wildlives-83550 Reviews

Royal Shakespeare Company: Love's Labour's Lost (2015)

Nearly perfect

[9/10 · 24 March 2024]

I've seen five productions of LLL now and am becoming quite fond of it. The keys to enjoying it seem to be if the actors manage the language well (slowly enough so we can catch everything, but with the required relish), if the farcical attitude is emphasized, and if the women can be brought to the forefront as much as the men, who have more lines and aren't as inherently funny. This version hits all those marks splendidly. Every character was cherished by the director and beautifully performed by the actor. Berowne was acted as more of a pompous ass than in other productions, right from the beginning, without making him unlikable. Holofernes was the best that I've seen; his physicality and overacting made him lovable. Moth was perfect as a not too-too young boy. The Russians scene was excellent, on a par with what is still my favorite, the Jeremy Brett version back in 1975.

My only quibble was with the Worthies section, where the director apparently decided not to mention the four suitors' descent into cruelty: all of the audience comments were cut, including the entire Judas scene. This of course is one of the problems with the play itself, and I can understand thinking that the story might work better without it. But one other change did upset me: the "Daisies pied" song was changed, with some wording cut and new lines added. The song was very well done, but still, such a classic deserves to be heard as it was meant to be.

Those two quibbles, though, were balanced by a strong emphasis on the closing scene where the ladies talk sense into the men. Drawing out this scene, which was done almost unnoticeably, helped to cushion the shock of the abrupt tonal change of the king's death.

This was a terrific production, making me laugh out loud in some places, and happy to applaud along with the audience after several scenes and songs. Well cast, well directed, and well performed - a triumph!

Royal Shakespeare Company: Twelfth Night (I) (2018)

Please rescue Malvolio

[4/10 · 23 March 2024]

This version of Twelfth Night is adapted for the screen, and to do so it was cut to little over an hour. At that length, the story barely makes sense. After Malvolio is carted off to the dungeon, he disappears entirely and is never rescued. Maria's lovely comment about "no cakes and ale" is replaced with a weak substitute something like "you think that makes you right."

I have no problem with updating the setting to the current day, but this particular setting, in the ultra-cool Southern California, seemed inappropriate because I just couldn't believe it. The production was very professional, shots of the coastline were gorgeous, and details like iphone use and internet searching were perfect - but those people just wouldn't be speaking Elizabethan blank verse. Yes, I got used to it after a while, but only to a degree.

The actors did a good job with what they were given, and Charles Baker was a fine Feste and the song arrangements were great, but with most of his teasing dialogue stripped away he came across as rather dour.

This production might be okay for people who think they hate Shakespeare, but it's only a pale shadow of the real play.

Royal Shakespeare Company: The Tempest (2017)

Beautiful but passionless

[6/10 · 22 March 2024]

When the lead actor fails for you, it's hard to critique the rest of the play fairly. Simon Russell Beale spoke most of the time in a monotone, seriously undercutting his performance for me. It's a shame, because in some places his acting was good, especially in the final act and the epilogue, and throughout the play he managed to bring out Prospero's anger in a way I hadn't seen before. Yet because of the monotone, it was hard for me to feel that anger.

The use of motion capture for Ariel and video backgrounds worked very well - I was awed and entranced by the goddess scene especially. It was disconcerting, the first time Ariel appeared in person, to see the zipper on his bodysuit. Caliban's costuming was more intriguing than in other productions I've seen, but he lacked the underlying menace he usually has. And I could have done without Trinculo literally being painted as a clown. We get it, Mr. Doran, we got it already.

The rest of the cast was fine, but nobody stood out for me. Even though this version could be considered definitive since it includes virtually the complete text, it's not one I'd care about seeing again (unlike Christopher Plummer's). Except for that goddess scene.

King Lear (2017– )

Surprised no one has reviewed this before

[8/10 · 17 March 2024]

This version of Lear may not be for everyone. There are a few textual cuts, actually nothing important but some people might miss them. The storm he's thrown out into continues for most of the rest of the movie, and when we're not hearing thunder we're wrapped in fog, so there are no real backgrounds. It's said to be a TV movie, and uses closeups very effectively. In fact what I liked most about it was that the direction strongly emphasized the emotions of the characters. Somehow these people seemed more real than in any other production I've seen. The elder sisters are almost likable at first and only gradually descend into their villainy. Unlike many productions, this Lear never felt stagy. The dialogue was delivered in the most natural way, and there was no overbearing symbolism. Costumes were of the period.

The one character I was disappointed in was the Fool. He wasn't funny and sometimes wasn't very understandable. He seemed to be mocking Lear rather than trying to make him laugh. Considering how well all the other characters were portrayed, I was surprised at this. I was also disappointed (although that's not exactly the right word) that part of the blinding scene was omitted. That may have been necessary for TV censorship, though, and we certainly did see gory eyes.

Lear himself was done the way I've always thought he should be: as half-doddering even from the first moment. It was very easy to see how this particular Lear could lose his grip on reality simply from elder abuse. Unlike many other versions, he never went to full-on roaring even in the "Blow, winds" monologue, but IMHO that is perfectly appropriate. Not all rage has to be at the top of one's lungs.

Edmund is an out-and-out villain from his first scene, too tall and too skeevy-looking to be likable.

If you want to see a slightly different Lear, but highly satisfying , this is the one to watch.

Royal Shakespeare Company: King John (2021)

Worth watching with an open mind

[7/10 · 15 March 2024]

I don't mind productions that update Shakespeare, but I'm not sure a little-known play like King John is the best candidate for it. Eleanor Rhode places this in the latter half of the 20th century (there are still dial telephones), yet as the play goes on we see more of an 18th-century appearance to the costumes. The most noticeable directorial choices are a female lead, not at all disguised as a man but still addressed as King John, and a female actor for the papal legate. The legate's gender didn't bother me, but making her a comic role did. I admit to also not appreciating the way battles were handled, especially the boxing match at Angiers.

There were a number of cuts in the text, but the only one I really missed was Arthur's death scene, which IMHO is needed to undercut the emotional highlight of Hubert's change of heart. This play is all about oath-breaking for political reasons, and Hubert's oath-breaking is the only one done for a good cause. Shakespeare had the boy die anyway as a way of showing that even humane actions can seem useless in a chaos of treachery.

The good thing about this production is that every single actor is excellent, and that is no small thing. Even the youngster who played Arthur did a great job, although his line delivery could perhaps have been better. The actors brought what on paper is a boring play to life, an impressive accomplishment. Compared to the 80s BBC production - the only other one I could find available on film - Philip Faulconbridge/Richard Plantagenet here is very likable. If you want to see this play for the first time, I'd recommend the BBC version, but if you find yourself fallling asleep with that one, try this.

Shakespeare's Globe: Henry IV, Part 1 (2010 Video)

How did he do it?

[10/10 · 10 March 2024]

This review is only for part I.

I don't understand what exactly Roger Allam did with Falstaff in this production, but this is the best Falstaff I have ever seen. The Globe audience absolutely loved him, and I did too even though in other productions I've thought him a bit tiresome. They say the soul of comedy is timing, and maybe that's it (I'm thinking of his revival from the dead). But regardless, it's easy to see why Allam won a prize for it.

But the other actors were all excellent as well: Hal was as charismatic as I've ever seen him, and the king, although too hefty IMO, was kingly. I did have trouble accepting a blond Hotspur, and by the end I thought he was getting positively psychopathic, but his acting left nothing to be desired. So far every production I've seen by Dominic Dromgoole has been excellent.

This production had atmospheric videos projected on a rear curtain which worked very well. Recommended for anyone.

Royal Shakespeare Company: The Comedy of Errors (2021)

Not my style

[4/10 · 10 March 2024]

This was performed on the RSC's open stage, which makes the "window scene" fail (the two sets of brothers are side by side). There are backing singers on the stage, and the actors sometimes use stand mikes, although they all have head mikes as well. The goldsmith is played by a Deaf actor, and unfortunately it's intrusive (he has an interpreter, but it's not done smoothly). However, when he gets to do a scene without words (telling about the upcoming beheading, and a couple of other places) he's brilliant.

It's very stylized, almost commedia dell'arte style, with conscious overacting by everybody. People stand around on the back of the stage when they're not acting, and there are a few fourth-wall breaks. There was a good deal of applause after certain scenes, but to me the audience didn't look that involved. Of course this is one of Shakespeare's lesser plays, but the Trevor Nunn production showed that it could be a lot of fun. The actors, especially the leads, put a lot of energy into it, but IMHO the extreme style didn't do it a favor. The main female actor (the wife) was visibly pregnant, which amounted to a Chekhov's gun that never fired. I didn't understand why she was costumed in a slinky dress that showed off her belly as if it was a basketball.

RSC: As You Like It (2019)

Gimmicky but worth it

[7/10 · 9 March 2024]

I'm not exactly a traditionalist about Shakespeare, but when changes are made I like to understand the reason. This version of As You Like It has multiple gimmicks: gender bending with Jaques and several minor roles, interaction with the audience (literally bringing them onstage), a few lines of text being sung, and Juno represented by an enormous machine. Audrey was played by a Deaf actress with an interpreter; I don't consider this a gimmick, and it wasn't hard to get used to. But gender bending usually leaves me cold, and it did here too. It may be less noticeable if you're not already familiar with the play, and the Jaques character actually went over pretty well. Besides actually bringing audience members onstage to play trees, there were a number of fourth-wall breaks that annoyed me a little.

However! The lead actress was excellent as Rosalind, and the wrestling scene was well directed. In fact I have to congratule the director in general, because he or she brought out the best in everybody. And I thought the Juno machine was a stroke of genius, especially the fact that it was handled in a rather old-fashioned way. It was also mesmerizing. I did think the Orlando actor lacked a little oomph - not acting skill so much as presence. Overall, they really go for the laughs and seldom fail.

I would recommend this production to someone who has seen other Shakespeare comedies but not this one, or to a "completist" who doesn't mind a modern-dress version.

Antony and Cleopatra 2020 (2020)

Unwatchable

[1/10 · 15 January 2024]

Holy cow, this is terrible. The acting was unbelievably wooden and slow. The actor who played Antony didn't look anything like him, or like a general in an army. One of the secondary characters literally read her lines off something in her hand. I skipped through it, but every place I stopped to watch it was exactly the same. No life to it at all. It ended with a 15-minute dance that is no doubt the reason for the "adults" advisory (frontal nudity) but was extremely slow and boring. I guess this was a personal project for the director and actors? I gave it one star so it could have an actual rating, but really, don't bother with this.

As You Like It (I) (2019)

Interesting Production, Not the Best

[5/10 · 11 January 2024]

I'm surprised nobody has reviewed this yet. It's a modern adaptation set in the American Southwest. Cut to 1-3/4 hours, but a surprisingly full story. An aggressively all-male production (Celia is obviously a man, and Audrey even more so, with a full mustache and masculine muscling). The location allows for some spectacular scenery shots, and the music is refreshingly lively. Jaques is also refreshingly less dour than usual. Some small touches were funny and appropriate: Orlando is the pool boy at his brother's motel, which is called Duke's Court (Adam is a maid), and the old duke's friends drink beer and pass around joints at a campfire. The acting is nothing to write home about, especially from the younger actors. Some of the older ones are quite capable, but since they're all smaller parts they don't have much of an impact. I didn't feel any chemistry between Rosalind and Orlando in this. The acting is nothing to write home about, especially from the younger actors. Some of the older ones are quite capable, but since they're all smaller parts they don't have much of an impact. I didn't feel any chemistry between Rosalind and Orlando in this.

I do have one large gripe, in the inclusion of a near-pornographic sex scene that is nowhere even implied in the text. I also think the homoerotic element in general is brought out rather more than Shakespeare intended. My impression has always been that when male actors played women in Elizabethan times, they were supposed to be convincing as women. This production didn't seem to try very hard to do that, and I wasn't sure why.

This film wasn't bad, and had an interesting approach, but I wouldn't suggest it for someone new to the play (I'd go with the 1978 BBC production for that). Also, it would need an R or possibly even X rating for the sex scene.

Julius Caesar 2014 (2014)

Done by an acting class?

[2/10 · 9 January 2024]

Holy cow, the acting in this is terrible. The people just stand there and recite the lines without any characterization or even energy. I couldn't even watch it all the way through. The woman who played Portia was the only bright spot, which is why I gave it more than one star (the other star is for the creative idea). The others desperately needed some good directing, which didn't happen.

I have no problem at all with this production being in modern dress, and in theory nothing against the stripped-down production, but some choices didn't work for me at all. The assassination scene was very oddly staged and didn't add anything new IMHO. And although I've often wanted to hear Antony's funeral speech done in a more intimate fashion, this one overdid it.

Why was this even made into a film? I have to assume its only release was to Youtube.