Morning:
8°c
Kieron Quirke's rating
Battle of wits is bogged down in laboured jokes
By
Kieron Quirke
12 Jul 2007
Don't let the children read this, but Shakespeare can sometimes be a real bore. Love's Labour's Lost, with its reams of tricky Elizabethan wordplay and unique surprise ending, is one of those plays more beloved of scholars than audiences. Still, this is a particularly unengaging rendering.
It starts poorly - a fatal thing. This play lives and dies by convincing its audience of the highfalutin world it inhabits. Every character gets his laughs either through high wit and learning or by pretending to it. So when Ferdinand, King of Navarre, and his courtiers swear early doors to abjure women for three years and concentrate on their studies, it should be our first glimpse of a world where academe and repartee are all important.
Here, we get four average blokes speaking too fast for comprehension. Kobna Holdbrook-Smith's Ferdinand is a nothingy sort of fellow. Of his three sidekicks, only Trystan Gravelle's Berowne is distinguishable for his seething Celtic aggression.
The lack of proper setting to the play leaves it reeling. Timothy Walker works hard as comedy foil Don Armado - the Spanish braggart who spends most of the time "disputing" with his page - but the rhetorical exercises he puts Seroca Davies through seem bafflingly pointless.
Similarly, once the ladies turn up to break the lords' fast, the battle of wits that ensues, featuring masques, disguises and more disputation, seems not so much gamesome as dully arbitrary.
Michelle Terry coolly makes a virtue out of the chaos, imbuing her Princess with a flighty quality reminiscent of Miranda Richardson's Elizabeth R. Newcomer Gemma Arterton as Rosaline arches her eyebrows and tongues her cheek perfectly well, but (happy curse) is most mentionable for being very, very beautiful. I doubt she is long for the stage.
The verse-speaking is poor. The youngsters fail to land the jokes (hard) and rarely convey their meaning (easier). The oldsters fare better but are infuriatingly slow about it. Inevitably, more humour comes from the stage business than the words. The hiding scene, with the lords throwing themselves around the stage to remain concealed, is the show's highlight.
But the most noticeable gag is the most desperate: John Best's Sir Nathaniel, for no discernible reason, comes on stage without trousers or pants. With as bookish a play as this, you expect at least to learn something. I learnt there are big laughs in old men's balls. I had an inkling before.
• In rep until 7 October. Information: 020 7401 9919, www.shakespeares-globe.org
Details are correct at the time of publication - please check with venue before booking.
Reader views (4)
Quirke is much too harsh. The problem is the play, not the performers - it's just not that great a play - too much cute wordplay and not enough action. Nonetheless, I thought the cast was excellent, particularly Trystan Gravelle and Gemma Arterton, who had visible chemistry between them. Really, all of the cast did well. The audience enjoyed it thoroughly and it exceeded all my expectations.
- Mike Reece, Smithfield, NC, 07/10/2007 23:27
Report abuse
Kieron Quirke's review hits the nail on the head -I've been to many productions at the Globe, and have never been as disappointed by a performance as I was this one. The cast fails the first test, which is to make Shakespeare's language accessible. Don Armado speaks so quietly (and with such an affected Spanish accent) that half of his lines were lost to us; the rest of the cast speaks so quickly that we often struggled to understand the essential narrative.
Nevertheless, the fault is not entirely the cast's - I fear that there is a good reason the play is more beloved of scholars than audiences. It would be a feat for any cast to wring much life from the excruciatingly tiresome procession of rhyming couplets that poses as dialogue during much of the first half.
Save your time and money for another production - 'Merchant of Venice' is a delight and showcases some of the Bard's most exquisite poetry.
- Jon Pillow, London, 16/08/2007 20:58
Report abuse
I have to disagree with the overall sentiments of the reviewer here.
I thought the production a real delight from start to finish. The stage design with its two protruding arms into the audience made for great participation and the "pit" loved it.
Walker's Armando is sheer comedy magic ( reminded me of the TV's Rigsby in looks!). Seroca Davies' character Moth is pure joy and the geordie Swain (why do northerners always play the fools?) tip toeing through the scenes and getting the belly laughs.
Run to see it.
- Stuart Brown, Finchley, North London, 16/08/2007 19:58
Report abuse
I agree with the fact that this is a play about the use of convoluted Elizabethan language but disagree that the verse speaking was poor. I would also add that, whilst much of the cast is inexperienced, their ability shines through. The patronising use of the term "youngsters" was inappropriate and unecessary. Trystan Gravelle and Michelle Terry dominate the stage and their evident appreciation of form and meaning is reflected in their interaction with others, their presentation and their stagecraft. Certainly the action, bawdy and frenetic, tells the story and characters and caricatures come across and are understood in their own right. Excellent portrayals by some of the more experienced cast.
Overall, a real feast of entertainment for any audience regardless of Shakespearean understanding and experience, intellectual capacity, language, culture or even gender. This is a play to see simply because it is a memorable production very worthy of experiencing.
- Terry Brown, Weston-super-Mare, U.K., 16/08/2007 19:58
Report abuse
