Newnham Old Labs, 15th – 18th February, 7.30pm, £4-5
Directed by Clare Mohan
It’s sometimes refreshing to see theatre performed away from the ADC or Corpus Playrooms. Sometimes it’s nice to see a production with a low budget, where the focus is on the cast rather than impressive props and scenery. But this Tempest wasn’t refreshing, and though the bare stage created a sizeable gap in the clouds, nobody really shined.
Shakespeare without gimmicks is good, but this seemed overly lacking. It just didn’t leave an impression, and I left wondering what the idea behind it had been. Facebook promised me a show bursting with colour, featuring original music and choreography. There was a bit of colour. One of the Ariels was blue. One was black. Prospero’s staff and robe had some colourful cloth tied to it. Which was nice, I suppose, but not enough to base a production on.
The choreography was fine, with fairly complex sequences nicely synchronised on the whole. The dancing spirits all had colourful rags tied to them, with painted-on eye masks, but they didn’t dance often, and when they did it seemed to go on just a little too long. The music didn’t seem to fit, and whoever was playing it must have been unable to see the stage, because almost every cue was missed.
The acting was, on the whole, pretty poor. Prospero (Julian Mack) was OK, but a little flat. Most of his lines were delivered in the same sort-of-a-whisper, and he really failed to take advantage of some of Shakespeare’s best speeches. Claudia Grigg-Edo gave a fairly strong performance as Miranda, and Hafsa Zayyan’s Caliban was a highlight of the evening, if occasionally overdone.
Lucy Butterfield had a walking stick to show that Gonzalo is old. She didn’t give a bad performance, but she didn’t act old. She just had a stick. The stick was only slightly more wooden than Will Spencer’s Alonso, who remained as emotionless at (SPOILERS) discovering his son un-drowned as he had been throughout. No reaction whatsoever.
Stephano and Trinculo (Daniel Fulvio and Clare Mohan) were a bit of a mess. They mixed up and stumbled through lines, and in one particularly painful moment, made them up (unless Shakespeare did, in fact, write about ‘yer mum’). Mohan left little impression, and Fulvio didn’t seem to know what he was saying or doing, apparently replacing drunk acting with drawn-out droney moaning.
The stage surrounded by audience members on all sides was interesting, and the tricky blocking this necessitated was mostly done well, but that isn’t enough to make a show. When the theme is ‘colourful’, the acting needs to be very, very good, and it wasn’t. It was under-directed, and drew attention to the production’s lack of ambition. There were some recorded songs and colourful rags. There were some pretty good dancers who danced a few times. There were two Ariels. It takes more than that.
You really do have something against life don't you.
Because I gave a 2 star review?
If you'd be so kind as to consult my reviewing history, you'll find it's pretty well balanced (two 1's, three 2's, two 3's three 4's, one 5). It is not in my interests to give low ratings, nobody is asking me to do it and nobody thanks me when I do.
I reviewed this play honestly, and I honestly think that it's a 2 star show. I'm sure you'd be much happier if I gave everything 4 or 5 stars, but then they would be meaningless.
I have nothing against life. I have something against unambitious, under-directed theatre. There's a lot of theatrical talent in Cambridge, the standard here is very high, and this show didn't quite meet it. As I said in the review, there were some good parts (mostly from Miranda and Caliban) but that isn't enough.
If you are a cast member, I'd be interested to know what rating you'd give the show. Equally so if you were in the audience with me last night. If you were neither of the above, I wonder what makes you so sure that this review is a result of my grudge against life, rather than an accurate reflection of the show I saw.
Shakespeare was in the audience on Wednesday? Bummer, I must have missed him.
'shined'? Oh dear.
I don't know, if it's the gap in the clouds through which they weren't shining, then nobody shined (through the gap in the clouds) is acceptable.
How dare you, Parker Bowles! Lucy was bonbonbonbons.
I love the Related Articles…
Shakespeare overperformed? Surely not.
The acting was excellent. Prospero (Julian Mack) owned the stage and delivered his lines with authority while also catching onto all the subtlety in his speeches.
CB is onto something here: this immature 'review' has axe-grinding written all over it. Shame on the Tab for falling into the trap.
May be due to the reviewer being in a production of the Tempest himself last year that was slated by audiences and critics alike… or maybe I'm just being cynical.
Firstly, that has nothing to do with my review. I reviewed what I saw, which was a two star show. I could actually see audience members opposite me wincing throughout, lines were jumbled, cues were missed, the stage was empty for far too long between scenes, spirits circling behind the chairs were distracting, and I still don't know what the idea behind it was. If it was just straight Shakespeare, without any Themes, the acting wasn't good enough to carry it.
What axe am I grinding? I have nothing to gain from being unfairly harsh in reviews. So I am not. I know nobody in this cast, and if anything I'd be slightly biased in the show's favour, because I enjoy theatre in new places. It just wasn't an enjoyable performance. The audience members i heard discussing it afterwards seemed to agree.
Secondly, slated by audiences and critics alike? Really? http://www.britishtheatreguide.info/reviews/tempe…
If you're going to get personal do try not to be so very wrong.
I believe that your vice must be cynicism, good sir. For I was in said production as well and remember it quite differently to your spiteful surmising: http://www.britishtheatreguide.info/reviews/tempe…
http://cambridgetab.co.uk/culture/the-tempest – not exactly an earth shattering review (and I was referring to the Cambridge run, not the tour).
Thou liest. http://www.varsity.co.uk/reviews/3496
I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Did you watch?, Julian Mack performed with distinction and panache, redefining theatre in the process. Bravo good sir.
fucking joking.
"Redefining theatre"?
You're confusing him with Toby Parker-Rees
But this is genuinely a time when I think most of the comments are from friends of cast…
was more interested in admiring his own pseudo-ironic writing than anything else (i.e actually "reviewing" the performance)…
was more interested in grasping at imaginary straws than anything else (i.e. actually "using" real arguments)…
What is pseudo-irony? Is it like in Alanis Morrissette?
<3 LPR
It's interesting how people think it's ridiculous for comments to be coming from friends of cast members – how many AmDrams on this level have an audience overly endowed with unaffiliated viewers? However, as a fairly neutral viewer (I didn't much like any of the people I knew in the play) I thought the performances were shaky, bar that of Julian Mack whom I think would Prospero so much more with better direction and cast support.
but this genuinely just seems to be an argument between people trolling LPR and members of last year's cast…
This isn't what trolling is. Trolls aren't actually furious. Also, given the number of comments you have now left, under various names, the idea that you aren't involved in the show is ridiculous.
Last year's cast seem to have taken issue with the suggestion that their show was 'slated' by a 3.5 star review. That seems quite fair of them. That was a stupid thing to say.
Why did you steal my name? It was such a nice name, then you sullied it with your cast ridden bias.
I am a grad student here and went to this play on a whim. I must say that I walked away feeling greatly inspired. I think they did a wonderful job with a limited budget and with such a small space. The choreography was quite amazing in respect to the latter limitation. It is always a pleasure to watch people with a true enthusiasm for drama, as opposed to those who are in it for the spectacle, fame and glory.
How do you differentiate between the two? If it's on at the ADC does that mean there's no true enthusiasm?
Some crazy comments here. I won't push for the cliche that it's just cast members and friends commenting but it wouldn't surprise me that much. To all the people leaping to defend the show: you really must not see a lot of shows in Cambridge to rate this one that highly. There are so many brilliant shows put on every term and so you have to judge this play against that context. Some performances were good but others were frankly weak.
As for this idea that people who act in plays at the ADC are somehow in it for the glory and not for try enthusiasm for drama, you could not be more wrong. Aside from the horrendous "daahling, you were maahvellous" atmosphere of the ADC bar, the reason people do plays there is because they have a true enthusiasm for drama and want to perform at what is unquestionably the biggest student theatre venue (similar applies to Corpus Playroom).
In any case, if you hop along to the author's review of "Speed-The-Plow" from last term you'll realise he has no bias in favour of the ADC and, as he says, enjoys finding good drama at out-of-the-way venues.