This petty pace
I went to see Macbeth at the Delacourt theatre in the park the other night. (I just love saying that. It's so very New York.) Some of the old college crowd and I lined up at 10am, sitting in the shade and playing [game deleted to protect mother's birthday surprise] for three hours. I lost to the linguistics doctoral candidate.
I was very nervous. On the one hand, it is incredibly easy to do Shakespeare badly. On the other, if the performance is bad, it's possible to tune out the actors and just close your eyes and listen to the words. Fortunately, this was a very good production. Some of their choices (setting it during WWII) were questionable; the swing music was disconcerting at best, and distracting at worst; and the contrast between that and the almost cinematic choral/orchestral soundtrack at the end really grated. But the staging was fantastic, especially in the last act, and while I was not a fan of the weird sisters, I can't say that I have ever seen a production or film where I have been; or even heard of one which sounded plausible. In the end, though, Liev Schreiber in the titular role was incredible. I was terrified that he'd fudge the "tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow" speech, one of my all-time favourite (and, yes, Shazz, I know you can recite it from memory), but he delivered it brilliantly; in fact, the whole play was done so well that I walked away feeling like I understood it more. That speech, in particular - I got it. I got where he was at, hearing the Queen was dead, and the inevitablity of the existential crisis which followed, albeit briefly. He loved her, the crazy old b---h.
Speaking of the Queen: It was Jennifer Ehle!! (I expect excited emails and comments for this, please.) Now, I was predisposed to like her performance, and I know that some in our group were not as thrilled, and I'm not saying I was thrilled, but I'm saying I wasn't dissapointed. She was very... emotional. Is that the diplomatic word? I mean, a good part of her speeches were delivered with as much emotion as could be wrought. Thing is, I think this is fair, given the situation; and what I liked was, that, as I understand it, a lot of Lady MacBeths are played very cold and cynical, and, by playing it emotionally, this, to my mind, argued that the whole "un-sex" me speech didn't stand up; that it didn't work, that she couldn't escape her inhernt (womanly, emotional, arguably hysterical, and certainly consciencely-driven) nature.
My point is: go see it. Dude. The bard? He rocketh.
I was very nervous. On the one hand, it is incredibly easy to do Shakespeare badly. On the other, if the performance is bad, it's possible to tune out the actors and just close your eyes and listen to the words. Fortunately, this was a very good production. Some of their choices (setting it during WWII) were questionable; the swing music was disconcerting at best, and distracting at worst; and the contrast between that and the almost cinematic choral/orchestral soundtrack at the end really grated. But the staging was fantastic, especially in the last act, and while I was not a fan of the weird sisters, I can't say that I have ever seen a production or film where I have been; or even heard of one which sounded plausible. In the end, though, Liev Schreiber in the titular role was incredible. I was terrified that he'd fudge the "tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow" speech, one of my all-time favourite (and, yes, Shazz, I know you can recite it from memory), but he delivered it brilliantly; in fact, the whole play was done so well that I walked away feeling like I understood it more. That speech, in particular - I got it. I got where he was at, hearing the Queen was dead, and the inevitablity of the existential crisis which followed, albeit briefly. He loved her, the crazy old b---h.
Speaking of the Queen: It was Jennifer Ehle!! (I expect excited emails and comments for this, please.) Now, I was predisposed to like her performance, and I know that some in our group were not as thrilled, and I'm not saying I was thrilled, but I'm saying I wasn't dissapointed. She was very... emotional. Is that the diplomatic word? I mean, a good part of her speeches were delivered with as much emotion as could be wrought. Thing is, I think this is fair, given the situation; and what I liked was, that, as I understand it, a lot of Lady MacBeths are played very cold and cynical, and, by playing it emotionally, this, to my mind, argued that the whole "un-sex" me speech didn't stand up; that it didn't work, that she couldn't escape her inhernt (womanly, emotional, arguably hysterical, and certainly consciencely-driven) nature.
My point is: go see it. Dude. The bard? He rocketh.
posted by j | 10:55 AM
1 Comments:
I saw it last week and enjoyed it (how could you not...it was a free outdoor performance). The actors were, for the most part, great. The WWII setting, however, was poorly thought out and frivolous. It was distracting, and did nothing to enhance the play's themes. Read today's review in the NYT for more criticism. (As the review keenly notes, Macbeth is as much a play about war as Lear is a play about real estate and bequeathment...and Lady Macduff as 'strident' hits the nail on the head).
Post a Comment
<< Home