The second murderer, Dighton, is much more panicky, but recovers himself as quick as you like once Forest reminds him of the money involved. Clarence himself was very good in this scene. Without the preamble of his fatal dream, he has to start from scratch, and manages to express greater panic in pleading for his life than I’ve seen before. Here, it worked.

I liked the use of silhouettes to show Richard at prayer with the monks, and also the bribing of the audience to shout “Long live Richard, England’s worthy King”. Sadly, the money was fake, so being typical peasants, we refused to do anything for it, but Richard was still offered the crown anyway. While they might have edited out the dream scene before the battle, I did like they way the ghosts spoke their lines all together – not only saving time, but emphasising the sheer number of people Richard had both pissed off and bumped off during his villainous career. One slightly naughty tweak to the text gave the young king, Edward V, a play on words that allowed Richard and Buckingham to laugh sycophantically. “Fie! what a slug is Hastings, that he makes not haste to tell us…” instead of the “comes” in my edition. Still a good laugh, so I’m not complaining.

Not so good points: they could have cut a lot more of the play, especially much of the women’s wailing and cursing, the pre-battle dream sequence, and the opening dance. It was a difficult piece to choose from an editing point of view. I don’t know if they were given a free hand, or a shortlist, or what. The action is all very well, but the heart of the play is the nature of Richard’s villainy and its outcomes, and that didn’t come across so well in this version. The humour was fine, but it didn’t satisfy me.

© 2006 Sheila Evans at ilovetheatre.me

Henry VIII – August 2006

Experience: 8/10

By William Shakespeare

Directed by Gregory Thompson

Company: AandBC

Venue: Holy Trinity Church

Date: Friday 25th August 2006

Only one snag with this production, otherwise it would have been a 10/10 at least – the performance space was so uncomfortable and made viewing the performance so difficult that I had to leave at the interval (the late interval), as my neck was already stiffening up, my back was complaining, my bum wasn’t too happy, and I’d missed about half of the dialogue! This was the kind of production that makes you wonder why a play isn’t done more often – what I could see and hear of it was mostly clear, brilliantly performed and very entertaining. I hope they bring it to a proper theatre near us soon!

I particularly enjoyed Antony O’Donnell’s performance as Wolsey – a masterpiece of cunning, conniving, and political manipulation – he could give lessons to the current generation of spin doctors. Special mention also to Corinne Jaber as Queen Katherine, superbly regal and passionate. Anne Boleyn was interesting – although it’s assumed the play is flattering Elizabeth I, as it ends with her baptism, her mother is shown here to be only interested in power and wealth – just how flattering would that have been? All the other parts were great, and despite the discomfort, I found the closeness to the action, and inclusion of the audience in a lot of it, was great fun. I gather the old adage was demonstrated again – never work with children… According to Steve, the baby performing this night was adorable, and few people noticed what the actors were doing during the baptism scene as all eyes were on her at the end.

© 2006 Sheila Evans at ilovetheatre.me

Henry IV part 2 – July 2006

Experience: 8/10

By William Shakespeare

Directed by Barbara Gaines

Company: Chicago Shakespeare Theatre

Venue: Swan Theatre

Date: Thursday 13th July 2006

This was probably my most eagerly anticipated performance of the season so far. I had enjoyed Part 1 so much, and was really keen to see how they did Part 2. I wasn’t disappointed.

The start was beyond brilliant. One of the actors was got up in a gaudy costume, bright red with black, sparkling like a glitterball, hair slicked back like a lounge lizard, looking pretty devilish. He stood in one of the aisles as the last of the audience were taking their seats and then addressed us all quite informally. After a few funny comments of introduction, he asked if we’d like to hear some gossip, and after one man said “Yes” loudly enough, he informed us that a lady across from him was having an affair. Funnily enough, with the man who’d called out. By this time, he’d glided over to the centre of the stage, and Rumour (for it was he) launched into the introduction. As he described the various tales of the battle that he’d been telling, the characters appeared briefly on stage. Even as Northumberland is receiving the various versions that have been put about, we see Rumour priming the messengers with his stories, except for the last, who brings the truth – Rumour either avoids or misses him, and glides off stage. Wonderful staging.

Again, the story was well told, and I particularly enjoyed Falstaff’s scenes in the country, another area where previous productions had left me wondering why they bothered. This time, Justice Shallow and Silence were not so gaga and were able to give as good as they got, which made Falstaff’s final abandonment all the more poignant. The symmetry with the first play was evident, with amnesty being offered to the rebels and this time accepted, only for them to be betrayed.

The climax is Hal’s rejection of Falstaff, and this came across very well, with the Royal family members being on the top balcony, and Falstaff and his ‘friends’ below.

An excellent production, with very clear readings of both plays, and some brilliant ideas in the staging.

© 2006 Sheila Evans at ilovetheatre.me

Henry IV part 1 – July 2006

Experience: 8/10

By William Shakespeare

Directed by Barbara Gaines

Company: Chicago Shakespeare Theatre

Venue: Swan Theatre

Date: Thursday 13th July 2006

This was great fun. As I watched both of these plays, matinee and evening, I was reminded of Ninagawa’s comments about British actors over-analysing their parts. Here the characters fell into place, especially during the tavern scenes. Instead of Hal and Falstaff’s role-playing having to carry many complex layers of meaningful performance, it was played as more of a jolly romp, with all of the tavern regulars joining in the fun. The extra meanings were still there, but they weren’t allowed to get in the way.

Again, the different accents meant I heard many of the lines more clearly, and some for the first time. The sets were not too detailed – there was a central block which rose or dropped to different levels to create a bed, table, floor or pit, while extra tables and chairs were whisked on and off pretty briskly to create the various scenes. The costumes were quite heavy, and must have been uncomfortable in the heat. They were more medieval romantic, with lots of fur trim, which was a bit of a throwback to old-fashioned Shakespearean productions, but they did the job.

All the performances were excellent. The young man playing Prince Hal apparently had a bad cold, which accounts for his slightly strange accent and occasional loss of power. Apart from that, he had a tendency to twitch and quiver at times of emotional stress, which I felt was unnecessary, but in all other ways he portrayed the character brilliantly. Hotspur’s fiery temperament was very clear, too, along with his tendency to ride roughshod over everyone, even his allies.

The bit parts were noticeably good – a Mistress Quickly from the Bronx was well matched with Pistol, Bardolph, and Nym, all of whom would have fitted right in to New York street life. The poor drawer, Francis, was also much better than average, being not so much stupid as over-eager to please. That ‘comedy’ routine has never worked for me before, but this time I realised it was a forerunner to The Two Ronnies’ wordplay sketches, with Poins getting Francis to say “Anon, anon” in response to Prince Hal’s comments. It still shows an unpleasant side to Hal’s character, but at least this time there was some point to it.

Falstaff’s stealing of Hal’s glory was underplayed here, I thought, and then I checked the text. They played it to the letter. Other productions have made more of the incident, but it’s good to see a cast standing by Will’s version and not trying to over-interpret it. The reading of Falstaff’s papers, listing his copious consumption of sack, was dropped; not sure why, unless the old English monetary references would have been too much.

We’ve decided if we ever get to Chicago, we want to visit this company and see their work again.

© 2006 Sheila Evans at ilovetheatre.me

Pizarro – July 2006

Experience: 3/10

By R B Sheridan

Directed by Lucy Pitman-Wallace

Venue: Olivier Theatre

Date: Wednesday 12th July 2006

This was a rehearsed reading of a late play by RBS, the only play he wrote after starting his political career. It was based on a German play, and apparently he followed it very closely, whether translating it himself or from a translation, I don’t know.

This reading was put on to tie up with the production of Royal Hunt of the Sun (seen earlier), and a few of the actors came from that production. In fact, the actor playing Pizarro today was the understudy we had seen before, which made it all the more interesting. It was hard to hear all of the actors, as some of them didn’t seem to realise they had to project as much as if it were a regular performance, and in the vastness of the Olivier a lot of the dialogue was lost. We weren’t as close to the action as in, say, the Swan, so that added to the problem.

The dialogue was interesting. RBS is a wordy chap, and although this isn’t a comedy, the same style showed through, and the speeches sometimes seemed overlong. I suspect the rehearsal period wasn’t very long either, as the minimal amount of action didn’t always add to the experience. However, it was still good to see this play, even with these difficulties, as we’re unlikely to see a full performance.

This play seems to be less about Pizarro than his ex-lieutenant who’s gone native, literally. He’s become the native population’s military commander in their resistance to the Spanish conquest, and the play focuses on his rivalry with another native warrior who thinks he should get the job instead. People get captured, released, captured, etc., and there’s a lot of talk about the politics and inhumanity of the situation, with some effort to include the personal feelings as well. Pizarro’s wife, Elvira, also features strongly. She was keen to marry Pizarro at first because she thought his escapades so glorious, but as she saw what was really happening, she came to despise him and his work. Interesting ideas, and I would still  like to see a proper version some time, if we ever get the chance.

© 2006 Sheila Evans at ilovetheatre.me

Enemies – June 2006

Experience: 6/10

By Maxim Gorky, adapted by David Hare

Directed by Michael Attenborough

Venue: Almeida Theatre

Date: Saturday 3rd June 2006

          This was a fascinating play. Chekhov with politics. Where Chekhov is saying a fond farewell to the old ways, Gorky is bellowing a robust “Hello” to the new. This was the Russian revolution in microcosm, including the naïve idealistic bourgeoisie who will be sadly disappointed, not to mention shot, when the revolution has run its course.

There were too many good performances to single anyone out – a real ensemble piece, and with a surprisingly large cast for such a small theatre. The adaptation was excellent, with plenty of humour, and it’s the first time I’ve seen a samovar used properly on stage (or perhaps the first time I’ve noticed it?).

© 2006 Sheila Evans at ilovetheatre.me

A Touch Of The Sun – May 2006

Experience: 3/10

By N C Hunter

Directed by Joanna Read

Venue: Connaught Theatre

Date: Thursday 25th May 2006

This was an old-fashioned play, not just because it was written and first produced in 1957, but because the values it expressed seemed so dated. A socialist schoolteacher, who works in a lesser public school for backward boys (goodness knows what term we would use now!) scrimping and saving to make ends meet, gets invited to Cannes for a holiday by his brother, the new husband of a relatively wealthy woman. This sets up all sorts of stresses and strains on the family relationships, especially between the teacher and his wife and him and his son.

His wife enjoys herself enormously at Cannes. She’s being entertained by a charming business man who’s inherited his wealth, and although she doesn’t fall in love with him, she’s very prepared to take full advantage of his time and companionship. The son is also keen to take advantage of an offer of work at his company. This probably upsets the father more than anything else, as his plan was for his son to become a schoolteacher. Eventually, he seems to realise he can’t run his son’s life, and accepts that he’s free to make his own choices. I did enjoy one bit where he comments on what he’s taught his son “since he was old enough to think for himself”! Seems like it’s OK to think for yourself as long as you think the same way Dad does.

There’s also his own father who’s being shuttled around between the families, although he ends up with the long-suffering schoolmaster as the flighty young Canadian sister-in-law just does not get on with him – he gets in the way of her socialising.

It was an interesting play to watch. It gave an insight into the concerns of its time, the period after WWII when ideals and materialism clashed. It would seem ludicrous now to have a character so obsessed with despising wealth and so completely incapable of having fun. But in this context it worked, and the acting was good enough to make it believable. There was good all round support, and the only drawback was that it all seemed a bit pointless – an historical debate that’s not so relevant today, but worth seeing for the different perspective.

© 2006 Sheila Evans at ilovetheatre.me

Antony and Cleopatra – May 2006

6/10

By William Shakespeare

Directed by Gregory Doran

Venue: Swan Theatre

Date: Saturday 20th May 2006

There are so many ideas in this play – and in my head. Shakespeare has written a love play/tragedy within a political play within a Roman historical play. Phew. And he probably knocked it off in a rainy afternoon down the pub!

This was a very good production of a very difficult play. I usually find it hard to engage with the main characters, for while I’ve experienced passion a-plenty in my life, I’m not aware of having neglected anything important to dally with my beloved. So I find it hard to feel sympathy for Antony, who has quite clearly lost all perspective in his infatuation with Cleopatra. Perhaps I would find it easier to understand if I could look at her and think “I wouldn’t mind a bit of that!”, but so far I haven’t found any of them that attractive (and at least one was, frankly, repulsive). Lack of maturity or experience on my part, I’m sure.

Octavius Caesar is usually portrayed as a cold fish, and is equally hard to like; to be fair, this production gives him a bit more passion, but also a tendency to shake – possibly intended as a reference to Julius Caesar’s epilepsy, though as Octavius was his adopted son, and not genetically linked as far as I know, it simply proves a bit of a distraction. [Oops. Since discovered he was, in fact, Julius’ great nephew.]

This doesn’t leave many of the main characters to be fond of. Fortunately, this production is replete with excellent performances in the lesser parts. I’ve usually liked Enobarbus – when you’re hacked off with the main characters, it’s always helpful to have a cynic handy who can put the boot in on your behalf. Ken Bones did a fine job, though I would have liked his character to be more prominent (were lines cut?), and for his death scene to have had more impact.

The roles of messenger and fig delivery man (or ‘clown’, as the cast sheet so prosaically puts it) were little jewels of comedy acting. The messenger was so reluctant to return to Cleopatra after his first drubbing that Charmian had to push him on stage, and the look of relief on his face when he finally got away unscathed got the biggest laugh of the evening (and this was one of the funniest Antony and Cleopatras I’ve seen!). The asp pedlar was suitably obtuse about Cleopatra’s intention towards “the worm”, and following a gasp from Cleo as she peeks inside the basket, returns several times to warn her to be careful. It was a lovely performance, beautifully topped off by the knitted red woollen cone he wore on his head.

Menas was particularly well played this time. He is Pompey’s follower who suggests bumping off all Pompey’s rivals at the feast they’re having to celebrate their new-found friendship. This character came across as more rounded, with more of a part to play in events than I’ve seen before. Also Pompey deserves an honourable mention, playing the part on crutches, presumably because of an injury. This must have made things difficult, but he still got the part across well.

One thing all these parts had in common was that I could usually make out what they were saying, even if I couldn’t always understand it. Sad to say, I found the volume of much of the early dialogue to low to hear. Given that this late play has some of the most complex language to unravel, I would have preferred greater clarity and projection. I kept feeling there was something I was missing – some underlying context or idea that would allow me to make sense of the whole play, if only I could grasp it, but every idea that came to me fell by the wayside when compared with the massively detailed and richly textured play before us.

I considered the possibility of veiled references to the Elizabethan/Jacobean political and religious situation – Octavius as Elizabeth, Antony as Mary, with Lepidus possibly representing Edward VI. Again, there was theme of boring, dutiful Protestantism stifling and overcoming beautiful, flamboyant (and older) Catholicism. But the play contains much, much more than this. I even looked at the possibility of Antony and Cleopatra representing Adam and Eve, falling from grace through ignoring their spiritual duty. As God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit were not to be mentioned or portrayed directly on stage at that time, it’s not such a far-fetched idea, but it still falls far short of explaining the wealth of other material in the play.

Betrayal stands out strongly as the most common theme – more so than love, passion or honour. Antony has betrayed Rome’s needs to pursue his relationship with Cleopatra, she betrays him at Actium and appears to betray him in sending conciliatory messages to Caesar, Antony betrays Fulvia and Octavia as well as Octavius, and everyone else changes sides faster than rats deserting a sinking ship.

Yet throughout all this, there is still that sense of an underlying love affair between these two people. Like an ageing Romeo and Juliet, there are many forces pushing them apart, but they cling to their need for one another like drowning people. The political situation that brings them together, the experience, power and lust for life that they share, make them ideal lovers but also make their passion doomed.

And so to the main performances. Antony was a grizzled veteran, calculating, especially in relation to his wives, and politically shrewd, but I was never sure what was pulling him back to Rome at all. There seemed to be no reason to leave Cleopatra. And although he was full of manly swagger, I didn’t sense the charisma that Antony could exert, along with his military prowess, to inspire loyalty from his men (which also undercut the emotional charge of Enobarbus’ death). The character reminded me of an older George Best – great in his day, but now sinking into serious has-been territory, largely due to his own actions. There were lots of nice touches, especially the political manoeuvring with Octavius, showing up the younger man by wrong-footing him, all smiles until he gets what he wants, then abruptly away.

Cleopatra was graceful and beautiful, but too intelligent and determined for my liking. This Cleopatra was a good match for Antony, and together they would have been more likely to conquer the world themselves than to lapse into abject failure. She wasn’t fey enough, not decadent enough. Harriet Walter conveyed both the deep grief and the lighter moments well, for example the tantrums with the messenger, but I didn’t feel enough sense of abandon, of wantonness and wilfulness in the character. This Cleopatra was just too much of a thinker.

The staging was excellent. The bare Swan stage was relatively uncluttered. Various chairs, cushions, throws, etc were brought in as required. There wasn’t much use of the different levels or the balconies that I can recall. The main joy was the back wall, or rather a glass panel in front of the back wall which had been semi-plastered, as if a couple of indifferent craftsmen had started the job, and then buggered off down the pub for the rest of the day. The loose patches of plaster were lit so differently, that the whole stage was transformed – now green, now blue, now misty, now purple. It also gave the effect of a rough map, suggesting a mix of sea and land, as well as the idea of new building and decaying ruins. With all these aspects neatly portrayed in one bold yet simple statement, this has to be the best set design of the season so far, and one that will stay with me for a long time.

[Steve saw the production again when it transferred to London, and considered that it had improved a lot. Both Patrick Stewart and Harriet Walter seemed more comfortable in their roles, Pompey had got over his injury, and the whole performance had picked up a notch.]

© 2006 Sheila Evans at ilovetheatre.me