Measure for Measure (Donmar)

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.

Hmmm. I may just see the first act then tomorrow

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.