1,861 posts
|
Post by NeilVHughes on Apr 27, 2018 22:10:05 GMT
Found it initially disconcerting, was in the vaults, next moment someone ambles over an opens with ‘Is this a dagger....’
As the evening went on and stopped being a tourist (my first visit to the Abbey) really enjoyed it, being ordered by Mark/ Richard to get out of the way was a special moment.
Missed so many, next year will most probably go to both of the evenings productions.
|
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Apr 28, 2018 21:14:14 GMT
Well that was rather beautiful, Shakespeare seemed very appropriate in the Abbey especially if it was something about kings or death and you were surrounded by tombs. The part of me that wanted to experience every speech did want to rather dash wildly from place to place suspecting it was missing something better around another corner but fortunately the majority of me won in the stand still and engage with what is going on in front of you. When you got caught up in a small space with not many of you and a speech happened it was the best but it was very well done and with very strong acting throughout.
|
|
1,475 posts
|
Post by Steve on Apr 28, 2018 22:05:34 GMT
It's very odd to be in the Abbey with so few people. One moment Mark Rylance is doing Caliban's speech about the isle being "full of noises" next to the tomb of Elizabeth I, and then he exits, and everyone follows him out, and I find myself totally alone with the tomb of Elizabeth I. No noises any more, just my footsteps.
Nothing was happening in the tomb of Henry VII, so I go in, and it's just me and Henry VII. Weird.
Phillip Arditti was one of the actors, and every time I came across him, all I could see was Uri Savir, the peacemaker he played so well, and so humorously, in "Oslo." It was nice to have the avatar of Uri Savir spreading a bit of peace about among the tombs of so many war makers.
Beatriz Romilly reprised her "Much Ado" Beatrice role from last year's Globe season, in the room with all the red velvet chairs that face each other. She performed the "Kill Claudio" speech with Mark Rylance replacing Matthew Needham as Benedick. At the Globe, Matthew Needham was a Latin Revolutionary Benedick, in a sombrero, so his macho indignance at Beatrice's extreme request got a big laugh. No laughs this time, as Rylance took the righteous fury of Romilly's exhortation to murder utterly seriously, with fearful placidity and pliant grace.
Romilly was exceptionally good, though I do hope her furious murderous Beatrice subsequently ran into Phillip Arditti's Uri Savir, and went to the pub to talk peace over a pint.
|
|
2,740 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by n1david on Apr 28, 2018 22:43:31 GMT
Goosebumps moment for me was being in the room of Mary Queen of Scots' tomb, and a gentleman emerging to perform Mark Antony's soliloquy on Caesar's death. There were only three of us in the room. As a Scotsman brought up on the Mary Stuart myth, hearing someone fulminate over the loss of the monarch and demanding revenge, hearing those words, in that space, was phenomenal. The highlight amongst a night of remarkable experiences.
|
|
397 posts
|
Post by altamont on Apr 29, 2018 5:58:01 GMT
And my highlight was Sir Mark performing To be or not to be, in a small side chapel, for at least part of which he was looking me straight in the eye. There were quite a few people present, but it felt personal. So many different highlights for different people - but there seemed more of an emphasis on the history plays this time - but maybe that was just our experience. The gathering together for the song at the end was a truly joyous way to conclude the evening.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2018 7:49:29 GMT
Agree with the above, this was an amazing experience. I was a couple of feet from Rylance doing his thing several times! The real standout performer for me though was Mat Fraser, now really regretting missing his Richard III last year. Amusingly at one point saw an actor wander into a space and start declaiming, only for another one at the other end of the room to start declaiming more loudly, so the first one laughed and wandered off to do his thing elsewhere. So I guess the performances are relatively random although there is a structure to it, with the costume changes etc. And getting to wander around the Abbey at will when it's relatively quiet was pretty much worth the ticket price on its own. Also great wandering in and out past crowds of tourists who were hoping to get in  Only regret I have is not doing some research on the Abbey layout beforehand so I could take in all of the key sights along with the performances. |
|
2,389 posts
|
Post by peggs on Apr 29, 2018 7:55:38 GMT
Looking at the cast list now I realise I missed loads including the majority of the scenes mentioned above and how on earth did anyone find time to admire at the same time, it seemed like we'd barely arrived and it finished. Could have happily explored this for hours more.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2018 17:40:37 GMT
Well that was rather beautiful, Shakespeare seemed very appropriate in the Abbey especially if it was something about kings or death and you were surrounded by tombs. The part of me that wanted to experience every speech did want to rather dash wildly from place to place suspecting it was missing something better around another corner but fortunately the majority of me won in the stand still and engage with what is going on in front of you. When you got caught up in a small space with not many of you and a speech happened it was the best but it was very well done and with very strong acting throughout. Yes. My FOMO was going nuts. I agree with whoever said they are going twice next year! |
|
204 posts
|
Post by argon on May 24, 2018 7:47:09 GMT
Get 2 for 1 standing tickets by entering promo code 2KINSMEN41 online, or quoting the code over the phone or at the box office. If you’d rather sit, quote NOBLE20 for £20 best available seats.*
Offers for the globe, looks like this production may be slow in selling.
|
|
353 posts
|
Post by cirque on Jul 13, 2018 15:22:09 GMT
Richard 11 to be all female/multi racial company.
Thoughts...?
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 13, 2018 15:41:07 GMT
Same as with a conventionally cast version of the play - depends on who the actors are. I saw the play at NT with Fiona Shaw in the lead - in theory good casting but in practice rather disappointing.
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jul 13, 2018 15:59:50 GMT
If it is done with care, thought and a purpose - and done well - then great. Go for it.
If it is done for the sake of it, in order to promote an 'issue' - then not so great.
You have to have something more than an agenda to justify radical shifts. Just because you can is not a good enough reason to my mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2018 16:59:25 GMT
"Multi racial" casting is the norm now, surely - only worth mentioning when a cast is surprisingly white (eg Knights of the Rose, the Kingston-upon-Thames War of the Roses). All female cast - why not. They've done all male casts at the Globe enough times. Actually they've done an all-female productions at the Globe alongside the all-male productions in 2003 - www.theguardian.com/stage/2017/jun/13/shakespeares-globe-theatre-20th-birthday |
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 13, 2018 21:28:18 GMT
If it is done with care, thought and a purpose - and done well - then great. Go for it. If it is done for the sake of it, in order to promote an 'issue' - then not so great. You have to have something more than an agenda to justify radical shifts. Just because you can is not a good enough reason to my mind. A serious question: What 'purpose' could be more important than wanting to make your artform (or society in general) better and more inclusive (as they presumably are hoping to achieve)? I get that it feels frustrating when people that we respect make artistic choices that we think are bad. However, when you say "if it's done ... with a purpose" what purpose would be acceptable? The arts can't ever really be assessed objectively, and so choices like casting will always be affected by the underlying desires & biases of the creators. Artistic decisions might not have always had the focus on gender/racial equality that it has now, but other 'agendas' were in place, even if they might not have been as explicit. Furthermore, given the state of the world, making a conscious effort to ignore the 'issues' you describe is, in a way, a political statement in itself. |
|
5,688 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jul 13, 2018 21:46:31 GMT
Why should we even comment on race now in Theatre casting? Do we mean ethnic groups, or colour of skin or what? So proper daft now. Talent is all that counts. Gender blind is different. Honour the author's intention.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2018 22:31:45 GMT
Richard the Eleventh? You know we've only had three, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jul 13, 2018 23:26:40 GMT
If it is done with care, thought and a purpose - and done well - then great. Go for it. If it is done for the sake of it, in order to promote an 'issue' - then not so great. You have to have something more than an agenda to justify radical shifts. Just because you can is not a good enough reason to my mind. A serious question: What 'purpose' could be more important than wanting to make your artform (or society in general) better and more inclusive (as they presumably are hoping to achieve)? I get that it feels frustrating when people that we respect make artistic choices that we think are bad. However, when you say "if it's done ... with a purpose" what purpose would be acceptable? The arts can't ever really be assessed objectively, and so choices like casting will always be affected by the underlying desires & biases of the creators. Artistic decisions might not have always had the focus on gender/racial equality that it has now, but other 'agendas' were in place, even if they might not have been as explicit. Furthermore, given the state of the world, making a conscious effort to ignore the 'issues' you describe is, in a way, a political statement in itself. When a production is created to fulfil an agenda, this is a risk that it fails to serve the play and the audience because the focus is on something external, something other. The aim of anyone tackling a play like Richard II should be to tell the story of those characters and to celebrate the language of the script. Anything less than that is not what I am looking for when I go to the theatre. Every choice has to have a reason that has some clear relevance to the text. You must, as an audience member, be able to see why a choice has been made. It should not require further illumination from a note in a programme or an interview in the media. I need there to be a reason for making a production in a certain way. Having an all-female ensemble is great - if you are seeking to explore the contrasts between original performance techniques and how that works with female rather than male actors. It is great if you want to look at the differences between male attitudes towards leadership and those exhibited by women. There are plenty of valid ways of exploring the questions raised by Richard II as a play and Shakespeare as a theatremaker. I am always less convinced by deciding on an all-ANYTHING production simply because you want to. There has to be a theatrical case to be made for that decision. It has to grow out of the text not be imposed on it. I appreciate that I almost certainly have a view that is not widely shared on topics like this. But I am very much of the belief that with Shakespeare (and many other writers), you start with the text. Every decision you take, every choice you make has to be in response to that text. That does not mean being slavish or reverential about it. It is the starting point for your journey through the play. I don't like productions where things feel like they were imposed on the original. In my own work with Shakespeare, I have not once stuck to the original genders of all the characters. I have always cut and reshaped the text (to a lesser or greater extent) and I love productions where enormous risks have been taken. So I am in no way a purist. Would I consider working with an all-female ensemble in a production I was seeking to stage? Absolutely - but only if I felt that it offered something to the play not just because I wanted to work with an all-female cast. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Jul 14, 2018 7:40:27 GMT
"Multi racial" casting is the norm now, surely - only worth mentioning when a cast is surprisingly white (eg Knights of the Rose, the Kingston-upon-Thames War of the Roses). All female cast - why not. They've done all male casts at the Globe enough times. Actually they've done an all-female productions at the Globe alongside the all-male productions in 2003 - www.theguardian.com/stage/2017/jun/13/shakespeares-globe-theatre-20th-birthdayI saw an all-female production of Taming of the Shrew at Stratford East in 1985. |
|
|
|
Post by crabtree on Jul 14, 2018 8:23:56 GMT
With all this discussion we really have to ask what theatre is. It is certainly not, by it's very mechanics, literal or realistic. It uses artifice to tell it's stories- using artifice in lighting, music, design, choreography, staging - none of it literal, so why should that apply to the actors. The word I think we should use is credible. Does that actor provide a credible character in the moment of the performance?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2018 9:54:28 GMT
Personally, I think "I just wanted to" is an extremely valid reason for doing something, especially in theatre, ESPECIALLY with someone as overproduced as Shakespeare. Nearly as valid as "female roles have been seriously underwritten over the centuries and it's still going to take a while before there's anything close to real parity so in the meantime let's have female actors playing male roles because guess what these seasoned pros are probably going to be quite good at it".
|
|
587 posts
|
Post by Polly1 on Jul 16, 2018 11:06:45 GMT
Anyone booking a jury ticket for the Ralegh thing? Can't decide whether I'd need to concentrate too much!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2018 13:28:50 GMT
More on Richard II cast and creatives ...
|
|
|
|
Post by asfound on Jul 16, 2018 14:33:38 GMT
I refuse to see plays that make a huge deal of the identity politics of the cast or team as a promotional tool. It's such an obvious targeted ad towards the type of people that are most likely to go the theatre, which also happen to be kind of people who are fixated on this stuff, white middle-class Londoners. I am a "person of colour" (hate that expression) and my friends and I would never choose a play based on this. It's for people to pat themselves on the back.
If it just happened to be a performance of Richard 2 that by chance had a entirely "women of colour" cast then I guess that would be difference, but as usual it's front and centre. Also is choosing a cast based on skin colour even legal? Patronising and awkward.
|
|
562 posts
|
Post by jadnoop on Jul 16, 2018 15:28:23 GMT
I refuse to see plays that make a huge deal of the identity politics of the cast or team as a promotional tool. It's such an obvious targeted ad towards the type of people that are most likely to go the theatre, which also happen to be kind of people who are fixated on this stuff, white middle-class Londoners. I am a "person of colour" (hate that expression) and my friends and I would never choose a play based on this. It's for people to pat themselves on the back. If it just happened to be a performance of Richard 2 that by chance had a entirely "women of colour" cast then I guess that would be difference, but as usual it's front and centre. Also is choosing a cast based on skin colour even legal? Patronising and awkward. The way that the play is promoted doesn't necessarily reflect the artistic integrity of the creative team. So even if you feel that the play is being promoted poorly (i.e. 'using' issues of race & identity to maximise ticket sales) it doesn't mean that the creatives have such a cynical view.
You say:
'If it just happened to be a performance of Richard 2 that by chance had a entirely "women of colour" cast then I guess that would be different'
but what does this even mean? Choosing to have women playing male characters from history isn't really going to happen 'by chance'. Certainly not in the current climate it's always going to be an active artistic choice that is at least partly made with a view to sexual politics.
Furthermore, while it's fairly common to get comments like "it would be fine if you had an all-X cast by chance, but don't just shoe-horn it in" I can't help but feel that those same people would never believe that an all-female cast did happen by chance. Never mind that all male films, plays etc. have been happening 'by chance' for decades.
|
|
|
|
Post by asfound on Jul 16, 2018 16:21:16 GMT
I guess I put that poorly, I meant plays that have all female/male casts in a way that actually serves the plot, like in Top Girls or Glengarry Glen Ross. I've seen several of these all female Shakespeare productions (most notably the Donmar trilogy) and it always felt like it served no real purpose to me. What is the purpose of having all women of colour, other than as a marketing gimmick? But either way, the cynical promotion of the play using our current climate of divisive identity issues is a real turn off for me.
|
|
