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

[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.

[angevin2]

Yeah. I hate that kind of review, especially when it leads the reviewer to not say anything about the actual performance. I thought that they did an excellent job trimming Edward II to an hour and 20 minutes; there were certainly heavy cuts, but the characterizations and themes generally didn't suffer badly (well, okay, the reviewer does have a point about Isabella, though I thought the actress was a lot more effective in the second half of the play once she's given up on Edward). And I can understand why they did it; people who'd be willing to stand up for a full-length Edward II are probably fairly few (though I would do so happily).

Also, that Titus sounds pretty awesome.

[angevin2]

Same way as they staged everything else: they shoved the audience out of the general vicinity of the place they were going to do it, and then they did it. (It wasn't a real promenade production in multiple locations; it was in a black box with the seats taken out.)

[tempestsarekind]

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"?

Hee. I'm glad I'm not the only one who had that immediate reaction.