Tag Archives: william shakespeare

The View from G21: A Winter’s Tale by William Shakespeare (Kenneth Branagh Theatre Company)

To Canterbury to see an ‘encore’ showing of the Kenneth Branagh Theatre Company’s version of A Winter’s Tale.

A Winter’s Tale is like Pericles, Prince of Tyre – broken-backed and apparently requiring some padding to make it bearable. In Kenneth Branagh’s production, this takes the form of sexually charged country dancing at the sheep-shearing supper. Actually, I lied. It’s not very sexually charged, and not really country dancing, either, choreographed to within an inch of its life, and about as abandoned as a night out in a temperance hotel.

Which pretty much sums up this production. It’s staged in this gorgeous little chocolate-box theatre (the Garrick, on London’s Charing Cross Road), lovingly restored, and like the theatre, the play is very varnished, very traditional (I think ‘Ken’ would probably want us to say ‘classical’) in its presentation, and serviceable. Very serviceable. Like the best black coat so beloved of earlier generations. Everything is there and works fine, all the boxes are ticked, and it’s forgettable.

Or worse, it’s Shakespeare like it used to be. Paul Kincaid and I both commented that it was a very old-fashioned version of Shakespeare, nostalgic almost in its presentation. Nothing here that hadn’t been seen many times before. Shakespeare for people who don’t want to have to think too hard. (The woman behind us adored it; seemed to think it was the best thing ever, as though Branagh were leading the Second Coming. When she went for ice cream, her companions proceeded to rip the play apart. My thought was that she clearly hadn’t seen either the RSC’s Othello or its Henry V.)

Yet, look at the play. What we have is very strange. To begin with, a king suddenly becomes convinced that his wife is carrying another man’s child (how long has Polixenes been visiting Leontes’ court, for heaven’s sake?), is seized by rabid jealousy, and successively alienates his best friend, his trusted advisor, his wife, and the senior lady of the court, while losing his baby daughter when he orders her abandoned, and another trusted advisor (husband to the senior lady of the court) who is eaten by a bear. Oh, and to rub it in, his son and heir dies. The oracle at Delphi tells him he was a dick head, and he comes to his senses. He then spends the next sixteen years having his remorse stoked by the senior court lady, who has actually hidden away his wife and failed to mention this fact.

Forward sixteen years, and the lost daughter has been found and raised  by a shepherd, has fallen in love with Polixenes’ son, who has neglected to mention he’s a prince, and they’re on the verge of marrying when Polixenes suddenly storms in, forbids it (having either apparently forgotten anything he ever learned about jealousy sixteen years earlier), prompting them to leg it to Sicily (at the suggestion of Camillo, formerly Leontes’ advisor, who does have a memory), where Leontes takes them in; they are hotly pursued by Polixenes and then blink, and you totally miss the reconciliation because it happens off-stage. But to make up for that you get Hermione as a statue suddenly brought back to life.

Seriously, how batshit crazy is this play? There is a faint implication that Polixenes has fallen for Perdita himself, which would be interesting to work with, and clearly Leontes’ sudden rage needs to be looked at more deeply. But in this production nothing, not a whisper, not a hint of the weird psychological dynamics underpinning this play.

A genuinely innovative director would have a field day with this. As it is, Sicily is Ruritania and Bohemia is Mummerset, and everyone’s uniforms were clearly a job lot from a Romanov yard sale. So far, so very 1960s. The music, on the other hand, seemed to come from the file marked ‘sentimental comedy’, and was frequently extremely intrusive.

And Ken, dear Ken, sweet Ken, is so obviously a pillar of the establishment it pains one slightly to remember how he really was the Second Coming once upon a time.

Which is not to say there were not pleasing moments. Kenneth Branagh still speaks verse beautifully (though while he might claim his cast is unmannered in its speaking, its unmannered speech is rather … er, mannered), and this time, unlike his Macbeth, he wasn’t staging the play in the aisle of a church, on a layer of earth thoroughly wetted by a theatrical rainstorm, so there is that.

Judi Dench is … well, she’s Judi Dench. Almost enough said, but goodness, she puts some fire into the role of Paulina (who really is an evil old bitch, though perhaps  unsurprising, given that Leontes as good as fed her husband, Antigonus, to the bear).

Michael Pennington as Antigonus –it’s not that much of a role, all things considered, but he managed to suffuse his part with immense tenderness when he talks to the rolled-up bundle of scarves with sound effect that is the infant Perdita. It was probably the most moving moment in the performance. Jimmy Yuill also turns in a sterling performance as Perdita’s adoptive father, the Shepherd. Other than that, no one with a significant speaking role was actively bad, but neither was there anything notable about them as individuals (except for the fool-figure who, as Paul Kincaid pointed out, needs to play the young Ezra Pound in something very soon).

If this production were a scientific instrument, it would be an orrery. Everything in its place, moving happily in its ordained orbit, and utterly uncontroversial.

Garrick livestreaming is clearly in its infancy. The cameras zoom through the audience onto the stage, and that’s the last you see of the audience, so this is unequivocally theatre as cinema. And as cinema, it worked fine. The audience didn’t really laugh much so one quickly forgot they were there. The interval fillers were mostly adverts for the Garrick season that almost everyone watching the livestream or the encore, won’t be able to get to. The season looks great, but going to the Garrick is clearly being positioned as something aspirational. The audience they showed was very young. The audience surrounding me was not.

What is frustrating is that the modern plays in the KBTC’s Garrick season are seemingly not being streamed, not even Lolita Chakrabhati’s Red Velvet. I suppose it’s not surprising, given the presumed cost set against likely interest (though I’m interested, dammit). Having looked at the theatre’s website, the tickets for the productions are eye-wateringly expensive, unless you don’t mind sitting behind a pillar (only then you will most likely not be sitting with the person you plan to attend the production with, and possibly not be attending the same performance if you both wish to be cheapskates and sit behind pillars). And clearly there are no plans to tour these productions because, when it comes down to it, they’re boutique theatre, made specially for the boutique Garrick Theatre.

Watching Othello (Royal Shakespeare Company, 2015, directed by Iqbal Khan)

I am a survivor of A-level English as it was taught in the mid-1970s. Over the years, I’ve made my peace with my A-level set texts – I see virtues in Thomas Hardy’s The Mayor of Casterbridge that I didn’t see when young, and I have come to actively enjoy T.S. Eliot’s work. Evelyn Waugh and I have agreed to go our separate ways without rancour, on my part at least, but Sir Gawain and the Green Knight remains one of my favourite texts even now. However, while I enjoy Shakespeare’s plays very much, I have steered clear of Othello since that time, because the experience was just so appalling.

In the mid-70s Britain was trying to come to terms with the arrival of British Asian citizens expelled from Uganda by Idi Amin, and also with the rise of the National Front, all this on top of thirty post-war years of continuing discrimination against people of colour from all parts of the world (Enoch Powell was a very visible political presence when I was a child, and I do recall the controversy over his ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech). Looking back, one might imagine such a social context would provide an interesting background against which to study Othello, even bearing in mind the mechanistic nature of teaching to pass exams. However, I was taught text rather than context; the party line was pretty much that while Othello was a good general he was resented for the colour of his skin, and as a result felt himself to be inferior and an outcast. He’d convinced Desdemona to run away with him because she was an impressionable little thing, and if he were married to her, everyone would have to accept him. In other words, we were directed to believe everything Brabantio said about his daughter and Othello.

In the same way, we never questioned the idea of Iago being evil incarnate. We were told he was evil, and so he was. Always had been, always would be. Why did he do what he did? Because he was jealous. Obviously. He’d been passed over for preferment. Maybe he thought Othello was getting above himself by marrying Desdemona. Perhaps he didn’t like being told what to do by a black man (which is probably as near as we came to context). But in the end, these were simply provocations. Iago didn’t really need a reason because he was above everything else evil and liked messing with people’s minds. And he was, of course, white. We never questioned that either.

On the other hand, we certainly questioned Othello’s blackness. We spent what now seems to be an inordinate amount of time discussing what Shakespeare meant by ‘Moor’ and by ‘black’. Which is not to say that we in any way discussed the existence of a Moorish empire in southern Europe, or the circulation of peoples around the Mediterranean, let alone the idea that Elizabeth I was not very happy about the presence of black people in London, and that possibly Othello reflected some of these anxieties. This material was barely being discussed in universities, so no chance of hearing about it further down the academic food chain. What we actually engaged with, so far as I can recall, though it probably wasn’t spelled out in quite those words, was whether Othello was acceptably black or unacceptably black. What was the colour of his skin? Would we object to having him as a neighbour?

‘Moor’ apparently meant all sorts of things; I suspect our teacher was trying to intimate that it basically meant ‘outlandish’ or ‘unusual’, or ‘not from around here’, and in doing so was trying to suggest that Othello was only just a bit darker than your average Londoner. Actually, I have no idea what my teacher was trying to suggest, because I suspect he or she didn’t know either, except insofar as we weren’t going to have a conversation about race or about white actors blacking up. One would have thought it would be amazingly difficult not to have a conversation about blacking up, especially given Olivier’s ghastly performance as Othello, in the film, but we managed it. And bear in mind that a staple of Saturday entertainment on BBC1 at this point was still a bunch of white men blacking up and singing. The Black and White Minstrel Show did not finally vanish from the BBC until 1978, a year after I left school. In fairness, the BBC had attempted to get rid of it, creating a show in which the singers appeared without blackface, but viewers complained, so the BBC actually brought it back. In the same way, there were very few black actors working in the British theatre so rather than not do Othello, or do it white, actors blacked up, presumably justifying it as being something that Shakespeare’s company would have done.

I could just blame my teachers for all this, and to an extent they were to blame. But then, so were we all. My parents, rather progressively for the time and place, brought me up to be colourblind and not judge people by the colour of their skins. Commendable as that was, it also meant that it took me a long time to understand that this carefully inculcated colourblindness also got in the way of my seeing what other people were doing, beyond some vague awareness of the existence of ‘Paki-bashing’. Suffice it to say, we studied Othello in a vacuum and acquired an understanding of the play and its characters that possessed all the finesse of a badly drawn sketch executed in wax crayon.

Which is unfortunate as, I now realise, Othello is an incredibly subtle play, certainly if you accept the story presented in Iqbal Khan’s astonishing production for the Royal Shakespeare Company. In this version, almost the least interesting thing about Othello is the colour of his skin. Roderigo may talk about ‘thick lips’, Iago may tell Brabantio that a black ram is tupping his white ewe, but as much as anything, this is about rousing Brabantio’s anger ( as well as possibly knowing which buttons to press). For whatever reason Brabantio may be furious that Desdemona has eloped with Othello (and here, it wouldn’t hurt to think back to The Merchant of Venice, and Shylock’s fury at Jessica’s rather similar elopement), but while there is an awareness throughout that Othello is not from around here, Othello’s tragedy derives primarily not from the colour of his skin but from his extremely complicated relationship with his ensign, Iago. And Iago is really, really pissed off at being passed over for promotion.

Lucian Msamati as Iago

Lucian Msamati as Iago

Reflecting on it, it is very odd how eager my teachers were to pursue the notion of Iago as sociopath (I don’t think we called it that in those days, but it comes to the same thing). Considering how keen they were for the most part to simplify things, in this instance they went for the most complicated explanation they could find, and fumbled it, badly. Yet Iago’s motivation is surely quite plain: it’s there, in the words. Iago has been passed over in favour of Cassio. Iago, the career soldier, has been passed over in favour of the young, dashing but ever-so-slightly clueless Cassio. Why has Iago been passed over? It could be any number of reasons, though in terms of this production, one might guess it’s either something to do with his being a little rough and ready, or else General Othello needs to keep someone sweet by giving Cassio a decent job. In Shakespeare’s theatre, it is very often about who you know, and who you need to know in order to get along.

Khan further emphasises this divide by making his Iago black, his Cassio white. Now that makes it appear to be an overtly racial issue, and to an extent it probably is. But to leave it there would be to offer a very crude interpretation, and Khan’s representation of the situation is so much more nuanced than that. Othello’s soldiers are a multi-ethnic group – and, even putting aside the RSC’s general habit of colourblind-casting, in this instance I think it has to be deliberate – and it is easy to see the situation as one in which Othello needs his trusty man, Iago, to keep the soldiers in order on a day-to-day basis. The production presents Iago as a typically efficient sergeant-major, managing his people well, and that includes this wet-behind-the-ears lieutenant, Cassio, who’s been dropped on him. Iago knows everyone’s strengths and weaknesses, because it’s his job to know, and likewise his job to get all his people home safe, and that includes his officers. Especially, god help him, his officers.

Cassio understands the burden of command but he lacks – let’s call it the ‘common touch’. These are not his people, no matter how much he tries to bond with them. This is made clear in the celebrations after Othello and his soldiers arrive safely in Cyprus, to discover their Turkish enemies have already turned back because of storms. After the formal celebration, Othello and Desdemona retire, while the ranks continue to drink and sing. Iago, knowing Cassio has no head for drink, manoeuvres him into staying, against Cassio’s own best judgement. Here, a tipsy Cassio, it turns out, is a Cassio who tries, with the best will in the world, to join in, but who is incapable of judging the cultural moment.

In the original version, the various gallants sing ye olde drinking songs, but Khan shifts the emphasis. Iago sings, without accompaniment, a song the words of which most of the theatre audience is unlikely to understand, though one suspects most of Iago’s audience does understand. We can read it as a traditional song of his own people. We can make some sort of guess, from the intensity of the performance, that Iago is singing of something painfully close to him. I think it’s significant that we don’t understand; for all we know he may be singing that Cassio is a bastard, and that Iago’s wife is a whore, given these do seem to be his main preoccupations. The point is, we don’t know: all we can do is to take our cue from the manner of the performance, and the response of the onstage audience, and try to read in our own interpretation, as we attempt to fathom Iago’s motivations. And to judge from their response , it’s a lament for something, be it homeland, lost love, lost family.

Unfortunately , Cassio can’t take his cue. He definitely doesn’t know, and in a scene that is truly cringeworthy, he destroys the plaintive mood by crashing in as Mr Bombastic (literally), and trying for something upbeat, with a bit of white man’s rap, during which he articulates a series of views of black men only too familiar to anyone who has had an encounter with racists over the years. He’s challenged by the soldiers, not unnaturally, but keeps on going, apparently oblivious to just how offensive he’s being. It’s a brilliant performance by Jacob Fortune-Lloyd of something that is just so … horrible. You can see in an instant why Othello needs Iago as his ensign, to sort out precisely this sort of mess, but equally, you can see why this mess wouldn’t have happened if Othello had made Iago into his lieutenant. Iago’s spent his life getting everyone home safe, yet this is his reward: to listen to someone insulting the colour of his skin, and the abilities of his soldiers.

Jacob Fortune-Lloyd as Cassio, David Ajoa as Montano

Which raises other questions. How long has Iago been nursing this resentment? The implication is that Othello and Iago have been partners in soldiering for many years. That Iago is a black man, like Othello, makes perfect sense, because obviously, they started out together, in the ranks, formed a friendship. Othello, the talented strategist, has attracted attention, received honours, and through all this has kept Iago by his side. They’ve grown up, grown old together in the service of others. There is still clearly a warmth between them. They know – they thought they knew – how the other one thinks. So what has gone wrong?

The simplest explanation – and this is a production that seems to be about demystification – is that Othello has become complacent in his success. In the first half of the play we see a man who is clearly very comfortable with who he is and is easy with those around him. He might have had a bad start in life, he might have felt an outcast, or inferior, in the past, but not now. His star is in the ascendant. Everyone – almost everyone – loves him. Even his elopement with Desdemona is accepted when Desdemona is brought before the Duke of Venice and makes it quite plain that this was her own choice.

Hugh Quarshie as Othello, Joanna Vanderham as Desdemona

Hugh Quarshie as Othello, Joanna Vanderham as Desdemona

When I was taught Othello I recall the teacher lingering slightly too long on the idea of Othello’s having bewitched Desdemona: I’d characterise that now as the teacher unashamedly representing Othello as the ‘other’, the magical black man from the dark continent. (Edward Said’s Orientalism wouldn’t be published until a year after I left school.) There is no denying that Desdemona is excited by Othello’s stories – you might wonder if he’d exaggerated for effect, even – but it is clear, I think, that Desdemona has not acted on impulse. Whether she has fully thought through her decision is another matter; what is important is that it is her decision.

And, as with a number of things in this production, it is in fact a simple choice – Roderigo, the noble lord whom her father has rejected, and who is represented as a rather entitled whiner, or Othello, successful, admired, a welcome visitor to her father’s house. Roderigo, who is weak and easily led, as Iago so skilfully shows us, or Othello, handsome, sophisticated, looks good in a uniform. It’s a no-brainer. Although, in fairness to Roderigo, Khan sends him off to war with Iago as a war correspondent, which suggests that we should see some merit in Roderigo as well. While he may blunder through the thick of battle, and demur at the idea of killing someone in cold blood, he’s there nonetheless, and that requires bravery of a sort. You sense that in another version of the play Roderigo might surprise everyone, including himself.

Lucian Msamati as Iago, James Corrigan as Roderigo

Lucian Msamati as Iago, James Corrigan as Roderigo

We might well puzzle over the nature of the relationship between Othello and Iago, but we might as easily puzzle over the relationship between Iago and Roderigo, at least as presented here. Roderigo is Iago’s dupe, or at any rate, his bank – ‘put money in thy purse’ is an acknowledged refrain – but Roderigo trusts him, at least to begin with (as indeed does Cassio), which might prompt us to ask what it is that makes Iago so attractive as a person. I’ve talked about him being good at his job, and he certainly is, but it’s not just that. At least not in this production.

If we take as a norm the idea of Iago as the watchful bystander, alert to every exploitable possibility, then this Iago is very different. I’m sure I’ve said this about another production of Shakespeare recently, but honestly, I had no idea that Othello had the potential to be a funny play. And this production is extremely funny in places. In a way, I wonder why that surprises me. It’s perhaps because there is no obvious Fool present, although there are times when Roderigo and Iago between them take on that role. Many of their early scenes have a certain knockabout flavour and James Corrigan and Lucian Msamati work very well together. (Indeed, I think Corrigan transforms Roderigo from a character who is entitled but rather wet to a character who knows that something is wrong, but can’t quite put a finger on what it is. He’s a dupe, yes, with a flavour of the gap-year student about him, but Corrigan invites us to sympathise, and as a result, Roderigo’s death still comes as a shock for all its inevitability). But Msamati brings something similar to a number of his scenes with Hugh Quarshie’s Othello. There is one scene where the two of them talk while Othello is trying to get his laptop online, with Iago moving around the room, clutching the miniature satellite dish, finally standing on a chair, holding it up like he’s offering a flower to heaven. It’s hilarious because it is so ordinary, and entirely unacknowledged. It’s a neat bit of business that emphasises the previously easy relationship between the two men, before things went so horribly wrong.

Lucian Msamati and Hugh Quarshie

Lucian Msamati and Hugh Quarshie

There is a sense in this production of Iago and Othello being ill-starred twins. They have each played a particular role for many years, and now each of them has forced the other into a situation where enough is enough: unintentional in Othello’s case, for sure, but in Iago’s case, that fine old English saying about what is sauce for the goose s also sauce for the gander comes into play. Which perhaps suggests that Iago’s journey into … I hesitate to call it madness when it seems premeditated. He can clearly and precisely articulate his grievance but the manner in which he assuages his hurt goes far beyond what seems reasonable. Rather than suggesting that Iago is evil, the point surely is that there comes a moment when he is no longer knowable. One thinks of all those people who, we are assured, were perfectly ordinary, quiet, respectable, until the day something finally overwhelmed them… I was taught that it was Othello who snapped when now it seems to me that it was Iago who did so, and took Othello down with him. Which is not to say that Othello didn’t have his own weaknesses – an underlying insecurity about his marriage, perhaps. Why take Desdemona into a war zone, except, of course, that she did insist … But why did she insist?

What of Desdemona? Hitherto, I’ve tended to think of her as one of Shakespeare’s more passive heroines, her main function being to die artistically late in the play. Nothing becomes her quite so much as her dying. Other than that, it’s easy, far too easy, to see her insistence on pressing Cassio’s suit with Othello as simply the result of inexperience. More appropriate, I think, to see her as a young woman, the new wife of General Othello, who goes with him on campaign, and who wants to find a role for herself within the group. Joanna Vanderham gives Desdemona a more abrasive edge than I’d expected, as she struggles to work out her position. But she’s still inexperienced in that she cannot as yet see that General Othello, the soldier, is not the same as General Othello, the courtier whom she knew in Venice, and that she has to be clever and discreet if she is going to make things happen. She’s not stupid, but neither is she wise. If people flatter her – and Cassio is here represented as something of a ladies’ man – she may respond quite innocently, but nonetheless, she’s caught off her guard. She’s also eager to make things right again.

Joanna Vanderham as Desdemona

Joanna Vanderham as Desdemona

And then there’s Othello. The interviews and commentary I’ve read note that in the play there are two Othellos: the proud general of the first half, and the man descending into madness in the second half. As one would expect, Hugh Quarshie has the second Othello nicely pinned down. It’s the Othello of the first half who fascinated me. Whereas my teachers emphasised the exoticism of ‘the Moor’, his misfitting, Quarshie’s performance oozes collegiality. This man is as much at home in the court at Venice as he is on the battlefield. He understands how everything works, he understands his value to everyone. He knows what he can demand of his soldiers, who love him; he knows how far he can push the court. I dare say he’s calculated precisely the likely effect of his marriage to Desdemona. He knows just what he can get away with, if need be. But this doesn’t seem to be a marriage of calculation. Quite the reverse, and perhaps that’s part of the problem for Iago. An uxorious Othello wasn’t what he was expecting. But if an uxorious Othello is a new thing, this also turns out to be his weakness. He’s heading into new territory, uncertain, and its that uncertainty that Iago exploits. Othello may be ruthless on the battlefield (this is made plain in a scene in which a prisoner is tortured, with heavy references to Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, and when Othello does the same to Iago during a confrontation), but emotionally he’s in no man’s land.

Hugh Quarshie as Othello

Hugh Quarshie as Othello

The great mystery in this production is, I think, Iago’s marriage. It’s really difficult to get any sense of his relationship with Emilia. Ayesha Dharker gives a storming performance, particularly at the end, when Emilia denounces Iago, but until then she has been rather shadowy. I don’t recall the play well enough to know whether her part has been cut at all, but my recollection was that Emilia was if not prominent then more vocal than she is in this production. Here she seems to be a constant observer rather than active participant, even though she is of course the character who pockets that much-vaunted handkerchief and then passes it to Iago, hoping perhaps that he will take more notice of her. And that’s the thing – if Othello and Desdemona have a marriage that is publicly affectionate, the marriage of Emilia and Iago is utterly opaque. One might argue that it is an army marriage, one in which both participants have had to learn self-sufficiency because they are so often apart. But there is, too, a certain prissiness in Iago, not least in the way he turns his back when Othello and Desdemona embrace and kiss. It is meant, I guess, to suggest a delicate recognition of their privacy, or perhaps a reproach concerning their public behaviour. The sergeant-major must perforce be a stickler for protocol, and yet here’s his general … oh, let’s just pretend it really isn’t happening. What he makes of Cassio, who is clearly one for the ladies, though totally unable to deal with the extremely pressing public attentions of his mistress, Bianca, is anyone’s guess, though there is that false description of how Cassio allegedly talked in his sleep and mistook Iago for Desdemona, with bonus homo-eroticism.

Ayesha Dharkar as Emilia, Lucian Msamati as Iago

Ayesha Dharkar as Emilia, Lucian Msamati as Iago

Cassio is of course the last one standing at the end. Although dismissed as Othello’s lieutenant, and then wounded in the fight with Roderigo, he is the one appointed to be governor of Cyprus when Othello and his troops are ordered back to Venice. Would Iago have been appointed governor had he been made lieutenant? Somehow one doubts it. It’s hard to imagine him being able to take up a role similar to Othello’s, and Khan emphasises that point when we see Iago taking charge of the clean-up after the fight in which Cassio is dismissed. Would a governor of Cyprus really be out there with a broom, or scrubbing up spots of blood with his own handkerchief? One doubts it somehow. The point is, perhaps, that Iago is extremely good at his job. Too good, perhaps. Or good because his view is limited. Except, if that is true, he is the one who doesn’t realise that. The one who aspires unreasonably.

There’s more, much more, to be said, but I really need to see this production again, and think about it some more. For example, the RSC has created what it has called a ‘Venice season’, bringing together Othello, The Merchant of Venice and a couple of other plays which, annoyingly, aren’t being livestreamed, so I can’t judge them as a whole series. It would not have occurred to me to think of Merchant and Othello as being related in anything more than name, and yet they are. There are certain similarities of plot – the young woman who steals away, the central character who might be considered to be apart from society’s mainstream, the Venetian setting – but those central characters start from and end in very different places. Shylock is reviled from the beginning: whatever his motive in making the loan to Antonio, we perhaps do not blame him for twisting the situation to exact retribution for Antonio’s many slights; at the end of the play Shylock is forced to become a Christian, to conform, and we can only guess what will happen to him, though it probably won’t be good. He is, if you like, society’s scapegoat. By contrast, Othello starts from a position of strength and power, secure within society, only to be brought down by another man’s personal desire for … revenge is too easy a word. The propriety offended here is not society’s at large, but Iago’s own personal sense of how things should be.

Nadia Albina as the Duke of Venice

Nadia Albina as the Duke of Venice

I’ve already singled out various members of the cast for praise, but honestly, I couldn’t see a bad performance throughout. Most of the cast were in Merchant and that sense of tight ensemble work persists. I should, however, note Nadia Albini’s haughty performance as the Duke of Venice, a far cry from her Nerissa in Merchant, as well as Scarlett Brookes, Jessica in Merchant but unrecognisable here as Bianca. Tim Samuels, whose Launcelot Gobbo I liked so much in Merchant was a magnificently controlled Lodovico, while Brian Protheroe’s Brabantio was an angry man indeed (you can also spot him later doubling up as a drunken Cypriot reveller). Quarshie and Msamati are the stars, of course, but without such strong support from the other actors, this production would be a shadow.

Tim Samuels as Lodovico

Tim Samuels as Lodovico

I like too the way that Iqbal Khan has framed the tragedy against a background that seems modern, ordinary. The rapping contest, I’ve already noted, as well as the military setting, with guns and knives rather than swords. The uniforms are generic, the other costumes couture-contemporary. Characters wash and clean the stage after the fight, a row takes place during a tea party (and a character breaks script for a moment to indicate he’d like two sugars), the Duke of Venice keeps in touch with the battlefield by satellite and laptop. Everyone is carrying files. Lots and lots of files. This is, as much as can be managed on stage, a world, filled with overlapping stories, concerns and needs

It’s good, after all this time, to finally be able to watch Othello and talk about it, but how I wish I’d could have seen this production when I was struggling with the text all those years ago. I wouldn’t dream of calling any production definitive, but for me this Othello is so successful because, while it doesn’t neglect the racial dimension of the story, the shift of focus, to the relationship between the two characters as human beings, opens up new, very productive areas of discussion. It’s a complex, chewy production, and really is the most thought-provoking piece of theatre I’ve seen in a long time, one of those moments when the RSC is on fire.

(All photos courtesy of the Royal Shakespeare Company’s website. All copyrights lie with the site/original photographers as appropriate.)

Comments are switched on for this post.

Watching Much Ado About Nothing (RSC)

After seeing the Royal Shakespeare Company’s stunning Love’s Labours Lost on screen in Canterbury last month, we went back to the Gulbenkian last night for its ‘companion piece’, Love’s Labours Won, a.k.a Much Ado About Nothing.

After Christopher Luscombe’s rather fumbled attempt last time to explain why the two plays might be – might be – related to one another, last night Gregory Doran was wheeled in to cheerfully explain that he was ‘no scholar’ before trotting out some rather tenuous evidence to suggest that Much Ado was also known as Love’s Labours Won. I was left with the vaguest feeling they were really doing all this so that they could use the hashtags #rsclost and #rscwon, but don’t mind me.

Luscombe did also rather unguardedly comment that the theatre company had asked him to set the two plays in World War I (presumably with a nod to relevant anniversaries). Clearly, he’s been only too delighted to comply, but I do find myself wishing that he had at least decided to attempt to subvert the suggestion somewhat rather than simply setting about it with quite such gusto. As I noted last time, with Love’s Labours Lost, good as it was there was still a sense of it having been forced into its setting, particularly at the end, when the young men, rather than sequestering themselves as the play requires, suddenly all march off to war.

With Much Ado About Nothing (I’m sorry, I cannot call it Love’s Labours Won – it just feels wrong), the WWI setting makes a little more sense in that as the play opens the men are returning from a battle. Thus, in Luscombe’s version, we see them returning to the same country house that was the setting for Love’s Labours Lost, but now converted into a hospital for officers, with Leonato’s daughter Hero (Flora Spencer-Longhurst) as a nurse, and his niece, Beatrice (Michelle Terry), as Sister, and Leonato (David Horovitch) himself in uniform, running the place.

As the play is set late in 1918, the country house is getting ready for Christmas, so there are decorations including a Christmas tree, and the emphasis is on getting back to normal and having fun. claudioClaudio (Tunji Kasim) has fallen in love with Hero and appeals to his lord to help him woo and win her. Don Pedro (John Hodgkinson, who played Don Armado last time, but really shone this time round) readily agrees, and the stage is set for a Christmas wedding. Ah, how lovely. Meanwhile, Don Pedro wagers that before the house party is over, he will have ensured that Beatrice and Benedick (Edward Bennett, who played Berowne last time around) fall in love. As we know, they are famously antagonistic towards one another, for reasons that are never quite clear other than that there are hints of a previous love affair. Or, as I sometimes think, maybe they just like arguing with each other.Don pedro

As Luscombe puts it, this is a play that is filled with examples of odd behaviour. Here, he is referring to Don John (Sam Alexander, formerly the King of Navarre),  Don JohnDon Pedro’s brother, who sets out to discredit Hero and stop the wedding, and to Dogberry (the exceptional Nick Haverson, who played Costard last time). Don John is the only soldier shown as having a visible injury, while Dogberry displays a formidable array of twitches to go with his legendary malapropisms. Luscombe’s contention is that by setting the play at the end of World War I, it’s possible to account for this strange behaviour through the psychological effects of being in the war, and I don’t doubt one can. On the other hand, I do wonder whether this isn’t rather too pat and convenient an explanation. I have a slight sense with both of Luscombe’s productions that, lush as they are, delightful as they are, as filled with music and dancing as they are, they aren’t terribly taxing. dogberryWell, maybe Love’s Labours Lost isn’t a terribly taxing play to begin with, but watching Much Ado this time around, I was struck by how dark it is, how really dark and strange. To push that aside with the suggestion that it’s time for fun and, oh, by the way, shellshock, seems a little bit too easy. Having said that, Sam Alexander imbued Don John with a controlled malevolence beyond anything that Luscombe’s conception might have asked for, while Haverson’s Dogberry was distressed, and distressing as he struggled to express himself. (I would love to see Sam Alexander play Iago, based on his Don John.)

I’d forgotten until last night that Much Ado is another of those plays in which the death of a young woman is faked in order to achieve retribution and reconciliation. heroAfter Claudio denounces Hero at the altar, she is whisked away by her family, and hidden, but not before Leonato’s speech about the awfulness of daughters. It’s not precisely ‘sharper than a serpent’s tooth’ territory but it struck me for the first time that there is a resonance with certain elements of The Merchant of Venice.

The story comes out, finally, when Borachio (Chris Nayak), Don John’s servant, is overheard boasting about his master’s wickedness, and is ‘comprehended’ by the night watch and brought before Leonato. BorachioAfter Claudio has been suitably contrite at Hero’s tomb, he agrees to marry her cousin as penance, as you do, only to find to his delight that she is Hero. And everyone lives happily after, including Beatrice and Benedick. Except I find myself wondering what that means in their case. The relief of no longer having to put on a front when they are really crazy about each other? Or the struggle of having to really get to know one another after years of verbal sparring? Never mind, double wedding!

As you may have gathered already, I’m a great admirer of both Edward Bennett and Michelle Terry. Their Berowne/Rosaline in Love’s Labours Lost was wonderful, but there was always the danger that in doing Benedick/Beatrice, this would just be a reprise of the earlier roles, but a bit older – which is indeed what Luscombe seemed to be suggesting the roles are. benedick2I thought Bennett and Terry did better than that, though. They caught a certain weariness in the two characters (I saw something similar in the Wanamaker/Russell Beale pairing a few years ago, though that relied more on them being chronologically older). Here, you feel sympathy for the two of them, surrounded by people constantly joking or nagging them about not being married, to the point where they give in if only to shut everyone up. They already have a strong if somewhat complicated relationship, if only people would stop butting in, but they won’t.

beatriceOne can’t help wondering what sort of marriage this is going to be. The familiar theme throughout is that for strong-minded people marriage is a trap of sorts, but eventually even Beatrice and Benedick must succumb. Luscombe would, I’m sure, argue that the setting allows Beatrice to be a New Woman, and thus things will be different (he signals this by frequently showing Beatrice wearing trousers). On the other hand, given Luscombe explained in his interview that women got the vote in 1918 I’m not sure I trust his grip on history (universal suffrage did not occur until 1928 – in 1918, a limited number of women over 30 were given the right to vote, and women won the right to be elected to Parliament, but that is not the same; as an unmarried woman it would be unlikely that Beatrice would have had the right to vote at that point, though marriage might have permitted that).

dancingIf Luscombe’s approach to the play generally is a bit broad-brush for my taste, what he does excel at is set-pieces, like the dances, and intricate business. benedickWhen Benedick is concealed behind the arras, listening to the others discuss Beatrice’s love for him, Bennett performs an extraordinary series of very funny antics, and then does it all over again, hidden behind the Christmas tree on the other side of the room. The scene involving the constables and the interrogation is set in a very crowded kitchen; when the sexton comes to leave, he can’t because he is hemmed in by people, at which point all the characters pick up the chairs and table, revolve through 720 degrees and find themselves right back where they were before. It was clever and funny (though, I have to say, best appreciated by the birds-eye camera shot), and clearly an acknowledgement of something Luscombe said in an earlier interview, that thanks to the wonders of the stage at Stratford, actors would not have to carry furniture on and off with them. kitchenOther incidents include Don Pedro’s proposal to Beatrice, which Hodgkinson and Terry turned into a horribly poignant little moment (though, again, best appreciated by the close-up camera – I couldn’t help feeling a lot of this production was framed more for the camera than the audience).

Actually, that is the trouble with these two productions. I keep being left with this nagging feeling that the cast are so much better than the director. (Talking with Paul Kincaid just now, he suggested that Luscombe might be an actors’ director rather than a production’s director, which is a much neater way of saying what I’ve been strugglng towards for the last thousand words.) Luscombe praised the ensemble acting, and rightly so. It’s been a long while since I saw an ensemble that works so well together. Even the so-called minor parts are very rich. I’d love to see what this looked like stripped of all the fripperies, because I suspect it would still work because of the quality of the acting. They are comfortable in their roles but not complacent. And they know how to connect with the audience. Bennett in particular is adept at running with an audience’s response. Last night, someone snorted at Benedick’s awful poetry, and Bennett paused, smiled, turned towards the snorter, and began reading the poem again.benedick3

So, splendid performance, but I’m hoping that Doran et al stop fannying around with the companion pieces routine fairly soon. Also, much as I’m looking forward to The Merchant of Venice, Henry V (hoping that Alex Hassell has something to pull out of the bag after his rather lacklustre Prince Hal) and to Hugh Quarshie’s Othello, which I hope and strongly suspect will be a thing of wonder (I’m still scarred by doing Othello for A-level, and by a truly dreadful production starring Ben Kingsley and Niamh Cusack), I’m hoping that they will get beyond the crowd-pleasers and money-pullers before I get too old to drive to Canterbury. I have still never seen Cymbeline, Titus Andronicus, King John and Henry VIII, and would quite like to before I die.

Sweet Smoke of Rhetoric – Watching Love’s Labours Lost

Back to the Gulbenkian Cinema in Canterbury recently for the latest live broadcast from the Royal Shakespeare Theatre in Stratford-upon-Avon. This time it was to see Love’s Labours Lost, directed by Chris Luscombe. Paul Kincaid and I saw a production of this years ago, with Kenneth Branagh as the King of Navarre and Roger Rees as Berowne. We liked it a lot more than the Hamlet in that same season, with Rees as Hamlet and Branagh as Laertes (though Branagh was outstanding).

This time the production is being presented in tandem with Much Ado About Nothing, rechristened Love’s Labours Won, because there is some idea that Much Ado might have been called this, or subtitled this, or something – Luscombe was a little vague on the subject when interviewed. Mostly, I think it just provides a convenient excuse to bracket together two plays in which a very articulate man spars with a very articulate woman, and they finally marry. Probably. In particular, I think Luscombe is working backwards from the fact that Much Ado is set in the aftermath of a war, thus allowing him to set Love’s Labours Lost during the long Edwardian afternoon, just before the outbreak of World War One. This creates an awkwardness in the production that I’ll come to later.

As is usual with a live relay, there was an introductory film before the play began. I still don’t understand why both the RSC and the RNT think this is necessary, given that the actual theatre audience is allowed to do its own thing, but of the two, I still feel the RSC handles it better, mostly avoiding patronising the audience. Except this time, for reasons that elude me, they seemed to be terribly, terribly anxious to reassure the relay audience in case they found the language too difficult to get into immediately. (I guess we assume the theatre audience isn’t going to have such problems.) So, several actors queued up, one after another, to explain to us how to cope with listening to actual Shakespearian English. Apparently, we just let it wash over us and after a few minutes we’ll get the hang of it. So there you have it: protip from real actors.

I genuinely have no idea why they were so anxious. Yes, there are words that aren’t in common use at present (a costard is an apple, and also means head, so there is a play on words that might just sail past a contemporary audience), but it really doesn’t matter. I’m fairly sure everyone got most of the jokes, as they did seem to laugh a lot. Perhaps it is that as the play is in part about the ‘sweet smoke of rhetoric’, the distraction that words can offer, someone was worried that the point would be lost, but people have been happily performing Shakespeare in various versions for umpteen years without an artistic crisis ensuing, and I saw no sign of it in the theatre or the cinema.

Loves-Labours-Lost-2014-1-541x361Having said all that, there was a certain awkwardness about the play’s first scene, as the King (Sam Alexander), Berowne (the mesmerising Edward Bennett), Longaville (William Belchambers) and Dumaine (Tunji Kasim) swear their earnest and absurd oath to spend three years away from the society of women, immersing themselves in study. Also, all women must be kept at a mile’s remove from their court, just in case. Berowne, who is the most grounded in the everyday world, is rightly very sceptical about all this, but is finally persuaded to swear the oath anyway.Loves-Labours-Lost-2014-6-361x541

I still don’t know quite what it was that didn’t gel for me in this scene, though I wonder if it was the setting, the Edwardian country house, which didn’t quite lend itself to young men making ridiculous promises about pursuing a scholarly life. Or, simply, that the boring oath bit has to be got out of the way before the characters start having fun. Or possibly, the ensemble isn’t entirely comfortable with the formality of this scene. It is noticeable later, in the rooftop confession scene, as each admits to being in love, that they worked so much better as a group. It was, though, a fleeting thing. By the next scene the production was in full swing, and after that it was a real delight, right to the very last scene.Loves-Labours-Lost-2014-2-361x541

The first casualty of the King’s insistence that women keep their distance is Costard, the jester, who is caught talking to Jaquenetta (Emma Manton), a serving maid. For reasons that we presume make sense to the King if no one else, he is delivered into the care of Don Armado, a Spanish gentleman resident at the court, who is also attracted to Jaquenetta’s charms. Don Armado’s brilliant idea is to have Costard deliver a letter to Jaquenetta on his behalf. Clearly this cannot end well.

Meanwhile, an embassy arrives from the King of France and, would you believe it, he has sent the French princess (Leah Whitaker) as his ambassador, along with her ladies-in-waiting. Such larks. What is the King of Navarre to do about all this? This is, of course, precisely the kind of problem that Berowne originally raised before signing the oath himself. It makes the observer wonder what kind of king Navarre actually is that he can so easily decide to seclude himself and his followers, without any apparent regard to the necessity of dealing with matters of state.

All this suggests that Navarre and his followers, with the possible exception of Berowne, have lived rather sheltered lives. The Edwardian setting underlines that sense of going from boarding school to college to a sheltered and privileged existence within the court, without any need to pay much attention to the outside world. The Edwardian setting also hints, perhaps a little heavy-handedly, at what is to come, as their collective innocence is shattered by the events of the war. But for now, we watch them one by one fall in love with the Princess and her ladies. Berowne is first, falling for the Princess’s chief lady-in-waiting, Rosaline (Michelle Terry), his outspoken female equivalent. As the story unfolds, of all the relationships that develop, one feels this is the one that might last. They are both well-educated, sharp-witted, alive to the broader world, and their sparring is that of two people testing each other’s strengths and weaknesses.

Loves-Labours-Lost-2014-9-541x361One has the sense, though, that the Princess of France is rather cleverer and better educated than Navarre. She understands the demands of life at court, she understands the power she has and how to use it. She is surrounded by clever, witty people, but she also understands that she has the power to cut them off at a moment’s notice if she so desires. Her court is a much more formal affair for all its studied informality. Boyet, her aide-de-camp (Jamie Newall), can go so far, but only so far, and the Princess can insist that the women swap the favours presented to them by the men, in order to deceive them when they visit in disguise. By contrast, Navarre’s court is rather more informal. Don Armado lives at court partly because everyone finds him so amusing (and he is delightfully portrayed by John Hodgkinson), but partly too because Navarre has some idea that they will all benefit from his knowledge, even though his speeches are always wonders of flowery declamation. It is Berowne who several times insists on plain speaking, having recognised that flowery language will only take you so far. And it is the women who complain about the length of the men’s love letters.

Loves-Labours-Lost-2014-12-541x361Of Navarre’s own court, we see Moth, the footman and confidant of Don Armado (played by Peter McGovern, who sings as beautifully as he acts), Dull the Constable (an understated comic turn by Chris McCalphy, Loves-Labours-Lost-2014-14-361x541who has an exquisite little dance of his own when no one is looking), David Horovitch as Holofernes (lots of amusing grammar jokes as befits a schoolmaster) and Timothy Wheatley as Sir Nathaniel, the priest. It feels like it has always been a court of old men and young men, with women in subsidiary roles as servants ( apart from Jaquenetta, there are assorted kitchen and parlour maids who appear as required, and despite the ban on women). Also, there is Costard the fool, here acting as the gardener, in a delicious performance by Nick Haverson, especially as he ponders the comparative worth of an emolument and a remuneration.Loves-Labours-Lost-2014-4-361x541

The rest of the story is a little messy. Berowne, the first to acknowledge that he has fallen in love, sends a letter to Rosaline via Costard – who, apparently being illiterate (though I wonder, given that he is the fool, and it is tempting to read this as a deliberate act) gives the wrong letters to the wrong people, thus leading to merry confusion, increased by the fact that of course Jaquenetta is also illiterate so has to have someone else read her letter to her. And of course, it turns out that the other friends are also in love. Luscombe sets the scene of this revelation on the roof, where each man has gone to be alone while he ponders his circumstances. Thus we have them all hiding behind chimneys and pillars as each successive person appears. It’s a lovely piece of farce, and I think the moment where, to them at least, the emotion becomes real.

But there are also lots of jolly japes. Luscombe determined that his production should have lots of music, so the music director, Nigel Hess, has created lots of musical interludes, many of them including Moth, singing about love’s distractions. The Masque of the Nine Worthies is quite stunning, with its cast of servants as a corps de ballet, waving kitchen implements around. Having said that, possibly the best set-piece is when the lovers visit the Princess’s camp disguised as Muscovites, and sing and dance. It begins to feel like we’ve slid into country-house am-dram or an end-of-the-pier show. It’s all huge fun and very entertaining.

But then we get to the point where the Princess learns that her father is dead, and that she is now Queen and must return home. This is the point at which responsibility intrudes once again. It’s been a pleasant interlude but there is work to be done. Except, of course, that the King of Navarre and his friends are stuck with the absurd oath they swore and which they have done nothing but foreswear during the course of the play. As the now Queen of France points out, how on earth can she and her ladies expect to accept their marriage pledges when they don’t seem able to keep their word about anything else. In turn each lady lays conditions on returning their love, all of them contingent on the men keeping an oath for a year and a day. Of the four, it is Rosaline who sets the most complex task, asking Berowne not to cloister himself but to go out into the world, to speak to people, using his verbal dexterity to make the dying happy. It’s an odd request, but one he nonetheless undertakes to carry out.

And here, at last, is my one genuine niggle with the production. Although within the play the friends agree to carry out their oaths and remain genuinely cloistered for a year, within this production it suddenly becomes a matter of going off to war (because of course, Edwardian setting, World War One pending, the beauteous youth of England about to go to its slaughter in the fields of France). While the final stages of the plot are unravelling the foursome suddenly turn up in military uniform, take their leave and march off to war, leaving the rest of the company to sing with patriotic fervour.Loves-Labours-Lost-2014-21-541x361

And it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever (especially not when you consider just how many of those footmen, gardeners and other male servants will also go off to war and not come back – World War One brought about massive social changes). And that’s the problem with this production. It’s been entertaining, and it looked lovely but now historical events are ineptly co-opted to make a specious point and set up the next production. We have no sense that the young and beautiful Moth will probably die in the barbed wire as he goes over the top, or that Dumaine and Longafield may be horribly maimed, or shell-shocked, or that Costard may heroically save his master’s life though get a lesser medal as a result because he was not a commissioned officer. Don Armado will have one of those odd wars in which he probably spies for whoever is willing to take him on. Berowne is the one most likely to come back (if only to be Benedict in the next production, as unsurprisingly the same actor does) but he will be much changed as a result. I can see what Luscombe is getting at but it’s like tapping a crystal glass for attention with a sword rather than a knife, and accidentally slicing off the thing you’ve created.

But that apart, I thoroughly enjoyed the production, and am particularly looking forward to seeing what Edward Bennett and Michelle Terry make of Much Ado About Nothing, which I’m seeing next month.