Morning:
9°c
Nicholas de Jongh's rating
, Hobbes lacks heat
By
Nicholas de Jongh
19 Nov 2008
There are some rare plays over which one would like to draw a veil. For others, of which Adriano Shaplin’s The Tragedy of Thomas Hobbes is an outstanding example, only a set of tight gags would do. For the assorted century philosophers, new scientists, mathematicians, astronomers and experimenters of Cromwell’s last years and the first of the Restoration, who clog The Tragedy of Thomas Hobbes as thickly as bad cholesterol does the arteries of a sick man, babble, dispute and chatter to dizzying inconsequence and mind-defying tedium. Some of the printed text has been cut from performance. Still the bemused brain shrinks and cowers, battered by intellectual shadow-boxing.
Shaplin himself, an RSC resident playwright and founder of the experimental underground troupe, The Riot Group, and whose play Pugilist Specialist I much admired, has written sections in cod blank verse, vainly confessing it would be “great if people had the occasional impression this was a lost history play”. If only it had been — lost that is. For Shaplin’s attempt to write verse is of a dogged ineptitude and wooziness that would be funny if his intentions were not serious.
“Knowledge is an old, handed-down thing ... I’ve noticed knowledge hangs around, it hangs on men,” muses the play’s hero, Robert Boyle, a natural philosopher, chemist and physicist of the post-Restoration age who is mysteriously played by a woman. Amanda Hadingue’s stiff, wooden Boyle is said to be in grappling conflict with Stephen Boxer’s grey 17th century political thinker, Thomas Hobbes. No crucial bone of contention, though, is seriously worried over.
Handsomely staged by Soutra Gilmour on three-tiered, scaffolded playing areas that accommodate the changes of location from Coffee house to Boyle’s laboratory, the play is set amidst the lives of the experimenting new scientists. Jack Laskey’s ardent Hooke typically appears with bellows and tools to do frightful things to an unseen dog and broods over the significance of a dead horse. Two essentially irrelevant actors, played with amusing, nonchalant verve by Angus Wright and James Garnon show off their credentials when Charles II reopens theatres.
Elizabeth Freestone’s production encourages sound and fury modes of acting. Those knowing next to nothing about Hobbes or Boyle will leave none the wiser about them.
Until 6 December (0844 800 1118).
Details are correct at the time of publication - please check with venue before booking.
Reader views (8)
Adriano Shaplin is beginning to realise that without the Riot Group he's useless. Vanity and arrogance are just the tip of the iceberg... He needs to get back to the States and have them pull him back into focus.
- Miss Julie, Portsmouth, England, 04/12/2008 21:26
Report abuse
I thought it was a very interesting and wicked performance. I find that pretty much every thing the RSC does is very good in its own way, that is if you understand whats going on. As long as an understanding of the performance is presented i don't beleive it matters if a woman plays a mans part, men play womens parts sometimes, as long as she can fulful the character she has taken on and is convincing to the audience. I thought all the players did a wonderful job and Jack Laskey(Hooke) especially caught my eye.
- Sasha, newcastle, 04/12/2008 20:02
Report abuse
We are big fans of the RSC and supportive of the RSC's promise to develop more new work, so we went to see this play on Friday with big expectations.... I can't say our expectations were met. Mr Shaplin's work is confusing at best and we agree with the reviewer that it would have been improved if there was less of the "intellectual shadow boxing" that said we loved the staging. Overall we wondered if it might have come together better in the hands of a more experienced director than Miss Freestone.
- Mr & Mrs Heam, Muswell Hill, London, 23/11/2008 12:22
Report abuse
This play should have been cut, what was good about it was lost in a sea of turgid failing attempts at intellectual babble. I got bored quickly. Stephen Boxer's character didnt seem feeble or old at all...
Disappointing.
- Ben Smith, London, 23/11/2008 11:56
Report abuse
I went to see the play last night. Had not been to Wiltons before and thought the setting was really amazing, but the play itself confusing. It didnt seem to have any focus. The review seems to blame Shaplin but we thought the directorion was at fault too. We formed the impression that Freestone didnt have an overall concept of what she was trying to achieve, it seemed very bitty. Stephen Boxer was great though, he gave as always a brilliant performance.
- Sally Poerter, Islington, London, 23/11/2008 11:48
Report abuse
I don't think the playwright ever said he was better than Shakespeare. That was just a silly headline somewhere.
- Phil Porter, Brighton, UK, 21/11/2008 11:35
Report abuse
The vanity and arrogance of this playwright was astounding and his inability to dramatize a single idea, to quote Rochester it was 'an undigested heap of thoughts...' Mind boggling to hear Shaplin saying he's better than Shakespeare.
- Christopher Quantrill, Uk, 19/11/2008 14:27
Report abuse
I went to see this last night. I would agree with the reviewer that there wasn't a clearly discernible central argument to the work. There seemed to be an excess of verbiage and a lack of intimacy between characters. However, it is very handsomely acted by all the cast , beautifully directed with a terrific design to compliment it. I just wish the writer could have been more coherent as to what he wanted to say or what he felt needed to be said. Worth a look however
- Rich Wilkins,Clapham, London, 19/11/2008 11:58
Report abuse
