Nobody gets to do much happily-ever-after-ing at all, really
Camelot at Stratford last night.
I will always disagree with the existence of "C'est Moi", it's totally wrong for (particularly) White's Lancelot, which this is supposedly based on. Lancelot does not think of himself as a good or worthy man. That's what makes him a compelling character rather than an insufferable one. There are a few moments of "my" Lance shining through in act one (not thinking he deserves knighthood even after performing a miracle, for one), but for the most part I disagree with that characterisation. Act one Guinevere is extremely silly, but it works to the play's advantage. We see her grow from a naive girl who wishes for the romantic excitement of a war being fought for her sake to a queen who would do anything to prevent the same. And Arthur, well, Arthur in this play is pretty perfect. It is by necessity an extremely condensed version of the story, but they nailed down what I view as one of the most important points of Arthur's tragedy-- It's his own new laws that condemn everyone he loves, his own belief in justice that stands between the three of them and their happiness. It would be so easy to save Guinevere and forgive Lancelot-- If it didn't mean turning his back on everything he has claimed to stand for as king.
And Geraint Wyn-Davies played Arthur fucking PERFECTLY. As the play goes on, you watch him age. The costumes and the hair and all change, of course, but it was more than that. He holds himself differently, as a scared young man and as a proud king and at the end as a tired old man. I don't mean to say that anybody else was in any way not fantastic, but his performance really carried the play. His and Guinevere's first scenes together were magical, and very funny. And the one monologue, "How can it be civilised to destroy what you love"? just absolutely broke my heart. And Arthur ordering Guinevere to be burned and then sitting in the tree begging that Lance rush in and save her! The three of them, in their final scene together! HELP I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH ALL THESE FEELINGS.
Other things that didn't fit into a coherentish rant:
* Pellinore was wonderful. Perfect comic timing.
* It's weird to have a version of the story without the incest, it makes Mordred just there being evil for no stated reason (especially since he is actually recognised as the heir to the throne).
* I am a nerd enough that it bothered me that (apart from Lancelot's) the coats of arms were just a little bit not right
* The whole "Sir Tom of Warwick" thing works better if you don't know that the Warwickshire Malory was a bandit and probably a rapist
This entry was originally posted at http://gwenfrankenstien.dreamwidth.org/58149.html. Please comment there using OpenID.
I will always disagree with the existence of "C'est Moi", it's totally wrong for (particularly) White's Lancelot, which this is supposedly based on. Lancelot does not think of himself as a good or worthy man. That's what makes him a compelling character rather than an insufferable one. There are a few moments of "my" Lance shining through in act one (not thinking he deserves knighthood even after performing a miracle, for one), but for the most part I disagree with that characterisation. Act one Guinevere is extremely silly, but it works to the play's advantage. We see her grow from a naive girl who wishes for the romantic excitement of a war being fought for her sake to a queen who would do anything to prevent the same. And Arthur, well, Arthur in this play is pretty perfect. It is by necessity an extremely condensed version of the story, but they nailed down what I view as one of the most important points of Arthur's tragedy-- It's his own new laws that condemn everyone he loves, his own belief in justice that stands between the three of them and their happiness. It would be so easy to save Guinevere and forgive Lancelot-- If it didn't mean turning his back on everything he has claimed to stand for as king.
And Geraint Wyn-Davies played Arthur fucking PERFECTLY. As the play goes on, you watch him age. The costumes and the hair and all change, of course, but it was more than that. He holds himself differently, as a scared young man and as a proud king and at the end as a tired old man. I don't mean to say that anybody else was in any way not fantastic, but his performance really carried the play. His and Guinevere's first scenes together were magical, and very funny. And the one monologue, "How can it be civilised to destroy what you love"? just absolutely broke my heart. And Arthur ordering Guinevere to be burned and then sitting in the tree begging that Lance rush in and save her! The three of them, in their final scene together! HELP I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH ALL THESE FEELINGS.
Other things that didn't fit into a coherentish rant:
* Pellinore was wonderful. Perfect comic timing.
* It's weird to have a version of the story without the incest, it makes Mordred just there being evil for no stated reason (especially since he is actually recognised as the heir to the throne).
* I am a nerd enough that it bothered me that (apart from Lancelot's) the coats of arms were just a little bit not right
* The whole "Sir Tom of Warwick" thing works better if you don't know that the Warwickshire Malory was a bandit and probably a rapist
This entry was originally posted at http://gwenfrankenstien.dreamwidth.org/58149.html. Please comment there using OpenID.