As much as I find his work a pleasure to teach, the plays of Christopher Marlowe don’t seem to suit me on stage, somehow. I experienced my first-ever faint during a blisteringly hot performance of Doctor Faustus at the Globe back in 2011 and, last night, a combination of sickness (me, again) and total aversion to the production (my companion) drove us from the first preview of the National Theatre’s highly anticipated Edward II at half-time - something I really hate to do. Still, I wanted to record just a few impressions of the first half of the production here.
The evening began with director Joe Hill-Gibbins taking to the stage to confess that the company hadn’t had time to complete a full dress rehearsal due to the technical complexity of the show. Given this, Hill-Gibbins’s team are to be praised for delivering a surprisingly confident first performance under difficult circumstances. The strainingly “inventive” staging that the director has given the play is another matter entirely, though.
It’s not so much dramaturg Zoe Svendsen’s tinkering with the structure and coarsening up of some of the language that’s the problem, or the design’s - often effective and beautiful - mixing of elements. (Sparkly gold capes meet skinny jeans.) Rather, the production’s principal bone of contention is its recourse to grainy, shaky, sub-Dogme 95 video footage to capture the behind-the-scenes goings-on in Edward’s court (the Barons’ scheming, an Eyes Wide Shut-meets-XXL orgy), the images relayed on two large, dizziness-inducing screens on either side of the Olivier auditorium. Initially striking, these interludes gradually become irritations – as does the use of spelling-it-out captions as a York Notesy gloss for anyone having trouble following the plot. (Sam Mendes’s Old Vic Richard III set the precedent.)
Beneath these embarrassments, some interesting things are happening, it must be said. There’s the prodigious John Heffernan, for one, capturing every nuance of Edward’s vulnerability, childishness, pomposity and passion. There’s a delectably swaggering Kyle Soller who gets a superb through-the-auditorium entrance that’s truly worthy of the upstart Gaveston. And, as in his productions of The Glass Menagerie and The Village Bike, Hill-Gibbins once more proves adept at making some intimate scenes resonate (witness Edward abasing himself before Gaveston and a lovely mother/son interlude between Vanessa Kirby’s Queen Isabella and Bettrys Jones’s Prince Edward) – when he’s not swamping the play in fussy gimmickry, that is. The memory of such moments might just be enough to lure me back to this production later in its run, under, I hope, more auspicious circumstances than yesterday’s turned out to be.
The production is booking until 26th Oct. It’s running time is 2 hours 45 minutes according to the programme but apparently the performance lasted an extra half an hour last night.
I too thought the first half bordered on being ludicrous, but stayed for the second which really picked up and came together well. The acting managed to break through the gimmickry and real dramatic tension built up around Edward's isolation in prison, the famed rot hot poker scene and the flipping over of Mortimer by the young Edward III. Strong performances, and by the end I even managed to stop thinking how very like Jimmy Krankie Bettrys Jones' Prince Edward looked in that prep-school uniform. I'm going again in a few weeks expecting some of the disjointed elements of the first half will have been ironed out.
ReplyDeleteGood to hear.
ReplyDeleteI went to the preview last night Alex, and share in some of your sentiments. I agree that the screens were often a distraction; in fact I overheard the lady next to me saying that she found the whole staging 'busy' as she repeatedly placed her head in her hands as if in respite. I liked the use of modern props such as the telephone, cigarettes and stiletto heels. It worked especially well for Isabella, who could often be seen puffing away on a fag or swilling from a champagne-style flute, emphasising the stress and strain of her predicament as if channelling Sue Ellen from Dallas.
ReplyDeleteFunnily enough, Jimmy Krankie also entered my mind referencing the young Edward III (Andrew). Bettrys Jones' role really picks up in the second half and she (as he) puts in a strong performance responsible for the final scene and the conclusions to some of the key characters after occupying very much a support role in the first half - often comical.
What impressed me most about the production was the attempt at re-staging the set and I actually quite liked the cuts to the grainy footage - although sometimes there was just too much going on and it was hard to know where to focus. In addition, the attempts at humour often worked - usually through a simple gesture or re-wording of the script. This was necessary as the second half, as we know, is somewhat heavier as characters receive their grim comeuppance.
we also went to the national theatre last night but did not really appreciate the director's handling of the play. it is experimental of course, but confusing. does he want the play to be a comedy or a tragedy. shakespearean plays have comic relief, but in the first part here, the comic is almost as important as the tragic. this makes it hard to focus on the tragic tone. there is even slapstick when the queen trying to sit down falls off from the chair...it produces laughter. also, there are tragic plays set in modern times, but this play confusing. we see actors wearing clothes suggestive of the 14th century and at time, side by side, actors wearing modern costumes. we see for instance mortimer wearing the royal robe and by his side the chain-smoking queen, in jeans and t-shirt. i nearly left, but the second part is saved by the scene where the young prince was able to exact revenge for the murder of his father. it was a gripping scene.
DeleteThanks for the comments, David. You and Andrew have certainly succeeded in tempting me back to the show. I have no problem at all with a radical, modern take (was a big fan of Deborah Warner's much-derided 2011 SCHOOL FOR SCANDAL at the Barbican, for example, and I admire Jarman's film of EII) but some of what Hill-Gibbins was up to here felt rather flimsy to me by comparison. You're right, it was hard to know where to focus at times and feeling unwell didn't help me out, either. But I will be going back! Cheers again for the thoughtful comments.
ReplyDeleteI too attended the preview of this WONDERFUL play/DREADFUL production on 29th - 2nd preview- and thought the whole thing completely dire and I too sighed on several occasions which was noticed by my neighbour. It was to my mind trying to be too clever for its own good - in a matter of half an hour we got the National Anthem sung twice, the filming was dreadful and at times there were different shots on each screen so people at the wrong angle couldn't see the screen above them. Casting was appalling especially Prince Edward. This sort of gender cross casting, semi modern/traditional dress production with loads of gimmicks and accents has been done by the RSC for the last couple of seasons and is getting very boring there and this was worse than anything the RSC has done. I have been going to NT for the best part of 50 years and have seen probably 80% of their productions over that period and thoughtthis the worst production they have done by far. I was bitterly disappointed as done well the play shows Marlowe at his best. I will NOT be wasting my pension and seeing it a second time. National Theatre you should be ashamed of yourselves- this sort of slapdash, make it up as you go along production is not what I expect from you.
ReplyDeleteI agree with much of what you say althoguh I didnt think the King was appalling. I do think Marlowe would be turning in his grave if he was to see this production.
Deletei watched the play tonight and was disappointed. the director doesn't seem to know whether the play is a comedy or a tragedy. it is difficult to focus on the tragic with scenes that make the audience laugh. i hate that scene when the queen tries to sit down and falls off her chair. it is so tv-like, almost a slapstick. not only does hill-gibbins mix comedy and tragedy (we see this in shakespeare's plays but the comic does not go side by side with the tragic, there is a time lapse before the comic relief comes in), he also seems to be undecided on his setting. so in this play he mixes the old and the modern, 14th century england and modern times. we see mortimer, for instance in his royal robe and the chain-smoking queen in jeans and t-shirt. hill-gibbins may be doing some experimental things here, but this is too much. the use of film is brechtian, of course, but here, it is difficult to follow what's going on the stage and at the same time crane your neck to see what is on the screen. i almost thought it was a waste of my time but part II of the play with the young prince made my theatre night.
ReplyDeleteI'm a lot more critical and frankly surprised at the National putting on something quite as bad as this. The director appears to have overwhelmed by the idea of the facilities at the Olivier and to have been determined to use them to the utmost, regardless of whether they suit the play. What, for example, is the point of the two screens? Why play some scenes on the screens and not others?
ReplyDeleteCompare, for example, the production of The Three Sisters at the Young Vic: here the floor in the Third Act was gradually removed as the three sisters' world crumbled about them in the middle of the night. This makes sense, because the director's ideas come from the text, rather than, as in the Marlowe, being imposed on the text.
And then there are the costumes. Why do the soldiers look like something out of 80s Doctor Who? Why the curious mix of modern and medieval? Why did a medieval character pick up a modern phone? (The audience fell about, do you remember?) And what about that costume for Edward III? Words fail me... no they don't. 'Crass' is the word I'm looking for.
But yes, there were some good performances, if you could discern them; and of course it is a brilliant play, if you can find it somewhere. Certainly a lot of work needs to be done before it's fit to be seen by the critics. With any luck, Hytner has moved in, chucked out all the rubbish and got Marlowe's play to work in the way that Marlowe intended. Nothing else, I think, will do.
It's a complete mess - VERY disappointing and VERY unusually for me, I exited in interval. To have seen Hytner's OTHELLO only a few months ago did not help. The discrepancy between the brilliance of that production and the direness of this production of EDWARD II is ENORMOUS!
ReplyDeleteI found similarity in the way both productions sprinkled anachronistic language throughout - but found Edward II to be a superior bit of theatre. No question Marlowe's language is poor by comparison to Shakespeare's, but there were some beautiful touches to Edward II which smacked of a knowing wink to the audience. TV cameras putting us literally in media res...the juxtaposition of mediaeval and modern to create a sense of both relevance and dissonance...the use of strange animal helmets to infer to a modern audience the atmosphere of Carnival and ritual...etc...
DeleteI too attended the first preview. It was an interesting production which tried very hard (possibly too hard) to be relevant to the youth of today. It set me thinking about the relationship between relevance and anachronism. Much anachronism I can take easily – some the cast in medieval and others in modern costume – easy. Some improvised very modern dialogue – easy. But the cast singing “God Save the King” (18th century tune) I found jarring. But that wasn’t the problem really. It began with the coronation of Edward II with lots of dialogue from the coronation of Elizabeth II (this scene is not Marlowe – his first scene followed this interpolation). Behind the coronation set we see revealed the entire stage area to the back wall – also the back of some flats. I thought at first they would use the revolve, but no. Characters exited into the back set which we then saw from behind the scenes on two video screens via two live video cameras. So the conspiracy was hatched behind the scenes, with us eavesdropping by live video link. I am not sure if it really added much, but if the young liked it that was fine by me. My problems were more profound. John Heffernan was excellent as the king and Kobna Holdbrook-Smith equally excellent as Young Mortimer. Vanessa Kirby was good as the Queen, but Kirsty Bushall poor as Kent (the king’s sister). My real problem was with Gaveston. I think I understand what they were trying to do, but it worked against the text. Gaveston was hated because of his homosexuality and his low birth – neither seem dreadful today, so they needed to find other ways to explain the barons’ hostility to him. Instead of being low born he was an American – loud and detestable. On its own, that might have worked, but his sexuality was down-played –there seemed no real spark of passion between him and the king. Sexual charisma and sexual chemistry were utterly lacking. [When Simon Russell Beale played this at Stratford, these scenes sizzled with homo-erotic imagery, but this was a frigid world away from that.] Instead the problem was not their homosexuality, but their partying, their triviality, their refusal to take government seriously. But because they were depicted as (and hated for being) trivial people – their relationship became trivial too. Trivial and superficial. It didn’t really matter and thus Edward’s devotion to his Gaveston did not make sense. It was all very pro-Barons-and-Queen and anti-King-and-Gaveston – not homophobic only because the sex and sexuality didn’t seem to matter. They were just superficial trivial people who never engaged our sympathy and understanding. And all this runs directly against the text. Gaveston introduced the king to Spencer and Baldock as part of a gay sub-culture – but again all on the most trivial level – empty superficial people and relationships that had no real meaning. So by the end, when Mortimer and the Queen have suddenly ceased to be the heroes they seemed at first and their villainy is revealed – there is no one to feel pity or sympathy for – indeed nothing to feel. This led to an emotional emptiness. And yet in many ways it was an impressive performance and one admired the actors; I was moved to applaud loudly at the end. But I am sure a modern audience is capable of entering into the story Marlowe actually wrote –not the one the director superimposed over his words– and is perfectly capable of seeing and understanding the relevance of that today. But a production which gave rise to all these thoughts is self-evidently an worthwhile one. It was a fascinating evening which exercised my critical faculties and greatly entertained me. I wouldn’t have missed it for the world.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with bits of this - but overall this is one of the best reviews I think I've ever read!
DeleteI wish more reviews went through the many (often negative) issues the play raised and then commended it for causing such a reaction in an audience. After all, that's the whole bloody point! We've all seen plays, but I agree, this one knocked my socks off - for good and bad reasons!
I saw the first preview night and having seen a very good production of the same play some years ago I was truly amazed at how disastrous it was. Unlike many others I stayed to the end and only missed the final curtain encore because there wasn't one. The applause at the end was hesitant, polite but very muted. The person next to me described the performance as like "watching a nightmare" - we both only stayed to the end because we could not believe how bad and disjointed it was.
ReplyDeleteEven the killing of Edward which in previous productions has often been the highlight of the play was poor as was the general stage setting. A huge unnecessary set was made for the second half which achieved little. Finally, neither of could understand why so many cigarettes were smoked during the play - what was the point - but then that reflects most of what we saw!
I saw it last night and thought it was completely amazing! It is nothing quite like anything the National has ever done, and actually find it quite brilliant how violently the people above have reacted to it. True it won't be to everyone's taste, but matters of taste don't necessarily dictate quality of production. At it's core the story was clear, it was told brilliantly (and often beautifully) and is completely hilarious. It's the sort of theatre that doesn't really get an airing in England very often because we seem to stuck in issues of "modern dress" or " shaky handheld cameras", but i fear that the idea of a directorial auteur has really shaken most people, as if Directors cannot under any circumstances be anything other than objective interpreters. I couldn't want for anything more than a production as fast witty, poignant and cynical as this.
ReplyDeleteSECONDED!
DeletePretty much my view too having seen it on 21st Oct
Delete