Imogen
I went to see Imogen at The Globe and I knew I'd like it from the moment I heard they changed the name of the play from Cymbeline to Imogen which makes more sense as she is the character that the play revolves around, but because of the time, it had to be named after a man. The whole concept of it is very interesting because instead of them being kings and queens, they were drug dealers. And although I doubt there were any in the audience, it was still much more relatable to our time than kings and queens, probably because it is a theme that we see all the time on screen but now it is in Shakespearean, and that in no way made me understand the story any less. Perhaps it is also because they knew exactly what they were saying and then said it in a way that they would now. The way that they greeted and threatened each other was probably not how Shakespeare intended it but was so familiar to a modern audience that they probably could have just used random syllables and everyone would have gotten the same sense of what they were saying. They also used the stage in a very interesting way, they had a brilliant system of making people appear to be flying and it just looked so visually appealing that I actually wanted to understand what they were saying more than if they were just standing around and saying their lines. There was an interesting choice made to cut out probably the most famous lines of the play, "Fear no more the heat o' the sun". I'm not entirely sure why they did that, because I know that I personally believe that every word Shakespeare puts in his plays are there for a reason, and to just cut out lines that are famous for a reason, because they hold so much power in them, seems like a mistake to me. The lighting and sound is of course not how it would have been when it was performed originally, but I think it all added to me being able to understand the play because it intrigued me and made me want to understand what they were saying much more than any Shakespeare play I've seen that has been done classically, so coming from a point of view from a person that doesn't particularly enjoy Shakespeare, I found this show to be a pleasure to watch, mainly because I could understand what they were saying fully and because the way that they had set it made me curious from the beginning. The physical elements also really grabbed my attention and I really enjoy it when modern adaptations of Shakespeare have them because it means that they are able to tell large parts of the story quickly and clearly in a way that usually looks quite visually appealing and in this case I think it worked very well.
Hamlet
I have seen two modern productions of Hamlet recently, one with Benedict Cumberbatch at the Barbican, and one with Andrew Scott at The Almeida Theatre. Two very different interpretations, but I enjoyed them both very much. The one at the Barbican was done far more classically with the costumes being the most modern thing I saw (other than the second half that was done in a wasteland type setting). Because I have seen Hamlet done many times, I had no trouble understanding what was going on. I do however think that the Barbican is too big a stage for Hamlet. I think the set, although beautiful and elegant, I think was too extravagant. I don't think that having it so flamboyant added anything to the show and it seemed to me that they were just trying to fill empty space, and because they knew they would make a profit, they could afford to splash the extra cash on things that I don't feel were necessary. I liked that they were somewhat true to what Shakespeare intended for the play, however, I think that there were lots of things put in just to try to appeal to a modern audience like when Hamlet pulls on a small fortress, that may have a childhood toy, and starts playing with it and takes potshots for no apparent reason other than to gain a laugh from the audience (which it did but that's not the point), he later dons a jacket with the work KING painted on it, which again, I do not see much of a point in. There was no profound meaning behind much of the direction of the play and I don't think it touched on Hamlets mental state and decline much, and if it was not so embedded in the text, I don't think anyone could have understood that he was losing it at all. Not to say that the acting was bad, the cast was fantastic. I just think that there were too many things that were probably meant to appeal to a modern audience but didn't follow through with any of them. There was no recurring theme, they did not have a message they were trying to send through, just a Shakespearian play with a modern wardrobe and a few trinkets put in for aethstetic pleasure. Hamlet at the Almeida however was a stunning perfromance. There wasn't a concept per say but the originality of using cameras and screens embedded throughout was wonderful. They could have easily had the idea, used it in the beginning and forgot about it for the rest of the show, but the incorporated them everywhere they could have but it was not too much or too little, every moment was significant in its own right and it solved the issue of when actors face away from the audience and you can't see their reactions to things, but with the clever use of a live camera, the audience could see everything. It was the perfect touch of modern to a classical piece to appeal to a modern audience, without taking away from what Shakespeare intended. Andrew Scott played Hamlets mental decline so well because it was the perfect blend of being over dramatic but truly emotional and honest in his mental decline. I like the fact that they did not make any cuts to the text because, with Hamlet especially, every moment shows Hamlet slipping and although it can be done shorter, it was brilliant to see it intact for the first time in a while. Also, the size of the stage is much more appropriate for the play, and though I think it is smaller than the Globe, it worked perfectly and didn't feel squashed at all because they used the isles and had space at the back for when people weren't in a scene but were just socializing which gave the audience a chance to see characters develop physically but still focus on the scene that was happening directly in front of them.
A Midsummers Night Dream
A Midsummers Night Dream at the Young Vic was a very bleak stripped down version in the sense that I hardly laughed at a play that I normally found quite funny. Shakespeare had written this as a comedy and the fact that the had striped that all away was really interesting to me. The way I've seen it done in the past is they would use the aggression the characters have towards each other the was a comedian would talk about depression. It would have so many jokey elements that you don't realise the issue that they are talking about, so in this production, when they took away all the jokes and left only the aggressive, abusive, predatory elements, it completely changed the play and has totally changed how I will look at the characters forever. The way that Lysander would treat Hermia was so brutal but when you think about it, it is probably the way that he would treat her if he was under a spell that made him neglect her, I just never realised it before because there was always a comedic element covering it up. I now see that there is probably more fighting and arguing in this play than there is romance and even the love that is left over isn't really love, it's a creepy drug induced possessiveness that the men have for Helena so even that isn't left pure. Throughout the whole production, there is a bleak almost gothic feel to it with the actors never leaving the stage, which took away the last chance of humour left in it because their expressions were so miserable that I didn't feel like I was allowed to laugh. The mud that covered the entire stage was an interesting choice because of course most of the play is set in a forest, but when there were moments out of the forest they just looked strange and awkward because they just looked out of place. They wouldn't have had time to put it all on and take it of but I think it did take away from the scenes set outside the forest. However, because I think it did add to the effect more than take away, I think it was a brave choice and an interesting interpretation of a comedy.
Taming of the Shrew
I had never seen or read or heard anything about this play other than the fact that 10 Things I Hate About You was based on it which was a good thing to find out because I was able to make sense of the story much easier. As much as I like that film, the show was not what I expected, the part where it seems that Kate is being raped by Petruchio? They used a physical element much like Imogen but this was not as effective I think because the only way that I gathered any sense of their relationship was reminding myself of 10 Things I Hate About You which should not be the case. Also as this was aimed at children, I'm not sure they should have left such an ambiguous scene of sexual assault. It felt quite out of place and I think if it was too explicit to be done as Shakespeare would have done it then put an age range on it or take it out completely, I did not like the vague hints to what was happening in that scene and throughout the play. Was Kate getting abused off stage? Why was she presented as such a strong female symbol at the beginning but then got dragged on stage bound by ropes around her wrists by her suitor? The continuity wasn't what I expected at all. If they were trying to have a good female role model for young children then they failed, if they were trying to preserve their innocence then they failed, if they were trying to educate them on real life then they failed. I really didn't see a point in the way they adapted it at all. And in a similar way to Hamlet at the Barbican, they had lots of trinkets, but when the props that make no sense to be there outshine the actors then you know somethings wrong. I didn't understand the point in the puppets flying about but I almost relished in the absence of speech. The actress playing Kate did not use her voice well and that's all there is to it. I have never been clear on where the term using a 'Shakespeare voice' came from because I find it hard to believe that they spoke like that when they were put on first but everybody knows what it means and nobody should have to sit through a play where the person with the most lines is speaking in the most annoying, strained, fake voice you can find, it just made everything seem to last longer and much more uncomfortable. Another thing that was completely pointless was the songs that the used. Now again, I am aware that they were trying to cater to a young audience but after the first song, the rest seemed so forced like they tried their hardest to find a song that every young person knows that somehow relates to their topic and they came out with 'Price Tag' by Jessie J. It was semi entertaining because it's a catchy tune and they kind of looked like they were having fun but I don't have a doubt in my mind that Shakespeare is turning in his grave at the thought of it.
Of course all of these plays had women in them and were not in an old Elizabethan theatre that smelled of urine and was riddled with thieves and I can only imagine what it would be like to see the likes of Ophelia and Queen Titania played by men in wigs and dresses but I am very pleased in the progression in our society that although Shakespeare is still wildly relevant to our society and that is somewhat sad that we haven't progressed that much as a species that we are still so jealous and spiteful and vengeful, I am thankful that we now at least have women playing women's roles.
