"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.
Walter PlingeWed, 15 Mar 2000, 01:05 am
Flame-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.
Grant MalcolmThu, 16 Mar 2000, 08:20 am
RE: "King Lear" review
Flame proof suit?
I rather had the impression that you had slung a flame thrower over your shoulder for this scorched earth commentary. You seemed intent on razing the production to the ground. If you hoped to provoke discussion, I'm afraid your broad, sweeping and largely unsupported assertions don't give an impression of someone interested in constructive debate.
As one of two people singled out for a backhanded compliment, I'm not altogether sure I feel flattered. If my name were Milson or King, I might consider your comments actionable but would probably deem them beneath reply. Which kind of leaves me wondering what you might have hoped to accomplish by publishing such vitriolic comments about two widely respected fellow thespians. I can't help feeling your attack will do more damage to your own name than theirs.
Whatever our feelings, if we spoke our whole minds all the time, the world would collapse into anarchy. If you can't think of anything nice to say.... and do unto others....
Cheers
Grant
I rather had the impression that you had slung a flame thrower over your shoulder for this scorched earth commentary. You seemed intent on razing the production to the ground. If you hoped to provoke discussion, I'm afraid your broad, sweeping and largely unsupported assertions don't give an impression of someone interested in constructive debate.
As one of two people singled out for a backhanded compliment, I'm not altogether sure I feel flattered. If my name were Milson or King, I might consider your comments actionable but would probably deem them beneath reply. Which kind of leaves me wondering what you might have hoped to accomplish by publishing such vitriolic comments about two widely respected fellow thespians. I can't help feeling your attack will do more damage to your own name than theirs.
Whatever our feelings, if we spoke our whole minds all the time, the world would collapse into anarchy. If you can't think of anything nice to say.... and do unto others....
Cheers
Grant
Walter PlingeThu, 16 Mar 2000, 08:01 pm
RE: "King Lear" review
Dear Grant,
I can't help but gloating (sorry). But now do you see why I have a problem with reviewers! If we lived in a perfect "constructive" world they might be Ok, but, we don't. One can't say A B and C (the good reviewers)may share their views yet X Y and Z (the bad reviewers) may not.
Once again sorry for gloating,
STILL never a reviewer,
Phil.
I can't help but gloating (sorry). But now do you see why I have a problem with reviewers! If we lived in a perfect "constructive" world they might be Ok, but, we don't. One can't say A B and C (the good reviewers)may share their views yet X Y and Z (the bad reviewers) may not.
Once again sorry for gloating,
STILL never a reviewer,
Phil.
Grant MalcolmThu, 16 Mar 2000, 10:06 pm
RE: Reviews and gloating
Hi Phil
Phil wrote:
--------------------------------
> I can't help but gloating (sorry).
hehehe
Gloat away!
:)
> But now do you see why I have a problem with
> reviewers! If we lived in a perfect "constructive"
> world they might be Ok, but, we don't.
I still don't share your opinion of reviewers or reviewing and i certainly don't believe they are a problem.
> One can't say A B and C (the good reviewers)may
> share their views yet X Y and Z (the bad reviewers)
> may not.
Check carefully what i have said. I've nowhere suggested that David M. should not be allowed to express an opinion.
I might disagree with David's being so outspokenly critical, but i'll defend to the death his right to do so!
> Once again sorry for gloating,
> STILL never a reviewer,
So you've never talked with a friend about a show? Never expressed any opinion to a group of friends about whether or not something might be worth seeing? Never debated with another person a casting decision, a choice of setting or costume?
Doubtless you have, like most of us, expressed some opinions (perhaps not as stridently as DM) to a range of people from friends to family, acquaintances and practically strangers.
How do your actions differ from those of someone posting a review here, except perhaps in degree?
For that matter, aren't you reviewing my performance in this discussion? Critically appraising my arguments and offering your own opinions in this fascinating debate?
:)
Cheers
Grant
Phil wrote:
--------------------------------
> I can't help but gloating (sorry).
hehehe
Gloat away!
:)
> But now do you see why I have a problem with
> reviewers! If we lived in a perfect "constructive"
> world they might be Ok, but, we don't.
I still don't share your opinion of reviewers or reviewing and i certainly don't believe they are a problem.
> One can't say A B and C (the good reviewers)may
> share their views yet X Y and Z (the bad reviewers)
> may not.
Check carefully what i have said. I've nowhere suggested that David M. should not be allowed to express an opinion.
I might disagree with David's being so outspokenly critical, but i'll defend to the death his right to do so!
> Once again sorry for gloating,
> STILL never a reviewer,
So you've never talked with a friend about a show? Never expressed any opinion to a group of friends about whether or not something might be worth seeing? Never debated with another person a casting decision, a choice of setting or costume?
Doubtless you have, like most of us, expressed some opinions (perhaps not as stridently as DM) to a range of people from friends to family, acquaintances and practically strangers.
How do your actions differ from those of someone posting a review here, except perhaps in degree?
For that matter, aren't you reviewing my performance in this discussion? Critically appraising my arguments and offering your own opinions in this fascinating debate?
:)
Cheers
Grant
Walter PlingeFri, 17 Mar 2000, 01:06 pm
RE: Reviews and gloating
Dear Grant~
All I can say is - "Hear! Hear!"
:) Tracey
All I can say is - "Hear! Hear!"
:) Tracey
Leah MaherMon, 20 Mar 2000, 03:37 pm
I Take It All Back!!
Forget I said anything about reviews, you all shouldn't have the power if you cannot weild it responsibly.
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.
People have feelings David M and you really hurt them in your callous and malicious attack. You could have said everything you were trying to get across in a constructive way but chose to be a (can I say "prick" Grant??) instead.
Enjoy your notoriety, it was obviously waht you were aiming for and the only thing you gained.
LEAH
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.
People have feelings David M and you really hurt them in your callous and malicious attack. You could have said everything you were trying to get across in a constructive way but chose to be a (can I say "prick" Grant??) instead.
Enjoy your notoriety, it was obviously waht you were aiming for and the only thing you gained.
LEAH
Grant MalcolmMon, 20 Mar 2000, 10:57 pm
RE: I Take It All Back!!
Hi 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
Sarah HouseMon, 27 Mar 2000, 09:43 am
RE: I Take It All Back!!
I was under the impression that Leah was talking about David Meadows review of King Lear and not TLS's - though I could be wrong. I did think DM's review was extremely harsh and a bit nasty. I thought Jason's review was fairly even - a nice mix of positive and constructive comments. (There you go - a review of the reviewers!!). I enjoy reading reviews (though often with trepidation when it's of a show I am in!) and can be a good springboard for discussion - as indeed a night at the theatre should be. I look forward to reading many more (hopefully) on this web site.
Regards
Regards
Walter PlingeWed, 29 Mar 2000, 09:33 am
The Tricky Art of Reviewing
Sarah wrote:
>I enjoy reading reviews (though often with trepidation when it's of a show I am >in!) and can be a good springboard for discussion - as indeed a night at the >theatre should be.
I agree with this whole-heartedly, I sometimes think the best part of a theatre visit is the discussion afterwards.
I do a lot of theatre reviewing for Stage Left and try to balance subjective and objective views. Obviously I need to include my personal opinion of the show, or the review would be dry and impersonal. On the other hand, I need to include an objective assessment of the acting, set, direction etc, even though the play might not be to my taste.
The end result is (ideally) a review that has an interesting personal flavour while giving enough objective info for the reader to decide if they would like to see the show.
This is not an easy task and I've written reviews which I've later felt were unbalanced in either direction: too personal and biased, or too objective and dry.
Examples of recent reviews I wrote which I thought were well-balanced:
A mostly positive one: A Midsummer Night's Dream
A mostly negative one: A Return to the Brink
...but of course the balance is in the eye of the beholder!
Cheers,
Tim Richards
Editor
Stage Left
Melbourne's Online Theatre Magazine
>I enjoy reading reviews (though often with trepidation when it's of a show I am >in!) and can be a good springboard for discussion - as indeed a night at the >theatre should be.
I agree with this whole-heartedly, I sometimes think the best part of a theatre visit is the discussion afterwards.
I do a lot of theatre reviewing for Stage Left and try to balance subjective and objective views. Obviously I need to include my personal opinion of the show, or the review would be dry and impersonal. On the other hand, I need to include an objective assessment of the acting, set, direction etc, even though the play might not be to my taste.
The end result is (ideally) a review that has an interesting personal flavour while giving enough objective info for the reader to decide if they would like to see the show.
This is not an easy task and I've written reviews which I've later felt were unbalanced in either direction: too personal and biased, or too objective and dry.
Examples of recent reviews I wrote which I thought were well-balanced:
A mostly positive one: A Midsummer Night's Dream
A mostly negative one: A Return to the Brink
...but of course the balance is in the eye of the beholder!
Cheers,
Tim Richards
Editor
Stage Left
Melbourne's Online Theatre Magazine