"King Lear" review
Wed, 15 Mar 2000, 01:05 amWalter Plinge9 posts in thread
"King Lear" review
Wed, 15 Mar 2000, 01:05 amFlame-retardant suit in place?
Okay, we may proceed.
***
KING LEAR, at the New Fortune.
Directed by John Milson
Review by David Meadows
***
Shakespeare is hard at the best of times, but King Lear is in another dimension. Often regarded as impossible to successfully stage, Shakespeare¹s most intense tragedy has humbled some of the greatest actors and directors in our recent history.
John Milson has done neither the play, nor his cast for this latest production, anything approaching justice.
With all of the talent on show in this GDS/UDS Summer Shakespeare production, one would have thought there would have been some memorable attributes; some inspired moments of individual glory; maybe even some
genuine magic. It was not to be.
From its depressingly traditional opening to its depressingly traditional climax, Milson¹s flat, lifeless, routinier production confirmed virtually all of the average Shakespeare-hater¹s top ten criticisms.
Unfortunately, few of the (mostly fine) cast were able to overcome Milson¹s ineptitude, and delivered performances in keeping with the bland production. The only exceptions were those with the courage to defy the
routine and indulge in some surreptitious extracurricular creativity, among them our own Grant Malcolm, who - despite the faux-portentious vocal affectation that has marked his performances of late - was responsible for some fine moments as Kent (his confrontation with Oswald at Gloucester¹s house was a definite highlight); and Conrad Crisafulli, who defied the absurd physical image imposed upon him by actually delivering a performance that transcended it.
Unfortunately, the weakest link in this cast was Andy King, who made the gruelling lead role decidedly less gruelling by not actually investing any emotion into it. Delivering his lines with a relentless iambic monotone, he
glossed over some glorious moments of profound dramatic intensity (although, to give him his due, his director was clearly to blame for much of this, as few of his co-stars were allowed to give him anything to respond _to_).
In the end, he fell into the trap his director had set for him... that is, falling into cliche. I laughed out loud when he
entered with the dead Cordelia in his arms. The image was the final kick in the guts for an audience who had yawned through two hours of hoary cliche straight out of ³The Dresser².
I am reminded of the theatrical platitude that has become something of an obsession with me: ³Lack of invention is not the same thing as simplicity². What was on display at the New Fortune this month was a distinct lack of invention.
D.M.
Okay, we may proceed.
***
KING LEAR, at the New Fortune.
Directed by John Milson
Review by David Meadows
***
Shakespeare is hard at the best of times, but King Lear is in another dimension. Often regarded as impossible to successfully stage, Shakespeare¹s most intense tragedy has humbled some of the greatest actors and directors in our recent history.
John Milson has done neither the play, nor his cast for this latest production, anything approaching justice.
With all of the talent on show in this GDS/UDS Summer Shakespeare production, one would have thought there would have been some memorable attributes; some inspired moments of individual glory; maybe even some
genuine magic. It was not to be.
From its depressingly traditional opening to its depressingly traditional climax, Milson¹s flat, lifeless, routinier production confirmed virtually all of the average Shakespeare-hater¹s top ten criticisms.
Unfortunately, few of the (mostly fine) cast were able to overcome Milson¹s ineptitude, and delivered performances in keeping with the bland production. The only exceptions were those with the courage to defy the
routine and indulge in some surreptitious extracurricular creativity, among them our own Grant Malcolm, who - despite the faux-portentious vocal affectation that has marked his performances of late - was responsible for some fine moments as Kent (his confrontation with Oswald at Gloucester¹s house was a definite highlight); and Conrad Crisafulli, who defied the absurd physical image imposed upon him by actually delivering a performance that transcended it.
Unfortunately, the weakest link in this cast was Andy King, who made the gruelling lead role decidedly less gruelling by not actually investing any emotion into it. Delivering his lines with a relentless iambic monotone, he
glossed over some glorious moments of profound dramatic intensity (although, to give him his due, his director was clearly to blame for much of this, as few of his co-stars were allowed to give him anything to respond _to_).
In the end, he fell into the trap his director had set for him... that is, falling into cliche. I laughed out loud when he
entered with the dead Cordelia in his arms. The image was the final kick in the guts for an audience who had yawned through two hours of hoary cliche straight out of ³The Dresser².
I am reminded of the theatrical platitude that has become something of an obsession with me: ³Lack of invention is not the same thing as simplicity². What was on display at the New Fortune this month was a distinct lack of invention.
D.M.
RE: I Take It All Back!!
Mon, 20 Mar 2000, 10:57 pmHi Leah
Leah Maher wrote:
-------------------------------
> Forget I said anything about reviews, you all
> shouldn't have the power if you cannot weild it
> responsibly.
And this from the person who directed The Last Supper?
It's a small step from denying people freedom of expression to refusing them the right to vote and then to herding them into gas chambers, burning them at the stake, nailing them to a cross - or serving them arsenic. At least, that was the "message" i construed from a most enjoyable night at the Kwinana Arts Centre.
:)
> What I meant by using the review page was not to
> redirect a show in the "I would have done it
> differently therefore you are wrong" vein and
> certainly the "it was just crap" approach isn't terribly
> helpful either.
I personally don't share your view that Jason's commentary on TLS was, as you have implied, irresponsible. To summarise his review as saying "I would have done it differently...", is to misrepresent four fifths of what he had to say about the show. When Jason does resort to talking about what if's, he very carefully sets them apart from the rest of his commentary as personal conjecture on his part.
My overall understanding was, as i stated before, that Jason responded very positively to the show and was taking considerable pains to present some constructive suggestions. If i hadn't already planned to go, his comments would actually have encouraged me to see the show.
Whether or not you judge Jason's comments as helpful, i struggle to perceive his honest intentions as anything otherwise.
> (can I say "prick" Grant??)
i never have and never will seek to censor discussions on these message boards. what you write is your responsibility - not mine or the ITA's. i personally endorse self-censorship
:)
Cheers
Grant
Leah Maher wrote:
-------------------------------
> Forget I said anything about reviews, you all
> shouldn't have the power if you cannot weild it
> responsibly.
And this from the person who directed The Last Supper?
It's a small step from denying people freedom of expression to refusing them the right to vote and then to herding them into gas chambers, burning them at the stake, nailing them to a cross - or serving them arsenic. At least, that was the "message" i construed from a most enjoyable night at the Kwinana Arts Centre.
:)
> What I meant by using the review page was not to
> redirect a show in the "I would have done it
> differently therefore you are wrong" vein and
> certainly the "it was just crap" approach isn't terribly
> helpful either.
I personally don't share your view that Jason's commentary on TLS was, as you have implied, irresponsible. To summarise his review as saying "I would have done it differently...", is to misrepresent four fifths of what he had to say about the show. When Jason does resort to talking about what if's, he very carefully sets them apart from the rest of his commentary as personal conjecture on his part.
My overall understanding was, as i stated before, that Jason responded very positively to the show and was taking considerable pains to present some constructive suggestions. If i hadn't already planned to go, his comments would actually have encouraged me to see the show.
Whether or not you judge Jason's comments as helpful, i struggle to perceive his honest intentions as anything otherwise.
> (can I say "prick" Grant??)
i never have and never will seek to censor discussions on these message boards. what you write is your responsibility - not mine or the ITA's. i personally endorse self-censorship
:)
Cheers
Grant
- ···
- ···
- ···
- ···