A Midsummer Night’s Dream (ETG)
12th – 16th January at the ADC Theatre
Directed by Max Barton
*****
William Shakespeare – you’ve got to love the man, haven’t you? He is the cat’s pyjamas, the top banana, the undisputed don of the theatrical world. If you don’t like him, you’re wrong. Simple as that. Capisce?
But what is it that makes his plays so absolutely irresistible, especially to directors? Set them in space, perform them underwater, cast dinosaurs in the leading roles, forget about the set entirely, even forget about the lines – as long as you’ve got the actors and the vision, it will work. And boy, oh boy, Max Barton’s spectacular production of A Midsummer Night’s Dream has both of these things, in abundance.
Photos: Tim Johns - www.timjohns.co.uk
His vision is of a dark, otherworldly dystopia. In fascist Athens, the calmly despotic Theseus holds sway, surrounded by his rifle-toting black-and-redshirts with his feisty new queen in shackles. In the ‘junkyard forest’ outside the city, packs of acrobatic fairies are on the prowl – inhaling clouds of druggy smoke piped through a Willy Wonka-style tube, these malevolent, uninhibited creatures frolic and spasm like epileptic X-factor auditionees, ruled by their own feral, sexually charged monarchs, while a malicious, batshit mental Puck struts and cackles. Meanwhile, in between these two worlds stumble the rude mechanicals, moronic convicts trying to put on a play good enough to save their skins. So far so pretentious, I hear you say.
But, the production’s brilliance lies in two key factors. Firstly, it crams this warped world with inventive, often twisted, sometimes even improvised gags that come thicker and faster than an idiot on a motorbike, ingeniously finding the humour in every possible moment. Slapstick jostles with the blackest of comedy, knob jokes and exuberant caricatures sit side by side with dead animals and pseudo-suicides. And it’s glorious.
What really brought these jokes alive was the superb cast. Utterly committed, they switched effortlessly between their roles, pumping each scene full of enthusiasm and energy, and still seemed to be enjoying the show after its lengthy European tour. The slapstick shenanigans of the lovers were a particular highlight, managing to tug at the heartstrings while simultaneously tickling the funny bones. Ellie Kendrick’s Hermia and Ryan O’Sullivan’s Lysander were wonderfully touching and convincing in their portrayal of young love, while Nick Ricketts, playing Demetrius, has a face so comedically talented that it ought to have its own agent. The icing on an already scrumptious cake was Tamara Astor’s Helena, a masterly display of awkwardness, playfulness and steely determination that couldn’t have been any better.
Joey Batey’s charismatic Bottom was excellent (I’m not being a perv, it’s the name of his character) and his comic timing impeccable. He and his fellow mechanicals threatened to steal the show with their sheer good-natured stupidity, whether through Patrick Walshe McBride’s histrionic and hilarious Quince, or Lowri Amies’ mentally impaired Snug. Her gurning was a joy to behold.
Yet the audience was never allowed to forget the production’s bleaker undercurrent, particularly in the gloriously chaotic derangement of the drug-addled fairies. This relentlessly animated show more than made up for what it may have occasionally lacked in, for example, subtlety, by plunging us into its own unique and mesmerising world, filled with extraordinary characters. Though not necessarily one for Shakespeare purists, it is the kind of driven and uncompromising production which we need more of at Cambridge, free from the complacency which can dog directors of Shakespeare.
It has been a long time since I have been able to walk out of Shakespeare play and think to myself, ‘You know, I wasn’t bored once’. That, surely, is worthy of the utmost praise.
excellent review
"even forget about the lines – as long as you’ve got the actors and the vision, it will work" – yeah: who gives a fuck about what Shakespeare wrote, it's not like words are important are they?
"improvised" – again, cos what Shakespeare wrote clearly isn't good enough?
"relentlessly animated" – are we five years old?
"moree than made up for what it may have occasionally lacked in, for example, subtlety" – yeah: cos subtlety's over-rated
"not necessarily one for Shakespeare purists" – fair enough, but why do a Shakespeare play if it's not about Shakespeare but the director? If anything it might show how Shakespeare can *withstand* battering, if nothing else. I suppose I'd undoubtedly be counted among the grumpy, cynical, old-fashioned, inward-looking 'purists' who think Shakespeare is kind of ok.
"it is the kind of driven and uncompromising production which we need more of at Cambridge, free from the complacency which can dog directors of Shakespeare" – surely, SURELY, what this describes IS complacency?? "uncompromising" – how can you be more complacent than to take one of if not the greatest playwright of all time and decide he's not quite good enough to perform as intended? or maybe this is just a bit of fun, tampering with Shakespeare for the sake of it – in which case, why five stars? because it doesn't take itself seriously?
"It has been a long time since I have been able to walk out of Shakespeare play and think to myself, ‘You know, I wasn’t bored once’. That, surely, is worthy of the utmost praise" – it is not. if you are lazy and uninteresting then sure you'll find subtlety boring, and oddly enough I'd say, perhaps controversially, that Shakespeare CAN be subtle, and that his language and plots are NOT always boring.
richie, you're an idiot, a caricature, and you clearly don't understand theatre. save your money and ire, don't go and see any productions of anything, stay in the library and read the plays on your own.
"Richie" – A misguided and brash attempt to modernise and lend interest to a name traditionally associated with balding agoraphobes in tweed trousers. May, nonetheless, be redeemed by a familiarity and endearing lack of imagination sufficient to make up for an occasional lack of subtlety, panache and/or "je ne sais quoi".
"yeah: cos subtlety's over-rated" – Yeah: cos straw man arguments are, like, the shit.
"I suppose I'd undoubtedly be counted among the grumpy, cynical, old-fashioned, inward-looking 'purists' who think Shakespeare is kind of ok. " – An elegant rhetorical technique reminiscent of Glenn Beck's broadcasting.
"oddly enough I'd say, perhaps controversially, that Shakespeare CAN be subtle, and that his language and plots are NOT always boring." – High levels of both sass and snark, perhaps accompanied at the time of writing by a pronounced head wobble.
"how can you be more complacent than to take one of if not the greatest playwright of all time and decide he's not quite good enough to perform as intended?" – Have you read As You Like It or Measure for Measure? Come on. They're good, but they're just as riddled with flaws as the vast majority of plays. Shakespeare was not infallible, even in his greatest works. To suggest as much is ludicrous.
"in which case, why five stars? because it doesn't take itself seriously?" – It might prove informative if you were to try the same at some point.
Donald and Carl can go fuck themselves. Measure for Measure is brilliant because of its flaws and don't try and tell me they aren't deliberate on Shakespeare's part. Glenn Beck? God Cambridge bores me sometimes.
http://www.varsity.co.uk/reviews/1722
"Cambridge’s bastion auditorium has the plums to *foist* a seemingly *incongruous* (dark) reading upon one of our Will’s most seemingly harmless comedies?"
"strobe lighting *forced* the reading of fairies as drug addicts"
"the effect was *overdone*"
"The production’s *failings* stem from amongst other *indulgent* eggings of the ‘dark’ interpretation; the ocular dewing does not require accompanying substance fits to make it malevolent; it is not necessary to couple Helena’s request ‘spurn me, strike me’ with *masochistic arse-gesturing*. What was once *subtle became blatant*, and the same applied to the Mechanicals: their membership mentally impaired, a clever conceit grew *tired in repetition*"
"overtly *conceptualised* aesthetic"
"The problems were not with the outstanding technical features, but a tail-wagging enthusiasm for *staging over script*; this *occluded some of the verse’s qualities*, especially between Oberon and Titania. In taking the challenging angle to something ‘safe’, Barton *overdid* himself"
I have highlighted negative aspects of a review I would largely agree with, written by someone engaging at more than a superficial level with the production and the play – someone wanting something a little more than to have to 'play the game'. I think the production has its merits, many of them, and in most ways, but, perhaps regardless even of some of its details, is let down by some of the fundamental tenets upon which it is based.
That's fair enough. I won't be seeing the play until later this week, so I don't know who's right or wrong as far as the quality of the production goes. I was just taking issue with your post in itself – it seemed a bit silly and overly-serious, and struck me as lapsing into the tone of a despairing, high-behorsed outsider / last bastion of reason and goodness sort of figure. The new post is much better argued, even if it does rely on quotations from Varsity. You may or may not be right; as I said, I won't find out for a few days. I do know, however, that I still don't agree with your first post, which made very different arguments, even if the intention was the same (?).
Briefly: it's possible to suggest an alternative to something without also implying inferiority on the part of the original option; movement can be fun, and sometimes five year olds know the crack; stating that something "makes up for" something else does not suggest that whatever necessitates that compensation is not an issue (quite the opposite); Shakespeare's plays aren't about the director, but they're not about Shakespeare, either; "complacent" and "presumptuous" aren't the same thing; and, finally, I agree with the "it is not" part of your final point, but nothing else (particularly, somtimes/always).
ALSO, if you have to understand theatre to enjoy it I'm fucked, Barry's initial statement hasn't been true since my operation, and the belief that Shakespeare was infallible (or something resembling it) is pretty creepy, though perhaps explained by the invocation of God later in the same post. He was just a guy, guy.
[...] you didn’t get tickets sorted for the complete sellout of Midsummer Night’s Dream this week then curse yourself for disorganisation and if you made it to the Mumford’s Camino Real [...]
I should think when Mr Kilroy writes "forget about the lines" he is making a point about Shakespeare working in translation, in the sense of 'in different media': in other languages, on film, opera, ballet, graphic novel.
Every time I read a “review” by a Cambridge student I’m reminded of the axiom about criticss who try to be more theatrical than the theatre itself. Long words and clumsy overaffection for adverbs makes one recall with warmth the fact that Shakespeare new when to do without the verbose and to focus on conveying simple meaning
Every time I read a “review” by a Cambridge student I'm reminded of the axiom about criticss who try to be more theatrical than the theatre itself. Long words and clumsy overaffection for adverbs makes one recall with warmth the fact that Shakespeare new when to do without the verbose and to focus on conveying simple meaning
[...] student theatre most certainly needs more of, there are those that try (Max Barton and his ‘Midsummer Nights Dream’ is one excellent example) but most are content with the stuffy, somewhat pretentious status [...]