"...I liked him best in the play..."

The regular reader of this blog will recall a good while back a review of a production of Hamlet with a unique twist, fusing said Shakespeare play with the stylings of The Catcher in the Rye. Well, the director of this production of Hamlet, Gavin Leigh, has been at it again, only this time the twist was Naked Shakespeare...

...actually, it wasn't; but I figure the more I mention that idea, the sooner someone will run with the ball. And in the case of the Shakespeare play produced this time, given that it contained the line "My naked weapon is out" it would have fitted entirely with the play. But, I digress... (what else would you expect?!?)

The production this time was Romeo and Juliet fused with Alice in Wonderland, and the conceit here worked very well indeed. Here we have a Juliet, blooming in to womanhood where she enters this wonder land of love and romance as she meets her White Knight, Romeo. Everything is strange, and new, and it's such a joy to experience it all. Thus, the performance must get over this sense of wonder, and I have to say that Eleanor Massam managed to capture this just so... wonderfully. I really believed in this Juliet, that she was so in awe of the new things she was experiencing, as she drew closer to her Romeo. The scene where they first met was spellbinding, as they exchanged looks, and slowly edged together... I was never anything other than completely entranced by her performance. 

Matt Young's Romeo played off her with just the right note of heroic stoicism. There wasn't as much of a sense of wonder from him, but then there probably shouldn't be (as the notion of Alice is that it's her experiencing the wonder, whereas to all else it's normal). The performances  complemented each other very well. 

And I have to mention the balcony scene, probably the most iconic scene in the play... it was a very brave directorial decision to do the scene, erm, without a balcony, but it worked really well. The pair of them were in each other's arms, sharing a tender moment, and it just felt right. 

However, when it comes to Romeo and Juliet, I'm in agreement with Holden Caulfield...

Mercutio, ah, Mercutio... he was styled as the Mad Hatter, and very appropriate this was indeed. We got here an exuberant performance from Ant Henson, which was so full of life. He strutted his way across the stage, stealing scenes all over the place place when he wasn't the focus, and owning the stage when he was (oh, the Queen Mab speech...). Whether this was intentional or not, I don't know, but I got a real sense of the Ford Prefect (TV version) from his performance; the guy who'd rather go to a party than save the universe... 

So, when he does die it's all the more sad... he was so suave he even put his hat back on head after it fell off... 

I think the one real criticism I'd have of the production is that its aims were possibly a bit over ambitious for the budget available. There was the occasional character who I couldn't work out what the Alice in Wonderland equivalent was, as some outfits were a little generic. But, really, this is small potatoes.

The play was edited down quite a bit, which didn't have any negative impact on the play at all. Shakespeare fiddled with his plays all the time, so there's no reason why a contemporary performance shouldn't follow suit. 

The only time any of the cast are out of Alice garb is at the end of the play, when Romeo buys poison from the apothecary. Here he's in an ordinary suit. We're about to get to the end of the story, wonderland will be left behind, and we plummet closer to the tragic ending. 

There's a whole host of other things I could say; I could list all the cast and say how great they were, but that could get a bit boring (although I have to give a quick nod here to Jack Wilson's performance as the Prince; such great regal nonchalance), and it would be more shopping list than review. I don't recall a singe duff performance. 

I understand that the director's next production will be King Lear fused with the TellyTubbies... the scene where Tinky Winky has his eye gouged out will be a sight to behold. Well, it's either that or Naked Shakespeare...! :)

"...come on..."

Here's a question for you; is it possible to find an artist a reprehensible, loathsome, person yet still enjoy their art? It's a question that came to mind yesterday, when it was suddenly all over the internets that Gary Glitter had set up a Twitter account, and was talking of a book, new material, and gigs.

Now, no-one is suggesting that we should make light of what Glitter was convicted of doing. But does the fact that he has committed these acts change his songs at all? Should it stop us singing along to Rock and Roll part 2 (though, all the cool kids obviously sing the KLF's version of the words!) or The Leader of the Gang? Do Glitter's actions stop us enjoying his song?

Or is there a line? If a person does something very bad (as Glitter did) you can't enjoy their art, but if the thing they do is somewhat lower level is that okay? What if someone were a shoplifter? Would that be serious enough for a person to have their work consigned to the dumper?

It's a very thorny debate. If we do accept the premise that if a person commits a crime that this must mean their art is suddenly taboo, we then get in to the semantics of which offences are so bad to make this happen. If this is the standpoint you have, then where the line is drawn will end up coming down to a personal opinion as to what is beyond the pale. Most with this opinion would end up putting Glitter in to this category due to the serious nature of his offences. But, how many would place the shoplifter in that category? If you do... well, you'll have to avoid ever watching Beetlejuice, Edward Scissorhands, and Star Trek (2009) as these contain a convicted shoplifter... so, where would you draw the line?

Then there is the issue of the rehabilitation of the artist; surely if a person commits a crime, have been punished, and puts that part of their life behind them they should be able to live as close to a normal life as possible? And again, as above, the question of where the line is drawn will come in to play. Whereas a rehabilitated shoplifter would be very likely to be readily forgiven, the comments on Twitter would suggest that the prevailing view on Glitter is that his offending was so beyond the pale that this could never happen for him. The opinion of Glitter as a person is overwhelming the opinion of his songs.

That Glitter's music isn't exactly the greatest in the world may very well play a part in this, as well as the size of his fanbase. By the time of his initial conviction, his career was already on the wane. He was a bygone relic from the 70s, someone who had a handful of hits and hadn't done anything of note for some time. It was easy for his music to be boycotted; I mean, can you recall the last time you heard his music on the radio? (As an aside; it'll be interesting to see if BBC4 edit his performances out of their repeats of 1977 Top of the Pops shows.)

Contrast this with the case of Michael Jackson, who was accused of some very serious offences, on a par with Glitter. At the time the allegations first came out, and when the trial was on, there wasn't anything like the vitriol towards him. There was some, don't get me wrong; but his fans fought back at them, defending them to the hilt. And his music continued to be played on the radio...

I have a feeling that an amount of distance can help as well; if it were to come out, after a person's death, that they had been responsible for some bad, bad, things this will certainly have a lesser impact. They'll no longer be around to either commit further offences, or to earn money for their art. Say, for example, it was found out that Shakespeare had murdered three people around the time he was writing his best plays would that make people stop enjoying his work? Would the Royal Shakespeare Company disband because they didn't want to associate with a murders work? No. Of course not. Nor should it. But... if it were someone contemporary... that would be rather a different matter.

It's a very thorny issue, and realistically it has to come down to personal tastes and opinions, and whether a person thinks that artist and art are capable of being seen as discrete entities.

[I apologise for the rambling nature of this post, but it's something I've been mulling over in my mind, and I don't think I've come to any sort of conclusion. I may return to this subject again in the future...]

"...the play's the thing..."

(I know this is not exactly the most original title for a review of a production of Hamlet; this is somewhat ironic given that the production this review is about was a highly original production. And it's rather late.)

But, first, some background; every year, the Reading University Drama Society puts on a Shakespeare play or two in the open air. This year, one of the plays was Hamlet. However, this was a Hamlet with a twist. Shakespeare with a twist is not an unusual thing, there are all sorts of contemporarily set plays, or transposed locations, or even naked Shakespeare... but I can’t think of another time when Hamlet has been mashed up with The Catcher in the Rye...

Now you may think this is a crazy notion as the two source texts are so very different from each other, but think about it; for example, one of things Holden rallies against are phonies. What could be more phony than the “grief” of Claudius for his brother’s death; murdered at his own hands? Hamlet sees this phoniness, and endeavours to expose it. And once you start looking, you can find all sorts of little examples.

So. Hamlet, with Catcher in the Rye stylings. Does it work? Well. There’s really only one answer, and it’s a three-lettered one beginning with a “y”.

Now, I’m sure it’s not escaped your knowledge, but I am somewhat of a fan of The Catcher in the Rye. It’s my favourite book. I have no idea how many times I have read it. Often when I finish reading it, I’ll flip straight back to the start and begin again. If I’m carrying a bag there’s about a 97.8% chance there’s one of my four copies of Catcher in there. Look to the top right of this blog to see where its title comes from. I’m sure you’re getting the picture, yes? But then there is also something I’m quite militant about and that’s my loathing of the idea of adapting The Catcher in the Rye in to any other medium. Take a look at the post “...don’t ever tell anybody anything...” dated March 9th 2010 for more on why a Catcher movie would be a bad idea; the same really applies to any other medium. Including the theatre. Now. The thing this production got right was that the Hamlet here is still clearly Hamlet. Although there are stylings of The Catcher in the Rye, and influences, at no point did it feel Hamlet was trying to be Holden. It was enough that the world this Hamlet inhabits is a similar one to Holden. It didn’t need Hamlet to actually become Holden.

And the Catcher touches were all over the place. From the Little Shirley Beans record that Ophelia gives back to Hamlet, to the red hunting hat Hamlet wears occasionally, to the fencing, to the whole prep school look of several of the characters, to the game of chequers that Hamlet and Horatio play; with Horatio even shedding a tear on to the board. Although I did actually miss her doing that...

...yes. You did read that bit right. In this version, Horatio was female; she was the Jane Gallagher to Holden’s Hamlet. You remember; in the book, she’s the one who keeps all her kings in the back row. Actually, this led to one of the few prop errors in the production; when they were playing chequers, the kings were facing Horatio, when they should have been facing Hamlet. Having said that, though, chances are I was the only one in the audience that noticed this.

Having Horatio as a female changed the dynamic of the play a little; especially heightening the way how Ophelia acts. Her desire for Hamlet, and his rejection of her (“Get thee to a nunnery” etc) makes her gradual decline looks as if jealousy of Hamlet’s relationship with Horatio plays a part in it. Does this Ophelia see Horatio as a rival, perhaps?

Both roles were brilliantly played. The brilliantly cast. Katie Gunning’s performance as the reliable Horatio (one of the few truly honest, and stable, characters in the characters in the play) was spot on; I remember seeing her in a production of Closer (the Patrick Marber play) last year playing the Natalie Portman role, and in the intervening months she’s clearly improved her acting skillls. It’s not that she was bad in Closer, she was okay; but in Hamlet she shifted up a couple of gears to give a compelling performance, both when acting and reacting.
In any case, Marber is no Shakespeare; the only way his play scores over Hamlet is the gratuitous lapdancing scene. As far as I am aware, no production of Hamlet has yet found a a way to work a lapdancing in to the narrative... but I digress...

The flip side of the coin was the unstable Ophelia. It’s always a tricky thing to get Ophelia’s descent in to madness correct; it’s very easy to go a little too over the top, so that it seems hammy. This was not the case here; the performance was a believable one.

But at the core of every performance of Hamlet is one performance that will make or break the entire production. Clearly, I should not need to tell you which role this is... and luckily the titular role here was cast perfectly. The sheer energy of Ant Henson's performance just left you breathless. When Hamlet staggered, drunk, on stage, bottle in hand, splurging out “to be or not to be...” shivers went up the spine. It was that good. It felt fresh.

Now, I’ve seen three productions of Hamlet, and if you were to ask me about Rosencratz and Guildestern in the first two... well, I’d have to Google them to find out who played them, and really I can’t remember a thing about their performances. That’s not something that will happen with this performance; Matthew Clark and Lee Anderson came close to stealing the show every time they were on stage with their performances as the toadying little pair. The sheer physicality of their performance oozed lackiness to such a degree that Waylon Smithers would have felt confident in bossing them around. They were just brilliant. Even now, as I type this, I’m chuckling at the memory of their performances.

Ah... I could mention so many other performances... from one of the gravediggers and his Matt-Smith-esque attire (at one point he pinged his bow tie as if saying “It’s a bow tie. I wear a bow tie now. Bow ties are cool.”), to Alexander Wilson’s Stradlater styled performance as Claudius, and Fiona McIntyre’s very regal Gertrude... so much to praise.

There was some real talent on that stage. I don’t know how many of them will end up pursuing acting as a career option, or just dabbling with amateur theatre occasionally, but there are certainly a handful up there who really should think about doing a lot more acting, as they were so damn good; and were I to hear that they have not acted further, I'll track them down and slap them round the chops with a wet fish. Maybe a bream, or a brill.

In closing, I’ll just leave you with this one comment; I went to see the last of the three performances of this production. In hindsight, this was a mistake. I should have gone to the first. Then I could have seen it twice more...