its notorious climax involving a kingly victim and a red-hot poker

[angevin2]

Chris Jones reviews CST's Edward II for the Tribune:

If, like me, you often prefer Marlowe's disruptive, passionate writing to Shakespeare's more practiced tragic hand, these things will frustrate. Graney's Achilles' heel as a director (and adapter) remains the lack of quiet clarity and emotional focus. This is a cold, jittery, wildly imaginative

Comments

[aranel]

God, I have enough trouble with the blinding in Lear--I just don't think I could handle seeing Edward II live.

[angevin2]

Ren drama doesn't come much more horrifying than the poker scene.

Granted, this production had already given us really violent scenes involving sledgehammers, hedgeclippers, crowbars, and various sorts of firearms, but good lord, that ending is awful to watch. Even when you know it's coming. (There was one woman in the audience when I saw it who audibly exclaimed "Oh my God!" when they brought out the poker.)

[aranel]

It's bad enough just reading it--the murderer describing the equipment he needs, and then the dialogue between him and Edward--I think I would be that woman. I saw the movie In the Bedroom without having any idea there was going to be disturbing violence in the midst of what started as a very quiet, realistic movie about an ordinary New England family, and I think I disturbed the few other people in the audience by sobbing audibly.

It's a good thing I mostly study the lyric rather than drama.

[angevin2]

Oh man, the Lightborn/Edward dialogue was horrifying, because Lightborn's delivery was so soothing. I mean, he sang Edward a freaking lullaby. And then when he said he was there "to rid thee of thy life" he was all reassuring and stroking Edward's face and it made me rather queasy. It was exceptionally well-done, but really difficult to watch.

[angevin2]

ALSO GAVESTON =!= TONY REZOK
WTF

OMG I KNOW

I hate when reviews of early modern plays try to be relevant in a way that is specific. I recall the Trib reviewer (probably a different one, but it was ages ago) coming up with some real gems along those lines when CST staged Richard II in October 2001.

[elettaria]

I presume that what he really means is, "Shakespeare's so Establishment that anything he says must be booooring and I'm going to be all edgy and go for Marlowe instead"?

I've been wondering how that ending was staged in a promenade production. Do I want to know?

[elettaria]

*reads article* Ah, it's the "nobody understands Marlowe as I do, and it doesn't count as the Real Play if you cut it down to a performable length" syndrome. I saw a Titus Andronicus at the festival which was about that length, and it was very recognisably Shakespeare and generally great. The others were apprehensive about seeing Shakespeare set in the eighties and taking "Goth" for its meaning in that period, but it really worked. The scene were the two half-crazed boys pushed the mutilated Lavinia onstage in a shopping trolley was fantastic.