MACBETH - CLASS ACT

When: Preview 27 June 2003.
Where: Rechabites Hall.

I have been reluctant to post reviews, as I usually know one or two of the cast members in any production I see, (donÂ’t see many due imperatives of earning a living, children etc.) but plead exception in this case, and your indulgence, as I will not comment directly on the performances of those cast members I know well.

Of the ten or so productions of Shakespeare I have seen in my life most have been taxing on the intellect, and the bladder, including BellÂ’s productions. This is the most rewarding I have ever seen.

Mike McCallÂ’s MacBeth was powerful, and vulnerable, all menÂ’s ambitions and fears exorcised, and the chemistry with Angelique MalcolmÂ’s Lady MacBeth almost tactile (I was in the front row). There was not one weak link in the most seamless play I have ever seen in Perth.

I must give special mention to Steve Turner’s Malcolm. Learning of his father’s murder, his line “O, by whom?” punched me in the chest with the tragedy, pathos. I felt the guilt, as if I were bearing the news of the death of a loved one.

I had some small quibbles with the lighting and, as usual, male voices must work twice as hard as female voices in the Rechabites space to be heard, but I left as a very satisfied punter.

See it.

If you do and disagree, or think my review impartial, listen carefully; I do not care.

Dean McAskil


Thou mangled clay-brained haggard!

Yes Yes Yes...
I agree wholeheartedly Dean, AND I know you care, so don't pretend you don't.
The relationship between the MacBeths (if I can call them that) was so terrifyingly real, tragic in the way they drove each other to destruction. You just wanted to say "Stop now, you have enough, you don't need anymore..." But on they plunged.
I did enjoy the set too, with it's promise of blood. It really looked like it had been splattered with blood and the show actually fulfilled that promise. No shortage of blood there!
I felt seduced by this play, the language really pulled me in. It's really nice with Shakespeare how once you get into the swing of it (after about 10 minutes) you don't even have to listen very closely, the rhythms and the actions of the actors carry everything.
So hard to say who was better than who in the production, everyone was working so hard to make it work. It's nice to see people placing the telling of a story above their own ambition, no "stars" here! Everyone working as a team to really tell their tale.
Well done everyone.
Nath


Thou warped folly-fallen foot-licker!

Hmmm.

I saw Macbeth on Thursday, at the 12 noon matinee. Kudos go to the Year 10 English student I observed in the toilets who, when her friend implied that Shakespeare was boring, walked out in disgusted defiance. I salute you.

However, I digress.

I am finding it difficult to find good things to say about this production. I dont know if its just me, but I feel the production missed the whole message of the play. Perhaps I just interpret Macbeth differently to Schmitz. Personally, I dont want to see a loud angry Macbeth. I want to see an incredibly human, restrained, broken Macbeth. An insane Macbeth, a deteriorating Macbeth. I didnt get this from Class Acts interpretation.

Without wanting to sound Geoff Gibbs/Sarah McNeill-esque (read their recent reviews in The West/The Post respectively), I wasnt enamored with Mike (McCall) or Angelique Malcom. They did fine, and one thing I will give them is that the school kids got the introduction to Macbeth they needed. However, I didnt feel that their relationship was "terrifyingly real", but rather forced and awkward. Their first scene together, in all its groping glory, was strange to say the least. For someone who once gave me relatively astute tutelage in vocal techniques, Mike's words were almost indecipherable in parts, not due to his authentic and relatively thick Scottish accent, but due to mediocre pacing and generally poorly articulated words. I found this increasingly detaching, though his character got more appealing in the second act, I must admit. I found Malcom tolerable in her own right as an actress, but as a Lady Macbeth? I just didnt get the manipulative, scheming side of Lady Macbeths human condition. Although I did particularly like her hand-washing scene. The two actors just didnt mesh well, which was a real shame.

Just my opinion.

I loved the actor who played the Porter (Sorry, misplaced my programme) - what a scene stealer! The other supporting actors were also strong, particularly Dan Luxton and Stephen Lee.

The scene in which the witches (which witch? the wicked witch? Sorry, couldnt help myself) and Macbeth are 'conversing' after the cauldron scene was unfortunate, saved only by the fantastic witches speech - Eye of newt, anyone? And Mike and Angelique did, in fact, do a convincing job in the scene/s in which they hallucinate now-dead characters.

Some other things I liked:
The scaffholding (hessian was an unfourtunate choice, however)
The cauldron
The blood (used copiously)
The fighting (Mr Fraser, you've done it again)
The discovery that you can, in fact, see The Brick and the Rose at 6.30pm at the Blue Room studio, then go directly to The Reader in the Blue Room Main Theatre at 8pm, or to Macbeth just round the corner. All in one night. I saw all three in one day. Love it. LOVE IT.

and finally, the opening sentence of Mike's bio: "Michael spent his formative years in Glascow and bars."

Gold. Absoloute gold.

Cheers.




Thou infectious fool-born hugger-mugger!

I saw this production last Thursday night, after reading Gibb's scathing and rather unnecessarily harsh review and was determined to find Good Things about it. I found Great Things instead!!

The pace of this show is of the machine-gun variety! It ROCKS along and is seemlessly fluid. The action swirls around the audience and we were not given so much as a second for the play to Sink In, as it were. UNreal!!

Any one seen a Shaker's production where it appeared the actors did not understand a word of what they were saying?? Not this one!! I really appreciated the fact that everyone on stage Got It. It makes it that much easier for the audience.

Sadly what I didn't get, was most of what came out of Mike McCall's (MacBeth) mouth. Any time he raised his voice above a regular tone, he seemed to slip into an alien Gaelic dialect. Bummer!!! I did like Angelique's portrayal of Lady Mac, the hand washing scene particularly, but did not really Buy the MacBeth/Mrs relationship.

The supporting cast more than made up for these minor problems however. They were BRILLiant!!!!!! LOVed Mr Judd's "Porter"!!!!! The scene which KILLed me though, was the one in the second half where McDuff is told of his family's murder. I'm getting goosebumps thinking of it as I type!!!! It was one of the most powerful performances by three men I've seen on stage, ever! Giovanni, you NAILed it babe!

The set was terrific, and I really liked the era-less costuming. The fight scenes were breathtaking and cannot fault the lighting or sound.

I really urge any one who is partial to the Bard's work to check this production out. It's not perfect by any means, but it is well worth supporting. There is more than enough in it to leave you sated, if not a little exhausted.

I think it's on for one more week.

J x

This would have to be my favourite Shakespeare play after Julius Caesar, so I went along even without getting a comp...... ;-)
I was aware that the cast and crew are all professional theatre practitioners and so I anticipated a very high standard of performance. I was not entirely disappointed, although I did notice a few fluffed lines and awkward pauses here and there.
I was also aware that the actors came from a variety of backgrounds, with perhaps TIE being the most common denominator. It was interesting to see, despite obviously strong direction, the individual acting styles emerging from time to time. If I had been director, I think I may have cast one or two characters slightly differently.
The design was also apt in a Brechtian way, light and sound being particularly impressive. I'd still like to see someone make full use of the Rechabites architecture rather than ignoring it however. The violence was well done, although I would have preferred to see the odd claymore being wielded about the place rather than those wimpy little dirks.
As others have said though, it all came together into a gripping (and definitely non-boring) portrayal and an excellent interpretation of the script. A great team effort - well done all.

stinger@iinet.net.au

WHAT: Richard II by William Shakespeare
WHERE: The Globe Theatre, London, England
WHEN: Thursday 10 July, 7:30pm (UK time)

I was loath to post any reviews about any of the myriad of shows I have seen/will be seeing in London, as writing a review of a show that 99.99% of the readers of this site are going to be unable to experience, with performers you are unlikely to see, is a little pointless. But this one is the exception.

Once in a while, you see a show that makes you realise why it is you love theatre, and it makes the tens, perhaps even hundreds of shows you go to, in search of that holy grail of great theatre worth every cent. For me, Les Mis (when I was 11, OK), Oleanna and Cloudstreet were the pinnacles of my theatre going life.

Above all these I place the Globe TheatreÂ’s current production of Richard II.

This, one of Shakespeare’s less frequently performed histories, is one I, and many other Shakespeare-nuts, have adored for many years for Richard’s exquisite speeches – ‘Of comfort no man speak’, ‘I wasted time, and now doth time waste me’ et al. To be honest, however, I have never really seen it performed in a way such that I really understood the characters and the choices they’ve made. I’ve only ever seen Richard played as an arrogant sod, who gets lyrical as soon as his head’s on the block, and who we are generally fairly pleased to be rid of.

Mark Rylance, the artistic director of the Globe, and player of the title character in this production, has finally, finally made me understand the source of Richard’s lyricism, and left me, and most others in the theatre tonight, weeping openly at his death. Rylance played Richard as a completely self-absorbed and indulged, but never for a moment intentionally arrogant or cruel, King, unable to grasp, even until his death, how his downfall happened. His hollow crown speech started as a joking dismissal of his deposal and dissolved into an almost childlike grief and incomprehension at what had happened to him. His handing over of the crown to Bolingbroke was almost unbearable to watch with its pathos. Gently grasping the hand of a ‘groundling’ – we punters standing in the yard before the stage – before being lead to prison was devastating. This whole time, however, his removal as King was completely justified and comprehensible. Amazing.

His Richard was exquisitely complimented by his Bolingbroke who never once showed cruelty towards Richard, but always sympathy and a desire to help him avert his inevitable end. His obvious compassion for Richard finally clarified for me BolingbrokeÂ’s reaction of disbelief at his murder.

This season at the Globe has been complimented by an almost-as-wonderful production of Richard III (all female, where Richard II was all male). I am waiting breathlessly for their production of Edward II, which I will be seeing in a few weeks.

Watching Shakespeare of any lesser quality than this from now on will be very, very difficult indeed.

(PS The reason I'm putting this on as a response to a Macbeth posting - in case anyone notices - is not a comment on that show's quality. There's just a little bug on the site that makes posting a review from scratch a little fiddly, often resulting in losing your original product. Being on unaccustomed metered internet use at the moment, I'm trying to minimise my time online. That is all.)

[%sig%]

I went to MacBeth on Thursday night and was informed that it was the smallest audience which the cast had received, only half full. Yet after reading the scathing reviews of the show, I found it interesting that they had still been receiving full houses every night.
MacBeth has never been one of my favourite Shakespeare pieces and so I was reluctant to attend, yet somewhat excited in case this particular representation was to change my opinion of the play.
Unfortunately that was not to be the case. I found the performance to be long and tedious, failing to reach its potential. This may be due to my actual dislike of the play but i feel that the acting and the direction was also lacking. Despite the somewhat blunt yet fair reviews, i felt that Mike (McCall) successfully grasped the traditional character and representation of MacBeth, as a relentless and ambition driven man. But unfortunately nothing else was added to give his character depth. I, like Alison, wanted to see the insanity, the slow deterioration of his mentality, the mental anguish whilst struggling with his conscience and the relentless power struggle with Lady Macbeth. All of this was apparently ignored or took a large backseat in the final construction of character. His character did develop however through his relationship with Banquo (sp?), whom i thought was fantastic, KudosÂ’ to him! MacBeth and Banquo worked fluently and comfortably together on stage and successfully gave Macbeth some humanity and warmth. The relationship between Lady Macbeth and Macbeth on the other hand was very much lacking and i agree with the reviewers on the 'groping' and pawing issue .The affectionate physicality coming naturally from mike seemed almost completely rejected by LadyMacbeth, which i felt actually missed the point of their relationship, as LadyMacbeth is meant to hold some type of sensual and controlling power over Macbeth encouraging the fatal actions . I felt no sensuality or bonding between the couple, and the attempts at showing it failed into an uncomfortable pawing. Angelique Malcom, lacked convcincing physicality as a sensual and controlling character, but this may be due to the fact that they costumed her in a nightgown resembling a Hessian sack, which would make anyone feel as sensual as a potato. Similar to Mike, Angelique, was fine, but nothing amazingly fantastic.
Kudoes to the Porter! The comic relief was much needed and appreciated by all, but similar to all the other actors, the physicality was obvious eg. sex was communicated through pelvic thrusts, mateship through heavy and frequent smacking and patting on the back and bum, and insanity through the year 3 twirling of fingers at the temple. These levels of performance are fantastic for communicating the story to those who do not understand Shakespeare, do not know the story or for highschool audiences as it clearly demonstrates what the actor is trying to communicate. Yet i feel that subtle gesture would have worked just as well and made the characters seem much more believable.
The scaffolding was fantastic and added wonderful and necessary levels to the set. Hessian is not my favourite choice for set covering and seems to be very difficult to pull off unless you are set in a forest or perhaps a hessian factory...but it was fine. Worked somewhat. Only qualm about the top level was that the actors were damn close to the light rigging, which seemed a little uncomfortable for them.
The fight scenes which i figure were choreographed by Andy were gold, as was the witches cauldron spewing out smoke and bubbles, the backing music (some cool stuff there) and ladymacbeths hand wringing/washing, Banquo, MacDuff's Wife(sorry no program) and the Thai fisherman pants on various characters.
On the whole the play had some great scenes and some lacking scenes. It was fine and received as such by the audience. Well done the cast and chookers for the last few shows!

Would rather spend the night listening to the trotts

Obviously the "trotts" have dulled your brain - this show was finished 8 months ago.

We are now playing Othello to sold out houses.



Thou paunchy swag-bellied minnow!