1,061 posts
|
Post by David J on Apr 29, 2020 15:12:18 GMT
I wasn't impressed by the Bennett Benedick. Part of that was almost certainly Luscombe's unsubtle direction but also he just didn't work for me overall. Chris isn't right for Benedick - not in the slightest. But so few are! I see that. I prefer Charles Edwards' Benedick myself. Edward Bennett would just be a few steps above Oliver Chris How about Margaret in Richard III? Sure its one of the few roles for an actress to play, and a juicy one at that cursing everybody. But seeing last year's Headlong production with her cut out really picked up the pace of the play for me. |
|
5,840 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Apr 29, 2020 15:51:36 GMT
I always miss Margaret when she is cut from R3. It unbalances the female power dynamics in the piece too much.
And a production of R3 that lacks pace is just a bad production. It rattles along if you trim wisely and push it on
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Apr 30, 2020 11:42:35 GMT
I like Edward Bennett but his forte is comedy, I saw him replacing Tennant in Hamlet and he was only OK. On the other hand I saw him in some Victorian (or Edwardian) farces at the Orange Tree and he was very good, relaxed, quick thinking (part was improvised), genuinely amusing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jan on Apr 30, 2020 11:48:07 GMT
I wasn't impressed by the Bennett Benedick. Part of that was almost certainly Luscombe's unsubtle direction but also he just didn't work for me overall. Chris isn't right for Benedick - not in the slightest. But so few are! I see that. I prefer Charles Edwards' Benedick myself. Edward Bennett would just be a few steps above Oliver Chris How about Margaret in Richard III? Sure its one of the few roles for an actress to play, and a juicy one at that cursing everybody. But seeing last year's Headlong production with her cut out really picked up the pace of the play for me. If you are doing a three-part Henry-VI/Richard-III then Margaret is essential, but in R-III as a stand-alone it is unclear to the audience who she actually is and what her relevance is - I agree the Headlong version without her was a big improvement, it surprised me. |
|
1,061 posts
|
Post by David J on Apr 30, 2020 13:42:17 GMT
I see that. I prefer Charles Edwards' Benedick myself. Edward Bennett would just be a few steps above Oliver Chris How about Margaret in Richard III? Sure its one of the few roles for an actress to play, and a juicy one at that cursing everybody. But seeing last year's Headlong production with her cut out really picked up the pace of the play for me. If you are doing a three-part Henry-VI/Richard-III then Margaret is essential, but in R-III as a stand-alone it is unclear to the audience who she actually is and what her relevance is - I agree the Headlong version without her was a big improvement, it surprised me. Agreed. The only Margaret I remember is Katy Stephens. But that was because that was part of Michael Boyd's Histories cycle so you had the context. Also she was using the skeleton of her son to curse everyone Otherwise the play just stops and starts for me with moments like hers, which I put down to the fact that its one of Shakespeare's earliest plays |
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Apr 30, 2020 14:01:02 GMT
Fantastic part, Margaret. Makes you think he must have had a wonderful company of actors to have someone able to take on his women’s roles but this is one of the few really powerful women. I’m not counting the baddies in Lear, I’m thinking who else gets that heart felt stuff- Paulina in The Winter’s Tale? Lady Macbeth a bit in conversation with Macbeth. For early work, this portrayal of the women in HVI and RIII is remarkable, Later gals are more subtle, funny, witty and single.
|
|
111 posts
|
Post by andromedadench on May 1, 2020 11:11:25 GMT
Watched it last night with my parents. I saw it live and really enjoyed it so I was really happy when the NT announced that it was part of the NT at home scheme and I wanted my parents to see it! They were a bit tentative but they hugely enjoyed it! Read them a synopsis before we watched so even if they weren’t sure on what was being said, they'd at least have a rough idea of what was going on. I still maintain, as I thought at the time, that far too much of the comedy is really overplayed. Olivia especially, it just seems really out of character. But I actually think, on the whole, I enjoyed it more re-watching it. It's a great play and this is a very good, accessible production which looks and sounds absolutely gorgeous. Whilst Tamsin Greig also overplays some of the comedy, she really really nails it and it's a show-stopping performance. Her final scene gave me goosebumps. Can't wait for Frankenstein. This is exactly how I felt about her performance. Overall, despite not feeling particularly up to watching another version of TN, I ended up enjoying this production immensely. It's fun and joyous without any of the 'modernised' aspects feeling forced, including the gender reversals of Malvolio and the Fool. Loved Soutra Gilmore's design as well. I didn't know any of the younger actors, and some were truly extraordinary - especially the actress playing Viola. The only weak link for me was Tamsin Greig's performance until the end scene, which is such a sudden change of tone, and rightly so as the prank played on Malvolia is nothing short of sadistic. But beofre everything turns grim, I found Malvolia's scenes unfunny to the point of being irritating. In fact, TG's mannerisms reminded me so much of Jennifer Saunder's brand of physical comedy (and I'm not exactly a big fan of hers). But overall, this was probably the best production of TN I've seen so far apart perhaps from an Indian one, staged Bollywood style. |
|
