Much Ado - the "proper" review
Jun. 27th, 2011 12:24 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
caz963Hey - that rhymes!
I'm fortunate enough to be going to see Much Ado a few times over the summer, but I went for the first time on Saturday night and had one of the best evenings out that I've had in a long time. Of course that was, in large part due to the delightful company afforded by the lovely![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
canterlevi, but I think that David Tennant and Catherine Tate may have had a hand in it, too :P
Everyone else who's been has already written about the production itself - the setting, the golf-cart, the decorating scene etc. etc. so I've decided to try not to repeat things that others have already said. Instead, I'm going to ramble a bit about the play itself, and some other things that have occurred to me as a result. I've already written my OMG! - David Tennant is the most gorgeous thing on the planet post, just to get that off my chest, but I still feel I need to pinchhelygen's usual disclaimer and point out that I'm pretty much incapable of expressing an objective opinion where DT is concerned. That said though, he didn't put a foot wrong, so perhaps that makes such a disclaimer redundant.
T&T obviously chose very well when they opted to do this particular play together. Not only is it one of Shakespeare's most popular plays, it's also one in which the language is very accessible (being written almost entirely in prose may help somewhat) and one in which the "do-they? don't-they? / will-they? won't-they?" plot that surrounds the two principals is now a very familiar one to anyone who watches television/films and/or reads books on a regular basis. I'm sure they also recognised that the relationship their characters had already established on screen in DW was in many ways very similar to the one that Beatrice and Benedick have in the play; both of them have said as much in interviews, Catherine Tate acknowledging that the dynamic is very similar - so for any audience familiar with their work in DW, Beatrice and Benedick are a sort of natural extension to the Doctor and Donna; two people who love each other to bits while being completely aware of the other's faults and who are also not above pointing those faults out when the occasion demands it. And even when it doesn't ;-)
I will admit to having been a bit nervous when reports starting coming in after the previews, that the setting and staging might be a bit too "gimmicky" for the sometimes-toffee-nosed theatre critics, but fortunately I needn't have been because everything works. The songs are brilliant pastiches of Wham, Bonnie Tyler and other 80s favourites, although the words themselves are all the Bard's. (You know, I still can't help sniggering whenever I read or type those words, "The Bard" - thanks to the joke at the end of TSC - "oi mate, you're barred"... silly, I know.)
I know that some reviewers have complained that they're playing everything for laughs - but why shouldn't they? For one thing, it's all there, on the bloody page. And for another, is there an unwritten rule somewhere that Shakespeare has to be performed po-faced? He wrote mass-market entertainment, which often included broad comedy with lots of sexual references (some of them pretty crude) and gags about bodily functions - and just because many of those reference are couched in terms with which we are no longer familiar doesn't make them any less rude, does it? Or any less funny. Yes, this production does emphasise the comedy aspects quite broadly and very physically - but again, I think it's another example of how Tate and Tennant (seriously, with those names, they were destined to be a double-act!) chose the perfect vehicle. They're both incredibly good at acting with their entire bodies (there's one brilliant moment in the final scene where they're mirroring each other's body language perfectly - think of them ripping up the contracts in SitL and you'll know which bit I mean!) as well as of a subtlety of facial expression and fortunately, because Wyndham's is quite small, that's visible even from near the back of the stalls. I also think that they and presumably the director - were well aware that this will be not only the first time some of the audience has seen Much Ado but for some, the first time they've seen any Shakespeare at all. So it's important that it's understandable and accessible to all - and if that means that some of the verbal comedy has to be underpinned by physical comedy - well, that's called "interpretation", isn't it? The point is that it's done incredibly well and when the big, dramatic moments unfurl - and they do - the contrast is stark.
I think that for any modern audience, the part of Much Ado that is the most difficult to come to terms with is the Claudio and Hero part of the plot. They are the conventional lovers - he, a fine, upstanding young nobleman, she, the lovely daughter of a dignitary and they fall in love at first sight. That's not an uncommon thing in stories and plays of the time and later and it's a frequent trope in classic literature of many different stamps. Their story is taken straight from ancient Greek literature (I think? Somebody correct me if I'm wrong - my studies were quite a few years ago) and when also wrapped in the conventions of the sixteenth century, it can be quite a hard tale to swallow. But I can handwave that part of it, because I know that it's following those conventions, and because at the time, two young people of good family and fortune would probably have been paired up and married off by their families for financial gain or to ensure continuation of the family line or whatever. But what's difficult to accept in the play is not the suddeness of the falling-in-love or the swiftness of the ensuing nuptuals; it's the downright cruelty (and mysogyny) of Claudio's actions when he denounces Hero at the altar and her own father's immediate belief in her guilt. It's the fact that he can believe her guilty because another MAN - a prince - SAYS THAT SHE IS. Not to mention the fact that Claudio and Don Pedro are so ready to believe her guilty on the flimsiest of evidence.
I think it's very hard therefore to make Claudio a sympathetic character and it's a tough role for any actor. Not only is he going to be completely eclipsed by Benedick (not just in this production where, let's face it ANY actor has a tough job simply by being on the same stage as David Tennant!) but also because Claudio is basically a pretty straight-laced prig. The actor in this production (Tom Bateman) did a decent job in what is a fairly thankless role.
And here, a quick mention for the rest of casting, which was very good. Adam James was an excellent Don Pedro - especially in the scene where he sort of proposes to Beatrice - as was Jonathan Coy as Leonato. I don't really know why Leonato acquired a wife (in the play, he has a brother who lives with them) other than that perhaps because it worked better in the context of when the production was set.
I could write (and have written!) essays about Beatrice and Benedick and their relationship, but I'll try to spare you that ;-) As I said before, the "two characters who love each other to bits/are perfect for each other but who can't see it" has become a familiar staple of fiction and I think we all get where they're coming from by now. Beatrice makes it clear that, at some point, in the past they had a relationship which didn't work out, so her sniping at and about him is tinged with an element of self-preservation. Benedick, despite the bravado is clearly masking insecurities to which he freely admits in private - "Love me... why?"; but for me, one of the most important facets to his character is that he's not afraid to break from the crowd and step up to the plate when he has to. The scenes where things get serious are the ones where you really get a sense of just who Benedick is; and I think that they're make-or-break for the actor, too. For most of the play, he's "the funny one", the one the others turn to when they want to have a laugh. He's witty and he's clever, which could make him insufferable, but he's saved from that by his self-knowledge and capacity for self-deprecation. In the scene after the denunciation, however, we're reminded that he's a soldier and a good one at that, because he uses his intelligence and isn't led by others into reaching the wrong conclusion. No doubt, his love for Beatrice is part of the reason he's not so ready to believe Claudio and Don Pedro as Leonato and others are, but he also uses the evidence of his own eyes, and uses his brain to determine his course of action. For me, this, and the challenge scene are defining moments - and I thought DT hit exactly the right note in both. The challenge to Claudio was quiet and utterly deadly - you were left in no doubt that he is a dangerous enemy and that he would show not an ounce of mercy should the situation demand it. That's one of the things I've always found attractive about the character of Benedick - the fact that while he may be the "Prince's jester", deep down, he's a man of intelligence and principle. He has his line, and once drawn, it's crossed at your peril, and that sort of thing is something that DT conveys incredibly well.
It was, of course, helped by the fact that he looks stunningly, jaw-droppingly handsome in those dress whites! And I may have whimpered during the earlier declaration scene where he's trying to get Beatrice to say she loves him and he's deliberately shoving aside and tipping over the chairs to get to her. Take-charge Benedick is really hot :-)
David Tennant has this incredible ability to make Shakespeare's words sound as though they were written just a few days ago. I have no idea how he does it, but somehow, the words coming out of his mouth sound as though he's speaking everyday "normal" English. Perhaps it's because those words are accompanied by such a wide range of facial expression and vocal inflection that it makes them easier to understand - I really don't know what it is. I'm quite familiar with the play, having seen it several times over the years, and studied it in depth, but that was a while ago and it's been a while since I've seen it, so I'm sure it wasn't all down to familiarity.
He also has such amazing presence on stage. I said in my last post that it's not news to many of us that he's an incredibly gifted comic actor - but I think that there will be some for whom that does come as a surprise, especially if they're only familiar with his work on DW and perhaps Hamlet. Other than Hamlet, I've not seen any of his other stage work (I didn't manage to see LLL) and most of the telly stuff he's done has been in more serious vein, but his turn in He Knew He Was Right as the smarmy vicar and his performance Casanova were among the first things I really noticed him in, and in both cases I remember thinking how good he was at the comedy. Another of the things I adore about him is the fact that he really doesn't appear to give a stuff about looking ridiculous. I'm not just talking about the scenes he plays in drag (but the dancing is hilarious) but there's also the way he turns into a love-struck schoolboy when he overhears that Beatrice is in love with him. He just stands there (covered in white paint) with an utterly dorky and stupid grin on his face, looking for all the world like a gangly teenaged boy in the throes of his first crush.
Oh, and did I mention the denim cut-offs? And the thighs? *g*
It's just a brilliant all-round performance. DT's an out-and-out star, but not in a way that's at all ostentatious or "look at me" - he just IS. The lights seem a little dimmer when he's not on stage (of course they're not - it just feels like it) and when he is there, it's almost impossible not to look at him, even when he's not the main focus of the scene. And no, it's not just because he's so lovely to look at and I'm a demented DT fangirl (well maybe just a bit!); it's charisma, or star quality or whatever you want to call it.
Catherine Tate - who looks stunning throughout - can't quite match David when it comes to the ease with which he handles the language, but given this was her first time performing a leading Shakespearean role on stage, she did a wonderful job. It wasn't as though she was fluffing lines or tripping over her words, it's just not as effortless, although to be honest, I think there are probably very few actors around who can match DT for that anyway.
But in all other aspects she's right up there with him.
(I thought she was really brave, being hoisted up and down on that harness in the decorating scene - she was pretty high up at some points and it was a long way down!)
I'd read some reviews about the "Kill Claudio" moment (which I always think is key to the way the actress interprets the role) being played for laughs, but fortunately, it wasn't. The declarations of love are quite funny, with CT doing an equivalent love-struck teenage act, and I have to admit that's one of the few things in her performance I wasn't wild about (but then that's down to the direction I suppose). But it worked, and provided a good contrast for what came next, even though I think that some members of the audience weren't prepared for the switch and thought she was still 'avin a larf when she asked Benedick to kill his friend for the sake of her cousin's honour.
The long-awaited snog was, of course, greeted with whoops of delight. Most of the productions I've seen put one in the declarations scene (Ken and Em do in the film as well) so I was a bit surprised to learn there wasn't one there in this production. But boy, do they go for it at the end - with DT doing a variation of Ten's gobsmacked, post-snog face - except here he's got self-satisfied, smug and "gimme some more of that!" in there as well :-)
So there you go. It's a good production and a load of fun. David and Catherine really are firing on all cylinders and their timing - whether alone or together - is perfect. Their amazing personal chemistry really crackles and there's no difficulty at all imagining these two characters as lovers - who will undoubtedly not stop their bickering at the bedroom door. If this was the 1940s, someone out there would be signing them up to make a string of screwball comedies together, but as it is, we can only hope that the pair of them manage to make time in their schedules to work together again - on stage or screen. Individually talented though they are, what they bring to their work together is something very special and I, for one, feel really grateful to have been able to experience that, first hand.
I'm fortunate enough to be going to see Much Ado a few times over the summer, but I went for the first time on Saturday night and had one of the best evenings out that I've had in a long time. Of course that was, in large part due to the delightful company afforded by the lovely
canterlevi, but I think that David Tennant and Catherine Tate may have had a hand in it, too :PEveryone else who's been has already written about the production itself - the setting, the golf-cart, the decorating scene etc. etc. so I've decided to try not to repeat things that others have already said. Instead, I'm going to ramble a bit about the play itself, and some other things that have occurred to me as a result. I've already written my OMG! - David Tennant is the most gorgeous thing on the planet post, just to get that off my chest, but I still feel I need to pinch
helygen's usual disclaimer and point out that I'm pretty much incapable of expressing an objective opinion where DT is concerned. That said though, he didn't put a foot wrong, so perhaps that makes such a disclaimer redundant.T&T obviously chose very well when they opted to do this particular play together. Not only is it one of Shakespeare's most popular plays, it's also one in which the language is very accessible (being written almost entirely in prose may help somewhat) and one in which the "do-they? don't-they? / will-they? won't-they?" plot that surrounds the two principals is now a very familiar one to anyone who watches television/films and/or reads books on a regular basis. I'm sure they also recognised that the relationship their characters had already established on screen in DW was in many ways very similar to the one that Beatrice and Benedick have in the play; both of them have said as much in interviews, Catherine Tate acknowledging that the dynamic is very similar - so for any audience familiar with their work in DW, Beatrice and Benedick are a sort of natural extension to the Doctor and Donna; two people who love each other to bits while being completely aware of the other's faults and who are also not above pointing those faults out when the occasion demands it. And even when it doesn't ;-)
I will admit to having been a bit nervous when reports starting coming in after the previews, that the setting and staging might be a bit too "gimmicky" for the sometimes-toffee-nosed theatre critics, but fortunately I needn't have been because everything works. The songs are brilliant pastiches of Wham, Bonnie Tyler and other 80s favourites, although the words themselves are all the Bard's. (You know, I still can't help sniggering whenever I read or type those words, "The Bard" - thanks to the joke at the end of TSC - "oi mate, you're barred"... silly, I know.)
I know that some reviewers have complained that they're playing everything for laughs - but why shouldn't they? For one thing, it's all there, on the bloody page. And for another, is there an unwritten rule somewhere that Shakespeare has to be performed po-faced? He wrote mass-market entertainment, which often included broad comedy with lots of sexual references (some of them pretty crude) and gags about bodily functions - and just because many of those reference are couched in terms with which we are no longer familiar doesn't make them any less rude, does it? Or any less funny. Yes, this production does emphasise the comedy aspects quite broadly and very physically - but again, I think it's another example of how Tate and Tennant (seriously, with those names, they were destined to be a double-act!) chose the perfect vehicle. They're both incredibly good at acting with their entire bodies (there's one brilliant moment in the final scene where they're mirroring each other's body language perfectly - think of them ripping up the contracts in SitL and you'll know which bit I mean!) as well as of a subtlety of facial expression and fortunately, because Wyndham's is quite small, that's visible even from near the back of the stalls. I also think that they and presumably the director - were well aware that this will be not only the first time some of the audience has seen Much Ado but for some, the first time they've seen any Shakespeare at all. So it's important that it's understandable and accessible to all - and if that means that some of the verbal comedy has to be underpinned by physical comedy - well, that's called "interpretation", isn't it? The point is that it's done incredibly well and when the big, dramatic moments unfurl - and they do - the contrast is stark.
I think that for any modern audience, the part of Much Ado that is the most difficult to come to terms with is the Claudio and Hero part of the plot. They are the conventional lovers - he, a fine, upstanding young nobleman, she, the lovely daughter of a dignitary and they fall in love at first sight. That's not an uncommon thing in stories and plays of the time and later and it's a frequent trope in classic literature of many different stamps. Their story is taken straight from ancient Greek literature (I think? Somebody correct me if I'm wrong - my studies were quite a few years ago) and when also wrapped in the conventions of the sixteenth century, it can be quite a hard tale to swallow. But I can handwave that part of it, because I know that it's following those conventions, and because at the time, two young people of good family and fortune would probably have been paired up and married off by their families for financial gain or to ensure continuation of the family line or whatever. But what's difficult to accept in the play is not the suddeness of the falling-in-love or the swiftness of the ensuing nuptuals; it's the downright cruelty (and mysogyny) of Claudio's actions when he denounces Hero at the altar and her own father's immediate belief in her guilt. It's the fact that he can believe her guilty because another MAN - a prince - SAYS THAT SHE IS. Not to mention the fact that Claudio and Don Pedro are so ready to believe her guilty on the flimsiest of evidence.
I think it's very hard therefore to make Claudio a sympathetic character and it's a tough role for any actor. Not only is he going to be completely eclipsed by Benedick (not just in this production where, let's face it ANY actor has a tough job simply by being on the same stage as David Tennant!) but also because Claudio is basically a pretty straight-laced prig. The actor in this production (Tom Bateman) did a decent job in what is a fairly thankless role.
And here, a quick mention for the rest of casting, which was very good. Adam James was an excellent Don Pedro - especially in the scene where he sort of proposes to Beatrice - as was Jonathan Coy as Leonato. I don't really know why Leonato acquired a wife (in the play, he has a brother who lives with them) other than that perhaps because it worked better in the context of when the production was set.
I could write (and have written!) essays about Beatrice and Benedick and their relationship, but I'll try to spare you that ;-) As I said before, the "two characters who love each other to bits/are perfect for each other but who can't see it" has become a familiar staple of fiction and I think we all get where they're coming from by now. Beatrice makes it clear that, at some point, in the past they had a relationship which didn't work out, so her sniping at and about him is tinged with an element of self-preservation. Benedick, despite the bravado is clearly masking insecurities to which he freely admits in private - "Love me... why?"; but for me, one of the most important facets to his character is that he's not afraid to break from the crowd and step up to the plate when he has to. The scenes where things get serious are the ones where you really get a sense of just who Benedick is; and I think that they're make-or-break for the actor, too. For most of the play, he's "the funny one", the one the others turn to when they want to have a laugh. He's witty and he's clever, which could make him insufferable, but he's saved from that by his self-knowledge and capacity for self-deprecation. In the scene after the denunciation, however, we're reminded that he's a soldier and a good one at that, because he uses his intelligence and isn't led by others into reaching the wrong conclusion. No doubt, his love for Beatrice is part of the reason he's not so ready to believe Claudio and Don Pedro as Leonato and others are, but he also uses the evidence of his own eyes, and uses his brain to determine his course of action. For me, this, and the challenge scene are defining moments - and I thought DT hit exactly the right note in both. The challenge to Claudio was quiet and utterly deadly - you were left in no doubt that he is a dangerous enemy and that he would show not an ounce of mercy should the situation demand it. That's one of the things I've always found attractive about the character of Benedick - the fact that while he may be the "Prince's jester", deep down, he's a man of intelligence and principle. He has his line, and once drawn, it's crossed at your peril, and that sort of thing is something that DT conveys incredibly well.
It was, of course, helped by the fact that he looks stunningly, jaw-droppingly handsome in those dress whites! And I may have whimpered during the earlier declaration scene where he's trying to get Beatrice to say she loves him and he's deliberately shoving aside and tipping over the chairs to get to her. Take-charge Benedick is really hot :-)
David Tennant has this incredible ability to make Shakespeare's words sound as though they were written just a few days ago. I have no idea how he does it, but somehow, the words coming out of his mouth sound as though he's speaking everyday "normal" English. Perhaps it's because those words are accompanied by such a wide range of facial expression and vocal inflection that it makes them easier to understand - I really don't know what it is. I'm quite familiar with the play, having seen it several times over the years, and studied it in depth, but that was a while ago and it's been a while since I've seen it, so I'm sure it wasn't all down to familiarity.
He also has such amazing presence on stage. I said in my last post that it's not news to many of us that he's an incredibly gifted comic actor - but I think that there will be some for whom that does come as a surprise, especially if they're only familiar with his work on DW and perhaps Hamlet. Other than Hamlet, I've not seen any of his other stage work (I didn't manage to see LLL) and most of the telly stuff he's done has been in more serious vein, but his turn in He Knew He Was Right as the smarmy vicar and his performance Casanova were among the first things I really noticed him in, and in both cases I remember thinking how good he was at the comedy. Another of the things I adore about him is the fact that he really doesn't appear to give a stuff about looking ridiculous. I'm not just talking about the scenes he plays in drag (but the dancing is hilarious) but there's also the way he turns into a love-struck schoolboy when he overhears that Beatrice is in love with him. He just stands there (covered in white paint) with an utterly dorky and stupid grin on his face, looking for all the world like a gangly teenaged boy in the throes of his first crush.
Oh, and did I mention the denim cut-offs? And the thighs? *g*
It's just a brilliant all-round performance. DT's an out-and-out star, but not in a way that's at all ostentatious or "look at me" - he just IS. The lights seem a little dimmer when he's not on stage (of course they're not - it just feels like it) and when he is there, it's almost impossible not to look at him, even when he's not the main focus of the scene. And no, it's not just because he's so lovely to look at and I'm a demented DT fangirl (well maybe just a bit!); it's charisma, or star quality or whatever you want to call it.
Catherine Tate - who looks stunning throughout - can't quite match David when it comes to the ease with which he handles the language, but given this was her first time performing a leading Shakespearean role on stage, she did a wonderful job. It wasn't as though she was fluffing lines or tripping over her words, it's just not as effortless, although to be honest, I think there are probably very few actors around who can match DT for that anyway.
But in all other aspects she's right up there with him.
(I thought she was really brave, being hoisted up and down on that harness in the decorating scene - she was pretty high up at some points and it was a long way down!)
I'd read some reviews about the "Kill Claudio" moment (which I always think is key to the way the actress interprets the role) being played for laughs, but fortunately, it wasn't. The declarations of love are quite funny, with CT doing an equivalent love-struck teenage act, and I have to admit that's one of the few things in her performance I wasn't wild about (but then that's down to the direction I suppose). But it worked, and provided a good contrast for what came next, even though I think that some members of the audience weren't prepared for the switch and thought she was still 'avin a larf when she asked Benedick to kill his friend for the sake of her cousin's honour.
The long-awaited snog was, of course, greeted with whoops of delight. Most of the productions I've seen put one in the declarations scene (Ken and Em do in the film as well) so I was a bit surprised to learn there wasn't one there in this production. But boy, do they go for it at the end - with DT doing a variation of Ten's gobsmacked, post-snog face - except here he's got self-satisfied, smug and "gimme some more of that!" in there as well :-)
So there you go. It's a good production and a load of fun. David and Catherine really are firing on all cylinders and their timing - whether alone or together - is perfect. Their amazing personal chemistry really crackles and there's no difficulty at all imagining these two characters as lovers - who will undoubtedly not stop their bickering at the bedroom door. If this was the 1940s, someone out there would be signing them up to make a string of screwball comedies together, but as it is, we can only hope that the pair of them manage to make time in their schedules to work together again - on stage or screen. Individually talented though they are, what they bring to their work together is something very special and I, for one, feel really grateful to have been able to experience that, first hand.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-06-28 08:43 pm (UTC)I always think it's a difficult line to draw between popularising something which is a one-off and making something more accessible in the long-term. Having worked in the music biz, I saw that a LOT - the whole "crossover" market was looked down on by the "serious" musicians and critics, for example, and I really doubt that the advent of people like Charlotte Church, Hayley Westernra and even Katherine Jenkins has increased the popularity of classical music or opera - rather, they've just increased the popularity of certain songs and arias etc.
But that's not to say that people shouldn't try. And they've clearly gone into this to do the best bloody job they can and appeal to the widest possible audience. Had the critics panned it, it would still have sold out and people who saw it would still have had a ball. But they've managed to satisfy both camps (for the most part) and that's not something to be sniffed at!