Review - Henry V
Production: Henry V
By: Will’m Shakespeare
Date: 25th - 28th Feb 2009
Cast:
ENGLAND:
King Henry V:
Richard Ellis
Duke of Exeter, His Uncle:
Don Hirst
Earl of Westmorland:
Stephen Brandon
Sir Thomas Erpingham:
Mike Melville
Captain Fluellen:
Mark Hughes
Captain Gower:
Graham Sunners
Richard, Earl of Cambridge:
Richard Sadler
Henry, Lord Scroop of Masham:
Matthew Lambert
Sir Thomas Grey:
Phil Ashby-Crowe
The Archbishop of Canterbury:
Dave Gilliver
The Bishop of Ely:
Matthew Lambert
John Bates:
Graham Sunners
Michael Williams:
Ken Rimmer
Bardolph: Dave Norwood
Pistol: Dave Gilliver
Nym: Chris Finney
A Boy, Falstaff’s Page:
Tom Jeffreys
Nell, Hostess of an Eastcheap Tavern:
Joyce Smith
FRANCE
Charles VI of France:
Gerry Card
Louis the Dauphin, their Son:
Matthew Lambert
Princess Katharine, their Daughter:
Lucy Desmond
Alice, a lady attending on Katharine:
Sue Curran
Duke of Orleans:
Phil Ashby-Crowe
Charles Delabreth, Constable of France:
Richard Sadler
Mountjoy, the French Herald:
Pete Blain
Governor of Harfleur:
Mike Melville
THEATRE
Director:
Gordon Hamlin
Lighting:
Roger Boultby
Soundtrack:
John Smith
Wardrobe:
Julie Stacey & Phil Ashby-Crowe
Setting:
Gordon Hamlin
Heraldry:
Phil Ashby-Crowe
Stage Manager:
Graham Sunners
Director: Gordon Hamlin
Here's what Garth Jones, Cheshire Theatre Guild's Adjudicator thought of the production:
GENERAL:
The high quality programme, brimming with insights into the play, says a lot more about that than I can here. The director also shows the thesis behind his interpretation, supported by quotations and pieces of written history. There are even striking parallels drawn about the invasion of Iraq. Whether that kind of interpretation, emphasising the bloody nature of war and the cruelty of Henry is really what Shakespeare was trying to do, I am not going to speculate upon. The most bloodthirsty speech of Henry is a threat – “if that happens it is your fault, Harfleur” – and maybe not what he would have done had they not surrendered?
But the great thing is to see how in the edit and the direction Gordon has made this interpretation hold water and work consistently! And how will it affect the verse, the imagery and the manner of speaking the lines? Indeed the whole manner of staging and performing it. Shakespeare is a challenge at the best of times. To sustain a whole way of looking at the play as well calls for courage and who better than Harlequin Theatre to do it?
PRESENTATION
Stage Manager: - GRAHAM SUNMERS
Setting: - GORDON HAMLIN
Heraldry: - PHIL ASHBY-CROWE
Crown Maker: - STEPHEN BRANDON:
This was a brilliant mixture of simplicity and style. It was to the audience I am sure, about as “cool” as it comes! The design, a “Wooden O” in the ground as it were rather than upright was a brilliant way of linking the remarks of the Chorus with a modern and plain setting. And the raised levels at each side provided a convenient demarcation of England and France, using where relevant the red and blue cushioned seats. The third one was baffling until Katherine came along and the sort of boudoir and later bridal tassels all made perfect sense. And there was the magnificence of the mottled backing upstage which amongst other purposes also provided a realistic and acceptable high window from which a Governor could surrender.
Clever devices like the use of large banners held on the stage by the actors worked beautifully, adding to the military feel of the scene. In addition there was a safety conscious and very effective device for the hanging of Pistol, one of the lasting images from the production. Such props as were needed were intriguing in themselves – a mixture of wooden and metal swords, food and drink and of course the heraldic symbols and the crowns – nicely authentic work by both Phil and Stephen. Indeed, reading of these in the programme beforehand almost misled one, for this was no traditional heraldic production and the crowns and banners, shields were mixed with modern black trousers and simple tabards. Above all the full width of the playing area could be used, put to good effect in battle and of course in full court ceremonies. Stage management with a cast of that size, the changes of costume, props in which the cast played their role, worked well thanks to good stage management from Graham.
Well designed, well executed – a simple, bare yet first class set, from Gordon.
LIGHTING: - ROGER BOULTBY
The lighting man must have been delighted to have this set to light. The theatre is well rigged and the power and variety of the lighting enabled bright light to catch the dawn or the open air, whilst the different locations and moods were realised effectively with good cueing and varied effects. The skill in directional lighting and the levels of day and night were portrayed well. Smoke machines, red lights were well used, too, to create the chaos of battle or siege. A professional job by a gifted Roger – well done!
FIGHT CAPTAINS: - CHRIS FINNEY and RICHARD ELLIS
I have always had the utmost admiration for Fight Captains ever since after my most carefully controlled stage fight session, someone fell over when leaving and I had to write “Fight Session” on the report form! Here in a plain area like this, with a large cast and no full armour, swords and shields to crash and to spark, it all had to be done with slick movements and sometimes in slow motion. Bodies fell yet there were always enough to continue. It was a feat of careful choreography and aided by extras like the blood, Chris and Richard pulled off the illusion of a national war of battle and power.
FRENCH COACH: - CHARLIE GOBBET
Ah, l’autobus! Here is the man who knows exactly what those words de son mauvais mean in the scene with Katherine and Alice. He did a good job for they were fast, fluent and generally convincing in making their French seem more natural than their English! And the accent was not bad, either! Nice work, Charlie!
SOUNDTRACK: - JOHN SMITH
Would anything strike more terror in a sound man’s heart than to be told the play is “Henry V”! Interminable battle sounds, trumpets the lot!
In fact it was a challenge well met. The battle sounds were authentic, the pomp supported by music, thunder claps and it all seemed in line with the style of the production as well as having a ring of realism about it. It was well cued, too, moving the action along in places. Nice work from John.
WARDROBE: - JULIE STACEY and PHILIP ASHBY-CROWE
The style of the production was reflected very clearly in the costumes they used. Firstly everyone had basic blacks at the beginning– most with shoes to suit their trousers but one or two with riding boots, presumably because there was no time to put them on before their next appearance. After that there were some with just a basic shirt or tabard, some with a loop to their belts in which to put a sword, others with only a belt to shove them in. Others had floor length gowns. A helmet of impressive design, or a helmet and a full shirt of chain mail added to the enjoyment and authenticity of the battle and Henry and Charles wore almost full kingly regalia and robes, topped of course by the impressive crowns of Stephen. The women had good quality period gowns and Mistress quickly wore the bright “uniform” of a disreputable ale house land-lady! At times this juxtaposition of the period garb and the modern basics was unsettling, but then that was the point of it all! Well done, Julie and Phil.
PRODUCTION
This had a unity of style which was the mark of a meticulous director with a clear vision of what he wanted the play to say. He argued his case well in the programme and then put it into action, helping his cast to build characters which followed this interpretation. There was good grouping, with a fine juxtaposition of a crowded stage, whether of the actors waiting to begin or the ferocious battle scenes, and the isolation of a small group in the centre. There was plenty of action, sometimes exciting sometimes chilling, and the comedy, especially the bawdy innuendos was well played. Although pomp and jingoism were not the features of this production there was dignity and even a sense of ceremony amongst the bloodshed. Although cut, the play still has the risk of seeming lengthy but, as perhaps we take for granted with Harlequin, this had pace, with quick cueing and fluent delivery. Indeed it was very well paced.
So in Part One
It was an interesting start. The device, popular in the sixties/seventies, of a group of actors in black modern dress, relaxing, waving and greeting members of the audience, gave an added relevance to the protestations of the Chorus. We knew we were to see a play with its limitations, not a slice of real life.
“On your imaginary forces work”
The Chorus in black coat stepped to the centre and his clear even commentary, with no declamatory elements, again shaped our imaginations. Canterbury and Ely were more serious than is sometimes the case but in this interpretation their deliberations are an important because for the invasion. They were clear and fast, whilst giving the impression of being unhurried and their positions were rather static but helped us concentrate on the dialogue. There was a well delivered line from Ely,
“And wholesome berries thrive and ripen best
Neighboured by fruit of baser quality”.
The King had his “throne” and the others were very well grouped around him in the centre right, whilst the Chorus withdrew downstage left but was clearly watching the proceedings. The scroll for the Salique law seemed rather small but that was probably the point! An impressive marble urn held the tennis balls, but perhaps the laughing reaction lost something of the insult?
But Henry’s movement across suggested his determination and downstage front, arms raised, he was in a good final position, as the tennis balls were bounced. Exeter’s rich tone added point to
“This was a merry message”
The throne went off and a little table with tankards, bottle was the focus for the different scene to follow. It was hardly modern humour but the pock marked Bardolph and fiery Pistol did their best with it, supported by Nym, the Boy and, effectively with rising inflections, Nell the Hostess. Some of this comedy seemed to carry into the next scene, when traitors, Grey, Scroop and Cambridge threw themselves on the floor! The King now has a long leather coat and the fuller costumes of the others gave a greater significance to this scene, although in giving it pace some of the suppliant’s words were a little indistinct. Henry showed his nasty side, as he held the sword to the face and roared his condemnation.
Hostess sat on the willing knee as she spoke to her “honey-sweet husband” and made the most of her account of Falstaff’s death. The plucking of the sheet was, for Shakespeare, a common feature of dying but here it was given an overt, bawdy meaning. Certainly the “Cold as stone” sequence bore this interpretation well. The timing and delivery of Nell’s line was excellent,
“He could never abide carnation; ‘twas a colour he never liked”
Although told to kiss the soft mouth it was the cheek that Bardolph kissed.
There was a good link as the music swirled behind the Chorus as he described the fleet.
The French King had the blue throne and a silver crown. The youthful Dauphin avoided any foppishness in his delivery which was clear and expressive. He could perhaps have made more of the line,
“Were busied with a Whitsun Morris dance”.
The King with rising voice did much better on the strong,
“Of that black name, Edward, Black Prince of Wales”
Exeter was even stronger, stressing well
“To him and to his heirs; namely the crown”
And
“Sweeten the bitter mock”
Despite a wide grouping there was occasional masking. The scene finished well with good pace from the Dauphin and a nice touch as High Constable stepped between them with half drawn sword.
The soldiers’ tabards had the English emblem on them, the king and one or two others had chain mail. All showed good weary positions, blood on faces, the most perhaps on the face of the King. He built up the speech to a climax, his face contorted with determination and words stressed for power “spi – rit”. The Boy swirled the flag, Fluellen had a large leek in his helmet band and all charged off at the final cry of “St George”.
But Nym, Bardolph, Pistol etc stayed behind., complete with red leather hip flask. The Boy, although rather quiet held his own.
Henry uttered his threats with strength to the Governor who was up high on the “ramparts.” His clear diction relished the descriptive phrases, “Still shrieking daughters” and used a contrast between quietly spoken and firm tone to build climaxes.
The scene with its shock at translated words was nicely played by Katherine and Alice. with a mischievous exit as the King and French nobles entered from upstage. Charles was in strong voice as he ordered the Dauphin to stay. It was a good well stressed line at the end, too,
“And quickly bring us word of England’s fall.”
Fluellen was a little slow, perhaps because of his accent but the next scene was surprising. A rope came from the wall at the back to go round Bardolph’s neck. A woman in the audience photographed it with a flash and the stool was kicked away dramatically. Mountjoy was rather even in delivery and Henry clearly had no time to clean his face and hands. There was a clap of thunder to accompany the exit of the herald.
The humour as Orleans and others mocked the Dauphin was clearer and the bringing together of the two metaphors in “ whore – s” was brilliantly played. There was another reference to masturbation but the pace and the strong delivery made it all work well.
Part Two
The interval music was appropriate and the Chorus effectively looked at the huddled soldiers before speaking. Pistol held his own even with the King. Erpingham graciously surrendered his small cloak. Henry sat on the raised level as Bates spoke well, if a little quietly, and Williams had a suitable tone for,
“That’s more than we know”.
There was good grouping and the interpretation was consistently followed in Henry’s reaction, using a stool for his musings about kingship, building it well, head down a little too much towards the end but with arms apart to allow the sound to carry better, and to be brought together in final prayer.
It was the French who now had their national emblems on their jerkins and the King had a full length suit of chain mail. The Constable had no helmet, rather incongruously and two of them committed the taboo action of leaning on their swords.
Henry was suitably brisk and upbeat,
“What’s he that wishes so?”
and Westmorland was there in time to hear it. The ensemble lined stage right as Henry and his precise diction made an expressive and strong delivery of the speech about St Crispin’s day., although he did not sound all that happy on
“We few, we happy few”
The French who were supposed to outnumber the English did their best! Henry showed the softer, gentler tone he was capable of as he spoke to Mountjoy,
“Come thou no more for ransom, gentle herald”.
There was more than a voice from Gordon as he crouched downstage left and again reflected the good level of French coaching. The splendid sword fights and the sound effects gave a convincing impression of battle. However three French now determined to blunt the points of their swords by leaning on them! Fluellen sounded the social commentary,
“Kill the boys and the luggage? Tis expressly against the law of arms”
Supported ably by a quieter but characterful Gower. With littered dead bodies and weary men, the grouping for the scene with Mountjoy was well spread and full of focus. There was a good delivery, too, by Sir Thomas,
“His eyes are humbler than they used to be”
Pistol was well placed on stage left as he spoke of the death of his Nell, bringing out the double meaning effectively in
“To England will I steal, and there I’ll steal”.
The originality of this production showed itself fully as the men grouped in a triangle and the King and Katherine balanced the picture as they sang a hymn. After that, in a Christ like gesture, Henry has the blood washed from him by a woman.
The large emblem at the back left no doubt who was now in charge during the ensuing scenes whilst the two colours of the chairs, one each side, reminded us of the alliance being discussed. It was a brilliant idea to have the chaperone, Alice, in the centre as if it were a match, although this meant she had the best stage position. Henry, despite his protestations of awkwardness was as an actor at his ease, relaxing into some good delivery of comedy or play on words,
“An angel is like you, Kate.”
Alice, too, resplendent in her chiffon like sleeves, added touches of humour. I think she said “de mans is full of deceits”.
The audience were drawn in as they were indicated on the word “neighbours”
Henry employed good changes of vocal range, projection and lively action as he tried to woo her, and of course Katherine played the foil well. A softer “Wilt thou have me ?” suggested sincerity, sealed with a kiss, and there was more comedy to finish,
“Here comes your father”.
Westmorland relished the words in his delivery of
“According to their firm proposed natures”
Alice was masked by now but the play came to its end, as the chorus clasped hands and the cast froze for the epilogue. A red light shone appropriately on them all for “made his England bleed” and the “call” brought on the other players, as they started, in their black clothes.
ACTING
THE CHORUS: - JEFF BARLOW
For this production with its theme, there could not have been a better exponent than this narrator, commentator, congratulating the players and providing a link with the audience. His long coat was ideal and of course, he has a wonderful gift in the rich tone and precise diction of which his voice is blessed. Indeed not a syllable was lost and he moved easily from side to centre, making good direct communication with audience. Shakespeare’s wonderful language to describe scenes was delivered faultlessly with expression and meaning. Because he could not show too much excitement at the normally vibrant passages of patriotic sentiment, his role, true to the production, must at times have felt a little inhibiting, as he could have added more zest and power than he was permitted here, in action as well as voice,
“Now thrive the armourers, and honour’s thought
Reigns solely in the breast of every man”.
It was nevertheless a first rate rendition, with good audience rapport, a gentle humour and strong vocal work. Well done, Jeff!
KING HENRY V: - RICHARD ELLIS
Another role possibly inhibited by the interpretation, no doubt having to turn admittedly jingoistic sentiments into expressions of nastiness, and turn heroic speeches into more reflective and sometimes self deceitful speeches for the benefit of his troops or his politics. Hence, the “Once more into the breach” speech and the St Crispin’s day exhortation did not soar in the classical sense.
But this was no detriment to the acting skills and the textual understanding demonstrated by this outstanding actor. He had the necessary stage presence to draw the attention throughout. He was fluent, with impeccable diction and a great vocal range enabling him to bring out the richness of the language. He could start at a gentle, almost conversational level with his supporters and then by well judged gathering strength and variation in speed build his speeches to a dramatic if sometimes bitter climax. His energy and fighting skills were ably demonstrated and his gentle if awkward wooing of Katherine was superbly played with an understatement but a razor sharp awareness of his words and sentiments,
“I know no ways to mince it in love but to say directly, “I love you””.
His scenes on the night before the battle showed his determination despite doubt and he kept it consistent and clear,
“Our children and our sins lay upon the king!
We must bear all”
with the tortured anxieties consistent with the character here being created. Splendid courageous, fast, active, he was a Fight Captain, too, and with more anger, cruelty and ambition than we could have expected. Excellent work from Richard!
DUKE OF EXETER: - DON HIRST
Darkly brooding, both in warlike character and in costume with its dark leathers, and riding boots, this duke was utterly convincing. He had a strong firm stance and heavy tread in military style, and his voice had the lower register tones, giving an impression of power. But it was the way it was used which made the character live. There were deep laconic touches,
“This was a merry message”
and the exactitude shown in precise diction, of
“I arrest thee of high treason, by the name of..”
Absolutely dependable as Exeter for Henry, the actor was just as dependable for the production and its interpretation and consistent to the end. Well played, Don.
EARL OF WESTMORLAND: - STEPHEN BRANDON
Different in tone, appearance and actions, yet he was, with Exeter, one of a pair of loyal henchmen to Henry. The actions and the cue taking were brisk and the diction clear. His presence by Henry’s side was marked and he fed him so many of his important initiatives.
For example, his well delivered,
“But one ten thousand of those men in England
That do no work today”
He had a diplomatic air to accompany the military which served the overall interpretation well. Nice one, Stephen.
SIR THOMAS ERPINGHAM & THE GOVERNOR OF HARFLEUR: - MIKE MELVILLE
Famous for having his cloak taken from him on a cold night, there was no doubting the utter loyalty of this man and Mike played him as such – nattily dressed in longer tunic than the younger men, his movement was precise and yet busy. His cultured tones and clear delivery made some good lines effective, occasionally with a touch of comic timing. As the Governor it was a stoic face behind the helmet and a voice well used in a defeated and resigned way, “Enter our gates”. These were sharp characterisations from a good character actor. Nicely played, Mike.
CAPTAIN FLUELLEN: - MARK HUGHES
With a distinguished Welsh name, Mark Hughes could be expected to make sure his Welsh accent lived up to it and it did. From the moment we caught sight of that band round his helmet holding a large leek in it, we had the impression of this fiery Welsh captain. Full of pride he boasted with the best of them, although occasionally the Welsh blurred some of the diction a little. There was also a touch of breathiness and the pace was a little slow. But his appearance was all and he strode purposefully on the stage. In this production he even got to grasp the arm of the King. But his skills were well used to create an argumentative soldier yet one of “much care and valour”. Nicely judged, Mark.
CAPTAIN GOWER & JOHN BATES: - GRAHAM SUNNERS
This was a good example of character work, for each persona was distinct. As Gower he was the partner to Fluellen and was, if rather quiet, full of character. That quietness in delivery was still there as John Bates, but the down to earth realist suited the interpretation and was well delivered with clear diction, matching the King in expression. He was strong and active in battle and convincing as a soldier – good playing from Graham.
EARL OF CAMBRIDGE & CHARLES DELABRETH: - RICHARD SADLER
After two major roles this season, Richard still had energy aplenty to take on these two very different roles. As the traitor he had such vocal dexterity that his protestations of loyalty and his confession were full of pace and conviction. Similarly his lively movements on the floor or on his knees added power to it all. As Delabreth, the High Constable, he could show his voice at its best, with use of a deep tone and strong projection. Here quick delivery made the most of the comic jibes against the Dauphin, full of nicely delivered “double entendres”.
Well played, Richard.
LORD SCROOP, BISHOP OF ELY & LOUIS THE DAUPHIN: - MATTHEW LAMBERT
Not just two but three character roles for this talented actor. As Lord Scroop he exuded repentance in a plaintive, clear voice and was equally adept with the movement and reactions they had to undergo. Before that he had appeared as a youthful Bishop of Ely, his lighter, expressive voice a good contrast with that of Canterbury and so enlivening the scene. But it was as an enthusiastic, less foppish Dauphin that he excelled, with clarity and cracking pace, as at home in feeding comic lines to his mocking courtiers as he was defying Henry’s emissaries. Three good roles well played by Matthew.
SIR THOMAS GREY & DUKE OF ORLEANS: - PHIL ASHBY-CROWE
Here were two roles which suited the mature tone employed by this energetic actor. As Grey he reacted well to his discovery, both in nimble action and voice, although the pace did cause some occasional indistinct consonants
“My fault, but not my body, pardon, sovereign”
As the Duke of Orleans he had a good boasting tone to his delivery and he showed good skill in the comedy of scorning the Dauphin,
“He is simply the most active man in France”.
Good character work from Phil.
ARCHBISHOP of CANTERBURY & PISTOL: - DAVE GILLIVER
It needs a talented man to tackle two roles as diverse as these! The legal and moral ruminations of the Archbishop were delivered with commendable speed and made meaningful, for the serious purpose of this process and its modern parallels meant it could not be played as it often is for overt comedy! And then the very antithesis was the roguish boasting Pistol. Here, brandishing his (wooden?) sword he declaimed his fruity dialogue with great attack and expression, whether to the disguised King or to his companions. He was good at bringing out the meaningful wordplay and his short piece about the death of Nell was a mixture of rascally purposes,
“And swear I got them in the Gallia wars”
and a touch of bitter justice in that she died “of the malady of France”.
Good work Dave.
MICHAEL WILLIAMS: - KEN RIMMER
One of the ordinary folk and a lesser fellow soldier to Bates, yet with some crucial lines and, of course, even more significance in this production and its theme than in some others. He made a good strong delivery of his key line,
“That’s more than we know”
with just the right note of scepticism. He was good in ensemble work, too. It was an important and well played element of the production.
Nice work Ken.
BARDOLPH: - DAVE NORWOOD
Here was another convincing character, who had the two unenviable tasks of starting off the low-life comedy and then being hung in full view of the audience! For the first, he had the right voice, strong, well projected to the audience yet full of meaning and word play. His physique, which looked fearsome when threatening to fight, also gave him the strength he needed when hanging on his suspension wire, the stool having been kicked away. In this as with his character and pock marked face, he was completely credible. Well played Dave.
NYM: - CHRIS FINNEY
He played this important role well, keeping it subservient as befits a Corporal amongst all these Captains and Lieutenants. He has some Shakespearian wit to convey and he managed this with a light tone but well paced delivery. The rhythm was even which gave him the chance of animated delivery when the lines justified it, as in his set-to with Pistol, for example. He had a holder for his sword on his belt, too, but then Chris was a Fight Captain, too! He had a repeated expression, the nearest perhaps to a catch-phrase in Elizabethan comedy, which he delivers with strength and variety,
“that’s the humour of it,” “that’s the even of it”
A good performance, Chris.
A BOY: - TOM JEFFREYS
Here was another good performer, youthful, energetic with the large flag and standing up to the extravert goings on around him. He brought news of Falstaff with pace and feeling and a touch of comedy, although some consonants could have been clearer,
“Good Bardolph, put thy face between his sheets and do the office of a warming pan”.
He wisely created a rather more subdued character than the other bragging rascals and this worked well generally, but just occasionally caused him to under-project his voice. He played an important role in the battles. Good work, Tom!
CHARLES VI of FRANCE: - GERRY CARD
This is a first rate actor in a splendid role which he played with dignity, clarity and authority. Certainly he had the appearance – the beard, hair, the silver crown and long robe, armour, but it was his intelligent delivery of the text which was the most impressive. He made it sound natural. He had strength and authority,
“Be patient, for you shall remain with us”
and graciousness in his blessings and acceptance of the marriage and alliances at the end. It was a well thought out performance, a good foil to the boasting of the French lords. Well played, Gerry
MOUNTJOY: - PETE BLAIN
This is a difficult role to play in this interpretation of the play. For here these journeys to and from the court have acquired the diplomatic status of the excuse to make war and not to stop before the aims of conquest are achieved. So, suitably dressed in the blue of the French court he argued the French case in a light voice, thin in tone but clear and expressive.
Gone was the first haughty, overbearing pride as the tennis balls were delivered, which in stages would then be deflated in defeat and, in the process create a lot of comedy. The absence of this facet restricted what Pete could do with the role, but he kept it consistent and credible and served the production values well. Nice work, Pete.
MONSIEUR LE FER: - GORDON HAMLIN
Modestly described in the programme as “the voice of Gordon Hamlin” but it was in reality much more than this. Those who could see clearly the enactment downstage left, could recognize the cringing antics of a “terrified” soldier, being played with skill by Gordon. With the support of the French Coach, we assume, he rattled off the dialogue in a tremulous but convincing delivery. Nice work, Mr. Director!
NELL: - JOYCE SMITH
Oh why does Shakespeare not give us more of wonderful characters like this especially when as here so well played by the performer?! In her appropriate and striking orange-red costume she was every inch the Hostess. Her rising inflections made short work of Shakespeare’s difficult text bringing out the humour with a suitably wheedling and insinuating tone, and a good delivery of the play on words – for example “carnate/carnation” The expression and bawdy interpretation of it worked well, accompanied by gestures of an equally explicit kind. It was sheer magic and such a good counterpoint to the doings of the courtiers! She deserved her obituary, which came all to soon for the audience – Well created and well played Joyce.
PRINCESS KATHERINE: - LUCY DESMOND
And there was comedy of another sort – on the one hand royalty and manners and a scholarly dialogue in two languages and at the same time as full of bawdy innuendo as anything Nell could dream up! This well- dressed, naive Princess and her attempts firstly at English lessons and then at being woo-ed by a conquering King, had all the vocal technique required as well as easy, youthful movements. The accent was slightly harsh but the knowing reactions to the words, such as the stress on the more harmless
“de nail” even amused if not shocked the modern audience! Throughout her giggles and embarrassment reflected her maiden status but the performance was sound, the French was fluent and fast and the comedy strong. Good work from Lucy!
ALICE: - SUE CURRAN
Of course her costumes were as opulent and colourful as those of her mistress but then Alice is clearly a companion rather than merely a lady in waiting and was a chaperone and trustee. She both fed the lines for the bawdy comedy of double meanings and had some comedy of her own, especially with that wickedly pronounced line,
“de tongues of de mans is be full of deceits”
The tone was rich, the voice clear, the stance and movement full of control and the dialogue bubbled along with clarity and expression and with fluency and pace. The acting skill was evident in the good timing and the natural way with what was artificially constructed comedy.
Well done, Sue!
ENDEAVOUR, ORIGINALITY and THEATRICAL ATTAINMENT
The first thing to single out is the endeavour and originality of Gordon, whose conception as director and designer put this version and interpretation on the stage. And he remained true to it with original playing of characters and the bloody cruelty of battle scenes and death sentences. The simple set was ideal allowing scene to flow into scene, actors to bring on chairs, even erect a scaffold, and build the pace. The play may have been cut in an original way but the speed of the production was also evident. In this the endeavour of the performers was crucial. The originality in costume, starting with neutral blacks and adding only what was necessary, so that some went into battle without a helmet, all was consistent with the theme.( shortage of supply in Iraq for example!) the fight arrangement accomplished much, reaching a high level of theatrical attainment with so few actors on so sparse a set..
But the real attainment was to have such a large cast who were all skilled in their performances and who were all capable of the necessary clarity and projection for such a theatre, even if some were a little quiet occasionally. The characterisations were well thought out, original and of great theatrical accomplishment, especially the powerful and consistent performances of Henry, Exeter, the Chorus and others. The comedy was very well brought out and the futility and the heavy price of war, even in victory were explored with clarity.
The presentation was appropriate - the music, effects and the lighting, heraldry and crowns were of crucial importance in creating the necessary atmosphere. It reached out to the audience through its opening device and in places within the play. It was true to its declared theme and its faithfulness to the text and clarity of its delivery of the verse and prose provided the necessary food for thought. Again it comes back to a unity of concept and, once again, to the vision and expertise of its director and the cast who supported him. Well done!
Garth Jones
Adudicator 2008/2009
