1,052 posts
|
Post by David J on Jul 16, 2016 9:37:15 GMT
There's stuff to like here. The swinging 60s setting, the acting, the music.
I just cant escape the fact that this is a pretty boring play, and I am a Shakespeare fan. It is obvious this is one of his first plays, long before Romeo and Juliet and As You Like It. The lovers are bland and the words don't stand out.
The comic relief helps proceedings. There isnt a dog but seeing Charlotte Mills as Launce leading the deadpan drummer around on a leash is delightful.
The direction the production takes for the ending was interesting. Like Rupert Goold's Merchant of Venice they turned the comedy into the Tragedy of Julia and Sylvia. They also insinuated what Valentine and Proteus' sexuality might be.
The problem is that the tone as a whole didn't call for it. Rupert Goold addressed the dark underside of Las Vegas, this is a light, family friendly touring show. Perhaps the production could have made a statement about the excesses of the 60s, but otherwise the downer ending slightly comes out of no where (which is an understatement considering what happens in the last scene)
By the way I've just seen this at the refurbished New Theatre Royal Portsmouth. A proper stage, backstage area and additional performance spaces have been built. Seeing the place I would have thought they could have spruced up the grand proscenium arch, looking at the cracks in the plaster. Neither are there any upcoming shows that makes me want to rush back there.
|
|
274 posts
|
Post by emsworthian on Jul 16, 2016 20:55:09 GMT
I saw the matinee of this today. I was unfamiliar with the play, other than knowing this is the one that features a dog, but decided to see it without reading about it first, which possibly was a mistake. As well as cross-dressing, this version has women taking some of the traditional male roles (Launce is played by a woman as David J has noted) and then there are actors doubling roles so I became confused about whether certain actors were supposed to be in disguise or were playing another role.
I wasn't sure about the 60s setting either. According to the programme, Verona represents the music of Jim Reeves, Milan the Bossanova and the woods, the music of Bob Dylan. Hmmm.
There was a group of about 50 Italian students in the theatre and although they behaved very well, I did wonder if this was the right play to introduce them to Shakespeare. Possibly they enjoyed some of the music. And the dog was fun.
|
|
5,688 posts
|
Post by lynette on Jul 16, 2016 21:07:01 GMT
The best prod of this I've seen was the RSC one which felt very modern, not just in setting but in feel. Before that I would have said it was a boring play too but actually I now don't think so. Good dog essential. Makes you think who performed this in Shakespeare's day.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2016 21:21:40 GMT
Didn't think too much of the RSC's dog though. The way Launce talks about the dog, it's MUCH funnier when you have a floppy old sadsack of a dog that just doesn't do anything rather than the barks-on-command stagey pup they hired.
|
|
180 posts
|
Post by bee on Sept 26, 2016 17:49:43 GMT
I saw this at the SWP on Friday. It was quite enjoyable, mainly due to the over-the–top acting (especially the manic performance of Garry Cooper as the Duke of Milan) which worked quite well in the 60s setting. I’m not sure the musical interludes added much, other than padding out the running time a bit, but in general this was good fun, although the jolly mood changes a bit towards the end when the two main female characters start to realise how little their two lovers actually think of them.
Disappointed about the lack of a dog though.
|
|