Measure for Measure (Donmar)

[kathryn]

Oh dear. I'm taking my Mum to this!
Oh well, I guess she's she's seen enough good stuff now that a dud production won't put her off for life....

[Deleted]

Well. I rather enjoyed the first half. It's all tights and velvet shorts and zips by in about 80 minutes. That should be a requirement for all Shakespeare plays from now on. I could have quite easily done without going through the entire thing again in the second half in modern dress though. It was like being in a Shakespeare induced Groundhog Day. I can see what they were trying to do and the audience does react differently to the same thing being said or done by a man and a woman however I thought it was all a bit cack handed and so obviously played/directed so that you would react more favourably when Isabella was the corrupt official rather than Angelo.

However Hayley Attwell was rather lovely I thought and there's a fabulous bit towards the end of the first act when

SPOILER: Click to show

{Extremely Lowden & Incredibly Close}
. . the Duke makes his proposal to Isabella and she approaches him and screams. It's lit like a scene from a horror film and it gave my goosebumps goosebumps . .

It was the best bit in the whole show.

Jack Lowden was great in the first act with his man bun and his tights, all villain-like stroking his beard, not playing for sympathy (which Hayley does when she becomes the official in the second act) but wasn't so successful in the second act. Mainly because they made him play Angelo as a weak-willed coke addict who spends all of his time clapping his hands when they aren't stuffed into his skinny jeans pockets. His tattoos were especially shiny too. I think they were transfers.

Jackie Clune makes the most of walking across the stage and sitting at the back and there's some lovely Tom Dixon-esque lights on show too.

Still could have done without the second half though.

[asfound]

Oct 9, 2018 9:43:35 GMT @ryan said:

(however I thought it was all a bit cack handed and so obviously played/directed so that you would react more favourably when Isabella was the corrupt official rather than Angelo).

This was bang on my main issue with it. I don't think you can really call it a commentary or subversion on gender roles and expectations when they are playing the same roles so completely and obviously differently. It was all getting very dull about a third of the way through the second half, I would have left if I wasn't near the middle of a row. I would much rather have seen a more fleshed out, unabridged first half to be honest.

[NeilVHughes]

Excellent traditional rendition, the plight of Isabella rightfully prescient.

A pointless modern gender swapped rendition, which is the point, the plight of Angelo is ridiculous due to our continued bias to the traditional therefore expected male sexual behaviour.

I’m sure nearly every man in the Donmar would not have had second thoughts in accepting Isabella’s proposition, or maybe it was just me.

[zahidf]

Hmmm. I may just see the first act then tomorrow

[alicechallice]

Oct 12, 2018 22:05:12 GMT NeilVHughes said:

I’m sure nearly every man in the Donmar would not have had second thoughts in accepting Isabella’s proposition, or maybe it was just me.

When she's Hayley or when she's Jack?

[Jan]

I quite liked this. The Primary School Version first with half the lines cut leaving only the plot but that meant one or two points were very clearly highlighted, then an even shorter gender-swapped version. The gender swapping didn’t change much for me, the play was still the play with the same themes, but it highlighted one or two things, for example making the bed trick even more dubious than it is already.

[lynette]

I liked this too! I was pleasantly surprised that the two version version didn’t irritate me. I would like to have seen much more of the bawds who were terrific in both parts. Loved them. It certainly highlights that power is problematic.

[kathryn]

Oh Monkey, did we miss you? Was there this afternoon and also saw medallion hit the floor - it looked like the prop broke rather than the deliberate book-drop.

I was rather surprised, after hearing so many complaints about the modern take, by how well I thought it worked. You really do have to take it as one piece instead of 2 separate versions - the first half could be taken as a stand-alone but the second is cannily cut and directed and couldn’t really work as a stand-alone. It is very much in conversation with the the first half. I liked the different nuances in performance that the modern setting brought out - particularly from the Duke.

What this production really brings out - primarily through the way it has been cut - is that the Duke is the one with the power, and in some respects whether it is Angelo or Isabel being corrupted by their new-found role is irrelevant. The rot starts from the head, and it is the Duke who is cruelly pulling everyone’s strings - with no self-examination or awareness of how he is abusing his power, and no remorse. Is Angelo any more likely to be happily married to Mariana than Isabel is to Frederick? They are both forced marriages, and the bed-trick involves very dubious consent from them.

Having said that, I thought Hayley Atwell and Jack Lowden were both rather wonderful in their dual roles.

[Jan]

Oct 27, 2018 20:34:21 GMT kathryn said:

What this production really brings out - primarily through the way it has been cut - is that the Duke is the one with the power, and in some respects whether it is Angelo or Isabel being corrupted by their new-found role is irrelevant. The rot starts from the head, and it is the Duke who is cruelly pulling everyone’s strings - with no self-examination or awareness of how he is abusing his power, and no remorse. Is Angelo any more likely to be happily married to Mariana than Isabel is to Frederick? They are both forced marriages, and the bed-trick involves very dubious consent from them.

One thing the cutting also brings out very clearly (which is sometimes a bit opaque) is that early on we are told the Duke's motivation for leaving: he has allowed Vienna to become corrupt and has been complicit in it - he's part of the problem. Because of this he's sub-contracting the clean-up to Angelo who is the one person who seems not to have been corrupted. By the end when the Duke sees it hasn't worked he just reverts to type. The low-life scenes (heavily cut here) running in parallel show that in fact the Duke is as much of a bawd and a pander as Lucio.  

[kathryn]

Yes! It’s about hypocrisy - there’s a reason why it is called Measure for Measure.

But my, the ‘who will believe you?’ bits do feel painfully contemporary - in both directions. I felt awful for Angelo and it did remind me of instances where men were expected to laugh off harassment and even sexual assaults by women.

But the humiliation of Isabel, in the modern context, did seem more intense than for Angelo. What she does to Angelo is no less awful than what Angelo does to her, but the repercussions do seem worse.

Again, that’s a deliberate effect of the cutting - if I recall the original correctly Angelo is chastened and expected to soften his Puritanism and eventually become a more worthy judge who could eventually succeed the Duke. I can’t imagine a scenario in the modern context where Isabel could successfully take power again.

All in all a really interesting and thought-provoking production.

[kathryn]

We were the opposite side of the stalls from you, then.

[lynette]

Well it was over wasn't it? I would not have known there was another go at it but for this Board. I didn't see reviews and I don't think everyone does look at reviews.

[kathryn]

But that's why they repeat the first scene as exactly as possible (book-drop, exits and all) before the interval - to signal that it's not over and is starting again. Plus the signs on the stairs saying that there's an interval and the ushers setting up with the ice creams is a bit of a hint....

[Deleted]

If they don't come back out and bow, it ain't over. Admittedly that gets sticky when you're seeing a double-bill and you've gone a bit loopy and it's one of those double-bills where they won't bow until the end of Part 2 so you don't know if you're safe to go and get dinner or if this is just a toilet break, but it was a fairly reliable indicator of where we were at during the RSC Histories cycle.

[Deleted]

Actually, I do hear tell of ushers at certain Sondheim shows (mostly Into The Woods and Sunday In The Park With George) being stationed at the exits during the interval to make sure people heading for the door know there's more, I bet the Donmar did the same. Especially as it's reasonably common practice for theatres to have ushers at the exits during the interval to let smokers know they'll need their ticket to get back in the building, and the Donmar is currently operating with only one exit. (Let me use the fire exit at the end of the show, damnit! That was a useful thing you used to do!)

[Deleted]

Oct 30, 2018 16:02:10 GMT @baemax said:

If they don't come back out and bow, it ain't over. Admittedly that gets sticky when you're seeing a double-bill and you've gone a bit loopy and it's one of those double-bills where they won't bow until the end of Part 2 so you don't know if you're safe to go and get dinner or if this is just a toilet break, but it was a fairly reliable indicator of where we were at during the RSC Histories cycle.

Or it's Pinter 1 where they all bow at the end of the first half and then there's another bloomin' bit for the second half. I almost got caught out by that one and had my coat on heading for the exit until I realised the bar was still open.

[kathryn]

Josie Rourke mentioned last night something that I thought my ear had caught - the actors speak the verse differently in the 2 different settings. I really noticed the difference in clarity of both words and intent in the second half, when the lines are spoken naturistically, but thought maybe it was just my ear 'tuning' in on the second go-around.

So it's not just a traditional dress/setting in the first half, it's a traditional performance style as well.
I wonder if that is why Isabel seems more sympathetic than Angelo? Would we feel more sympathy for an Angelo who was performed naturalistically in the first half?

[peggs]

Oct 31, 2018 9:27:29 GMT kathryn said:

Josie Rourke mentioned last night something that I thought my ear had caught - the actors speak the verse differently in the 2 different settings. I really noticed the difference in clarity of both words and intent in the second half, when the lines are spoken naturistically, but thought maybe it was just my ear 'tuning' in on the second go-around.

So it's not just a traditional dress/setting in the first half, it's a traditional performance style as well.
I wonder if that is why Isabel seems more sympathetic than Angelo? Would we feel more sympathy for an Angelo who was performed naturalistically in the first half?

Interesting. I noted the difference, particularly around Claudio/Angelo scenes, lines really came across quite differently but hadn't thought about it effecting how I responded to the characters. I love the first half, would I think quite happily have watched Hayley Atwell do that all again but it was, quite happy to see her after a bash at the other role. There were bits that didn't make a lot of sense played second time round, would it not have been simpler if Angelo had been a trainee priest? but ignoring that as the play clearly had to fit into the ideas they were exploring and it didn't bother me that much this did all seem uncomfortably relevant. I've seen a few Measure for Measures and have struggled somewhat with Isabella's character especially early on, but, possibly benefiting from cuts, here her character seemed more fleshed out, ironically since it was a cut play, than just chaste would be nun. The scene where Angelo finally spells it all was just harrowing, echoes of too many modern equivalents. And my the Duke is so manipulative and creepy. Yes second time round I did respond differently to a man being preyed upon than a woman, but I wondered just how many men had found themselves in a similar situation and what kind of a reaction they'd have got if they spoke out, I found the scenes equally uncomfortable. For me either way Isabella seemed the loser, the audio humiliation that her would be husband played out being particularly cruel. 

So not without problems but I found myself grinning in the dark and thinking this is why I do theatre, always a good sign. 

[Latecomer]

Seemed very relevant to #metoo with abuse of power and the lines where Angelo says no-one will believe Isabelle....plus the feeling that hurray, she is safe, only for the next predator to come forth! I am constantly amazed at how naive people are today about how abuse of position works....”why did she not say anything when the boss bullied her” ...down to the allocation of new universal credit to one member of a household not being a problem “as it can be requested to be split” not being a problem with abusive relationships.....
So yes, i enjoyed this one. I could have done without the light reflecting off the shiny floor right into my eyes for a good part of the play!

[floorshow]

It flags a bit in the second act of the contemporary take but the transition from period to current is up there with Potter for a bit of theatre magic