'Much Ado About Nothing' at the National Theatre

The National Theatre doesn't seem to do much Shakespeare these days so I was keen to see 'Much Ado About Nothing', one of my favourites. I saw it at the National years ago with Zoe Wannamaker and Simon Russell Beale and that was my favourite version until I saw Meera Syal's Indian village version in 2012. Zoe got me chuckling but Meera made me laugh out loud. So I had high hopes for this new version. 

This new version is set in a Mediterranean resort with Messina transformed into a luxury hotel in the 1930s so we get an art deco hotel as the set and all the characters dressed in 1930s style. I have to say that I loved the set and costumes, all helping to establish the atmosphere of the place with lots of lavish costumes and lots of changes - that's where the money went on this production. It's a fun show but I think what let it down for me was the cast, particularly the men. That's an awful thing to say, I know, and I enjoyed the show for what it was but it's not a great production of a Shakespeare classic. It's different, but not great.

I need to say that I enjoyed it and I'm pleased I saw it but if you're looking for a Shakespearean production then this isn't it. There are songs and dances in it and at 2 hours 10 minutes (plus an interval) I've got no idea what they cut out to fit in the dance sequences. That's probably why I think of this as a 'show' rather than a 'play'. I don't know if it was the direction but none of the cast seemed to be able to speak Shakespeare. The men's accents seemed to waver between Bradford and Liverpool and the women often seemed shrill in trying to project their voices. There's nothing wrong with an accent but be consistent. It reminded me of something Glenda Jackson said a few weeks ago when I saw her and she said that the cast of her 'Lear' were all experienced in television and film but had never worked in theatre and were scared of trying to project their voices. 

The 'stars' of the show were Katherine Parkinson (from 'The IT Crowd' on telly) and John Heffernan (who I saw in an unfortunate version of 'Edward II' at the National Theatre years ago). They played Beatrice and Benedict, the main characters. I couldn't always follow what Katherine said as she shouted out her lines quickly in what I assume she thought was a comic manner while doing some manic movements that were supposed to be comic. I always find it frustrating when people in Shakespeare plays can't speak his verse properly and bring it to life - can't they hear themselves?

While I have lots of criticisms of this show, y'know what? I enjoyed it. And that's the main reason for going to the theatre. It was a fun way to spend a few hours and that's a good thing these days. Plus I had ice cream at the half time interval!

'Anthony & Cleopatra' at the National Theatre

Last week we went to see the new production of 'Anthony & Cleopatra' at the National Theatre. That's one of my favourite Shakespeare plays and it was on the grand Olivier stage so there was lots of space to fill.

I really liked the production a few years ago at the Globe, particularly since it was in period costume, and one of my abiding memories is that Cleopatra spoke her final lines as a mild and defeated woman, not as a mighty queen. Getting those lines right is a benchmark for me, so how would this new production fare?

We all know who Anthony and Cleopatra were don't we? Anthony was a Roman general and politician who was one of the triumvirate who ruled the Roman empire after Julius Caesar's death. Cleopatra was the queen of Egypt. often said to be the last in the Greek Ptolemaic line to rule (although technically that was her son), lover of Julius Caesar and then of Mark Anthony. Both died in the war between the triumvirate for supremacy that resulted in Octavius taking power and becoming the first Roman Caesar.

It's a play about power and intrigue, about love and jealousy, about the fate of nations being decided by leaders and about loyalty. It's about a lot of things - there's a lot going on in this play and is a testament to the creativity and power of Shakespeare. The text is there so, to do it justice, you need a cast of actors and creatives that can bring the work to life. I avoided all reviews and production photos so I could enjoy it with fresh eyes and ears. How does this production fare?

The play opened with Octavius delivering a eulogy to Cleopatra while she lay dead at his feet and he was surrounded by soldiers in modern combat uniform. My heart sank. O, it's a modern dress version is it? Why? Why try to modernise things? what's wrong with a toga or two? Cleopatra is lying on the main stage when the turntable span around, removing the dusty monument and soldiers and revealed a sumptuous palace scene and Cleopatra was miraculously lying beside a pool. Anthony walks out in a Hawaiian shirt and the most ridiculous and flariest linen trousers since the guitarist from Mud in the early '70s. Aha, I thought, this is looking interesting.

Cleopatra's palace in Alexandria looks more like a five star hotel for rich people with sun loungers beside the pool and servants to cater for your every whim. That's how we're introduced to the lovers and the story is off and running. Their idyll doesn't last for long, of course, as Anthony is summoned back to Rome, he marries and we see a great scene with the jealous Cleopatra getting a description of her rival. Ah, yes, jealousy.

I quite liked the staging of the play and I don't think I've seen the giant turntable under the Olivier stage used so frequently to change set and tone of a play as in this one. All the quick changes could've been annoying but I liked it. I also forgave the use of modern costumes because the clothes were quite interesting in themselves, although I did find the army fatigues a bit distracting later in the play during the battle scenes. I think some of that was unnecessary and more down to the director's vision rather than the text.

The acting was, on the whole, excellent and lived up to expectations for such a powerful play. Ralph Fiennes was Anthony and Sophie Okonedo was a suitably imperious and fiery Cleopatra. They worked well together as lovers and rulers, commanding their court at the same time as being playful and believable. I also liked Gloria Obianyo and Georgia Landers as Chairman and Iras, Cleopatra's loyal handmaidens - I could easily hear Chairman saying 'keep your hands off my queen, matey' to Caesar. Both turned in excellent performances, I thought. I was less taken with Tunji Kasim as Octavius who didn't really convince me he was soon to be the most powerful man in the world.

I grew to love the staging and rotating set (even though it didn't look terribly Egyptian) and the lighting was excellent, almost like an Egyptian beach in some of the palace scenes. Well done to director Simon Godwin, set designer Hildegard Bechtler, costume by Evie Gurney and lighting by Tim Lutkin. Well done all.

And the final speech. In my head I hear Cleopatra laying down a challenge to the gods for daring to take her lover from her, thunder crashing and lightning flashing as she prepares to join her lover:

Give me my robe. Put on my crown.

I have immortal longings in me...

I am fire and air,

My other elements I give to a baser life.

O yes, Sophie was suitably imperious as Cleopatra prepares to join her lover. I didn't hear thunder crashing but thank you! I now have a new benchmark for that speech.

Go and see this play - I'm tempted to go again. Maybe there'll be thunder?

'The Merry Wives of Windsor' at the RSC Stratford-upon-Avon

Strangely, I'd never been to Stratford-upon-Avon, Shakespeare's home town, so when I did finally go I wanted to see a play and it so happened that 'The Merry Wives of Windsor' is on at the moment, a play I haven't seen before, so why not? This one seems to have been updated to Essex and has wheelie-bins, swimming pools, golf buggies and all sorts of modern stuff but it still hits its pompous mark. The mark is that everlasting epicurean rascal, Sir John Falstaff and everything he stands for. Poor Sir John.

Falstaff is a bit short of the readies so he cocks his hat at the two richest women in town, ignoring the fact that they're both married, because, after all, why let technicalities get in the way. He's a fine figure of a man, in the most rotund and beer-sodden meaning of man, so what's not to like. The two ladies are best friends and confide to each other that they've received letters from Sir John professing his love and, when they see the letters are identical, decide to play a prank on their would-be lover. Several pranks, in fact. And so falls our noble knight.

 Poor Sir John suffers indignity after indignity but pursues his beloved - or rather her money - like a true Englishman and never gives up. It's this dogged persistence that means you've almost got to admire him, going back time and again to be humiliated but always with the hope of success. A bit like Brexit really.

His final humiliation is in the town square when he's dressed in furs and horns as Herne the Hunter and he's taunted by the great and good of the town. I'd question their goodness, to be honest, but this is Shakespeare. If you ignore the rather unpleasant bullying and humiliating of one person then it's a very enjoyable play about relationships, social mores and gentlemen. For a Shakespeare comedy it even had me laughing and my favourite line was when, after asking for an egg to be in his beer in a time of need he asks for another beer and says he'll have "no pullet-sperm in my brewage". I went into one at that!

It was rude and so unsubtle it should win awards but, you know what? I enjoyed it immensely. Effective, simple sets and lighting, modernised language where appropriate, talk of wheelie-bins - it all worked for me. David Troughton was excellent as our Falstaff and he must be exhausted every night when he gets out of that fat-suit. I also liked Rebecca Lacey as a no-nonsense Mistress Page that reminded me of Prunella Scales. It was great fun and I'm pleased that I've seen it.

'Macbeth' at the National Theatre

'Macbeth' at the National Theatre on the Olivier Stage? Rory Kinnear as Macbeth? Well, obviously I had to go and see it. It's one of those awkward plays where I've yet to see a great production so maybe this will be it? 'Macbeth' is one of those plays where there's a lot going on and the director really needs to decide which avenue to take the production down and what story he really wants to tell. Rufus Norris directs this production and, since he's the current Artistic Director of the National Theatre, then this is really his baby.

I've seen Rory Kinnear in loads of things over the years (except his 'James Bond' role) and he's done the 'greats' of Shakespeare - Hamlet, Iago and now Macbeth, all on the Olivier stage - and I look forward to seeing his Lear one day when he's older. I really enjoyed his most recent roles in 'The Threepenny Opera' and 'Young Marx' and was looking forward to seeing what he would do with 'Macbeth'.

There's always that moment when you first walk into the Olivier Theatre and see the stage and the initial set - the stage is too big to be curtained off - and that sets the pattern for the thought processes. In this case, we had a funny looking bridge with totem poles and a backdrop of black plastic bags stuck together to create a rocky grotto or a waterfall (I'm not sure which). I quite liked it at first. What's all this meant to be then? It doesn't look like Scotland to me but I'm sure it'll all become clear at some point. Then, without any notice and while the audience was still chattering, a few people ran down the bridge followed by enemies and while some run off another is beheaded. And then the wyrd sisters arrive to open the dialogue. I wasn't quite sure why one of them kept running round and round the stage but why shouldn't she be on speed? She's a witch after all.

So. Quite a dramatic start and I'm all approving - drama, spectacle, blood, magic and weirdness. That's what I want. Then the play's off and running and we see characters all dressed a bit steampunk except the king who's in a cheap red suit. Then we see Macbeth's castle which seems to be a few concrete bunkers and I start wondering what's going on. Why would a great lord who commands an army dress and live like that? It makes no sense. Throughout history rich people dress richly, not in a hodge-podge of bits and pieces like anyone else. Otherwise, why be rich and powerful?

There seems to be a trend at the moment for 'ugly' productions. I saw 'Julius Caeser' a month ago which features Mark Anthony, one of the richest men in the world, wearing a cheap flannel hoody and I sat there thinking 'why would he wear that?' rather than listening to the text. Ugly productions can be very distracting and it didn't really help this production of 'Macbeth'. It must've been great fun to be let loose with the dressing-up box but isn't there more to putting on a great play on one of the nations great stages?  Doing a steampunk version might sound attractive in a rehearsal room but does it really work?

I also wasn't too keen on some the '90's elements of the production, like the boisterousness of the men at some points, banging tables and shouting 'oi! oi! oi!'. Really? That just struck me as lad culture gone to the extremes. This was particularly galling in the banquet scene in a  Nissen hut with folding tables and spindly chairs (exactly what you'd expect in a king's castle) and the queen dressed in pink bits and pieces. Are these people squatters or what?

I suspect part of the problem is directors and producers wanting to make Shakespeare 'relevant' to a modern audience, to young people, and attract people to the theatre. What they seem to forget is that Shakespeare's plays are being put on because they are great plays with universal themes and great poetry and don't need to be adapted. Let the play tell the story because, let's face it, it's a great story. Trust the material you've got in front of you, it's been around for 500 years and still works.

Overall, I think I quite liked this production - or, rather, some elements of the production - but wouldn't go back for seconds. I liked the weird witches in all their witchiness but I'm not sure why they climbed the totem poles in the final scene, I liked the main characters (until Banquo became a zombie rather than a ghost) and some of the acting was great but, I think, held back by the overall design of the production. Bits of the play seemed to have been switched around and cut for some reason but it flowed well enough.

I liked Kevin Harvey as Banquo (until he became a zombie), Trevor Fox as the porter and Amaka Okafor as Lady Macduff, all great performances. I was less impressed by Patrick O'Kane as Macduff who came across as 'Belfast thug' rather than anything else.

Anne-Marie Duff was fine as Lady Macbeth and seemed to push her way through the awful patched rags she wore as a steampunk queen to give us some real emotion. And so did Rory Kinnear, especially in the quieter scenes. They both know how to speak Shakespeare.

There you are. I'm pleased I've seen it but I won't be going back to see it again. I'm still waiting for the great 'Macbeth'. One day ....

'Shakespeare in Ten Acts' at the British Library

I went to see the Shakespeare exhibition at the British Library the other day, 'Shakespeare in Ten Acts'. It's based around ten performances of Shakespeare plays that changed the way they were viewed or that changed the history of the plays in some way. It's a novel approach and there was some fascinating stuff there but it was a bit underwhelming. Darkened rooms with everything spotlit seemed a bit, well, odd. The exhibition was book and paper-based which I expected (well, it's in a library after all) with some of the later rooms using video of performances or costumes.

The first exhibit is, of course, one of the prides of the Library - its copy of the First Folio in a glass case opened at the title page with the portrait of William himself. Beside it is a note that says Ben Johnson certified the pen and ink portrait as a true likeness. Mr Johnson's plays don't seem to be performed very often these days.

It wasn't so much the theme of the exhibition that caught me, it was some of the objects on display and their historic significance. Such as this little book that contains the prologue specially written when a woman first took to the stage in a production of a Shakespeare play, in this case 'Othello' in 1660. The first woman is thought to have been Anne Marshall. Can you imagine a time when women weren't legally allowed on the stage and the female roles were taken by boys? How odd is that.

The rest of this room went on to show portraits of some of the women who took to the stage with potted histories of their lives. There were also extracts from newspapers that raised against the new-found habit of men buying tickets back stage to watch the new actresses get dressed!

Another book to grab my attention was a small copy of 'Hamlet' thats' been passed from actor to actor in the 20th Century who've played the role. It's signed by some of the actors including Michael Redgrave, Peter O'Toole and Derek Jacobi. The sign notes that the book is passed on to note particularly celebrated performances. Jacobi passed it to Kenneth Branagh when he did his film version of 'Hamlet' in the '90s. Now, that's what I call a great gift. I've not seen Branagh's film but I did see Derek Jacobi play 'Hamlet' back in 1978 so that made me smile. I wonder who Branagh will give it to to continue the tradition?

One of the odder exhibits was Vivien Leigh's dress from her performance of Lady Macbeth. It's a nice enough frock but it was odd since the main poster for the exhibition shows her all gossamer and fairy as Titania from 'A Midsummer Night's Dream' but that frock isn't there.

And finally, here is a large red and white handkerchief that I coveted - I like the man bottom-right with the legend 'Ha! Ha! Hah! In places', presumably noting the potential response to one of the comedies.

'The Taming of the Shrew' at Shakespeare's Globe

I've never seen 'The Taming of the Shrew' on stage before so when The Globe announced it I had to buy tickets. It's not a favourite play but it's by Will, so it's worth seeing. For this production the story is set in Ireland at the time of the 1916 rising to commemorate the event but, other than the accents and some rebel songs, you'd never know it (or at least I didn't). By coincidence, the Bolshoi Ballet is also offering us their version of the play at the Royal Opera House over the summer and I've booked to see that as well.

As ever with Mr Shakespeare, there are various stories going on within the play but the one we're most engaged with is with the main characters of Katherina (Kate, the 'shrew') and Petruchio (the 'tamer'). The central tale is of Kate who speaks her mind and isn't keen on marriage and her sister Bianca who wants to marry as soon as possible, presumably to leave her father's house. Bianca has suitors but the men are all scared of Kate. Unfortunately for Bianca, as the younger sister, she can't marry until her older sister is safely wedlocked. Enter Petruchio who hears the men talking about Katherina and then vows that he will marry her to make the way clear for the men to woo Bianca. And so he does.

So far there's some good give and take with Kate giving as good as she gets but the second half shows the breaking of Kate as she's degraded and made to suffer until her spirit is broken.  It's this that really gets to the misogyny of the play and it's difficult to get it right - I'm not sure there is any 'right' with this play. It is rather unpleasant to watch and the final scenes when Petruchio allows Kate to visit her home for her sister's wedding are equally fraught when he orders her about like a slave to demonstrate to the men how it's done. And Kate submits.

Leaving aside the more unpleasant aspects of the play, I liked this production. I loved the costumes (and I'd happily wear some of the jackets and trousers myself) and the staging was clever, using both levels of the Globe stage in a way I haven't seen before. There was some lovely comic acting as well as more serious scenes. Aoife Duffin was a stand-in for the lead actress who was off sick and I thought she delivered an excellent Kate (I think she's now taken the role so good for her) with Genevieve Hulme-Beaman as her sister Bianca. I was less keen on Edward MacLiam as Petruchio whose accent was so thick at times that I found it hard to follow what he was saying or, rather, shouting - he seemed to be playing it as a stereotype loudmouth, drunken Oirishman which only partially worked for me. Having said that, I enjoyed the production and am pleased I've now seen 'Shrew' on the stage. It's on until the start of August so there are plenty of opportunities to see it.

I am Fire and Air ... The Complete Walk

Yesterday I did The Complete Walk to celebrate William Shakespeare. It's now 400 years since his death and his work is still as alive and vibrant as ever and what better way to celebrate his 37 plays  than to set up 37 video screens along the Southbank and Bankside and show videos of all of them. The Globe theatre on Bankside is, of course, Shakespeare central and it was the hub for this event. Full details are here, along with a map and a brochure of the special films

It is such a great idea and a great way to celebrate Shakespeare with these old plays being shown on the latest technology for all the world (well, if you were in London) to see and enjoy and relive all that great story telling and poetry. I saw 29 of the 37 films - not all of the screens were working but, as I know from long experience, the technology can always let you down at the last minute. Still, I thoroughly enjoyed what I saw wandering up and down the river.

For me, the Walk started at Blackfriars as I wandered along to The Globe to pick up a map and continued along to start my viewing from Potters Fields. The first screen I stopped at was Simon Russell Beale as Timon of Athens filmed in Athens and sited outside Southwark Cathedral - I saw him in this play at the National Theatre in 2012 and it was really touching to hear some of those speeches again, particularly filmed around the Acropolis. Just to keep it all real, the bells of the Cathedral started chiming just as he started talking about gold so, with a wry smile, I walked on since he was drowned out.

I left the trail and headed round to Potters Fields where four of the screens were sited but only one was working and, thankfully, that was for The Tempest' that I saw at the Sam Wanamaker Playhouse' in The Globe a couple of weeks ago. This screen showed excerpts from a previous production at The Globe as well as specially filmed segments with Douglas Hodge as Prospero filmed in Bermuda. A memorable section showed him standing on the beach with him reciting a speech before walking into the sea and continuing until he was completely under water and the camera lingered with him still under the waves, a really dramatic moment that will stay in my mind for a while to come.

Walking along the river I found 'King Lear' beside one of the pagodas with Kenneth Cranham slowly going mad on the cliff tops at Dover, making his own crown from grasses. It was all very emotional but I preferred the quieter, later section with Joseph Marcell also playing Lear but in a wheelchair on top of the cliffs when he's greeted again by Cordelia (Zawe Ashton) and he says he will drink her poison. That was so touching and gentle, this reconciliation of father and daughter before he dies. I would love to see him play Lear on the stage after that great performance.

Just along from 'Lear' was 'Anthony & Cleopatra' which was a magical mixture of excerpts from the great production at The Globe a couple of years ago and specially filmed scenes set at the pyramids at Giza in Egypt. The Globe scenes showed Anthony dying in Cleopatra's arms and the film picked this up with her own defiant suicide with her loyal maid Iras as she brings the deadly snake to Cleopatra at the foot of the Red Pyramid.

And then, surprisingly, they climb up to the entrance of the pyramid and go inside to the chamber where Cleopatra puts on her crown and says those immortal lines.

'Give me my robe, put on my crown, I have
Immortal longings in me ...
I am fire and air, my other elements
I give to a baser life...'.

Eleanor Matsuura was Cleopatra and Katy Stephens was the brave Iras. It was a very touching scene, particularly as the camera stayed on Iras as Cleopatra died in the pyramid. I've been in that pyramid and so know what it's like inside, stuffy and warm and full of history across the millennia and myth.

After a late lunch we continued walking along the Thames, stopping to watch this screen and that but the next one I really liked was 'The Merry Wives of Windsor', a play I've never seen performed. Again, it was a mix of a live performance from The Globe and filmed portions with Paul Chahidi and Mel Giedroyc as mistresses Page and Ford each receiving an identical letter of everlasting love from that rogue Sir John Falstaff. O such a rogue is he and they will have their revenge! Paul and Mel made an excellent couple and I'd love to see them do this on stage sometime. It was great fun!

Then onto the Southbank proper and more screens with lots of the history plays, lots of Henrys and Richards. Jonathan Pryce reprised his role as Shylock in 'The Merchant of Venice' with scenes from his Globe performance last year as well as a new scene filmed in the Jewish Ghetto in Venice. And further along was a touching performance of 'King John' that was dedicated to the death of Shakespeare's young son, Hamnet. Underneath Hungerford Bridge we see extracts from the Globe production of 'Titus Andronicus' (the one that gained publicity for people fainting at all the gore) with extra scenes filmed in Rome featuring Peter Capaldi.

The final screens were in the gardens outside St Thomas's Hospital with a very touching 'Henry VI, Part 3' in which we see Henry sheltering in a church at Towton with a soldier who realises he's killed his father in the opposing army and a father who finds that he has killed his son. What a wretched king to witness the sorrow of his people. But on the other side of the lawn we visit a sun-drenched castle in Verona with an acerbic Meera Syal as Lucetta in 'Two Gentlemen of Verona'. Meera was excellent with her trademarked glances into the camera as if to say *you* know what I'm saying even if this young girl doesn't. O yes, Meera, we do!

By now it was dark and you can see the lights in the wards at St Thomas's Hospital at the top of the photo and the outline of trees to the right.

'The Two Gentlemen of Verona', as Shakespeare's first play, was actually Number 1 on the map and the film included lots of excerpts from the other screens but I did the walk from last to first. Of course, there was still time to catch some more screens so we headed back to see if any of the screens not working earlier were now working and caught 'The Comedy of Errors' with Omid Djalili filmed in a Turkish restaurant and a few others. We finally gave up at London Bridge to get the train home. Phew, with aching feet too.

This was a very tiring and madly crowded day but great fun and a fitting tribute to Shakespeare. There were log-jams of people at various places along the riverbank with the crowds brought out to enjoy the free show along the river and, frustrating and annoying as that was, it's nice that so many people wanted to join in the celebration. I'm certainly pleased that I did. It's a bit disappointing to see the criticism some unthinking people have left on the Globe website this morning because some screens weren't working. I'm grateful that so many were working. I'm also grateful that this celebration was arranged in the first place with some excellent film clips picking out some of the key parts in the plays and presented so well. Hopefully all the videos will be available on DVD at some point - I'll certainly get a copy!

It was great to be involved in a celebration rather than just sitting on the sofa at home and watching something on telly. Well done to The Globe, to everyone involved and to the volunteers handing out maps along the route - good show people!

'Richard II' at Shakespeare's Globe

Last week we went to see 'Richard II' at The Globe and luckily the rain held off but there was still the inevitable helicopter sweeping low and drowning out some of the speeches. I've not seen 'Richard II' before so it was nice to finally see it and see it at The Globe.

It opens with priests coming on stage as the audience is still arriving, swinging incense and lighting candles ready for the coronoation of the boy-king Richard who soon leaves the stage to be replaced by the man-king. Richard is the annointed of God, the rightful heir and ruler of England. He doesn't have to fight for the throne, it's his by right, and that's how he rules. He gets whatever he wants and that turns him into a spoilt brat and not a very nice person. He has his sycophants that crawl around him and he has his ardent followers. Two of these, Mowbray and Bolingbroke accuse each other of treason and seek their king's permission to duel and bare the proof of their accusations on their bodies. The king refuses and exiles both of them.

Shortly afterwards, John of Gaunt, one of the king's advisers and uncles (and Bolingbroke's father) falls ill and dies, and the king takes all his lands and possessions to fund a new campaign against those pesky Irish. As the king leaves so does Bolingbroke re-appear demanding his inheritance and birth-right and gathers the nobles to his cause and against the king and so the king is overthrown and Bolingbroke takes the crown and becomes Henry IV. Richard is imprisoned and, hearing Henry say he wishes his problems would go away, he is slain in prison in a final fight. Henry rebukes the lords who did this but the scene is set for his own tragedy.

It's quite fast paced and zips along from scene to scene and the narrative is easy to follow as we see Richard come to more fervently believe in his own divine right to rule and his decisions becoming more erratic and hurtful to those he should love so that even the uncle of his queen sides with Bolingbroke. He floats round the stage in his long, flowing white and golden robes marking him out a s creature distinct from the soldiers and courtiers and towards the end his robes become greyer and less graceful. We're witnessing the downfall of a king. He's pragmatic enough - and not at all stupid - to be able to see the end coming but doesn't know what to do. How do you fend off a rebellion when you have no army?

It's a really good production of the kind I've come to expect from the Globe and once again the stage has been changed to make it unique to this production. I loved the burnished gold of the walls and columns, all very regal and other worldly. The costumes were great and I loved the minimalist brass band that came on every now and then for a quick blast. Charles Edwards was great as Richard, careless and carefree and knowing his every whim will be catered to until the end.David Sturzaker was arresting as Bolingbroke, grabbing every eye when he was on stage, just as he did with his charm in 'Merchant of Venice' earlier this year. I will also give a shout out to William Gaunt as John of Gaunt - William used to a Champion in the 1960s and still retains his mesmerising powers. He gets the most beautiful speech when, on his deathbed, he prophesies the end to the dream of the glories of Olde England when he talks about:

This royal throne of kings, this scepter'd isle,

This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,

This other Eden, demi-paradise,

This fortress built by Nature for herself

Against infection and the hand of war,

This happy breed of men, this little world,

This precious stone set in the silver sea,

Which serves it in the office of a wall,

Or as a moat defensive to a house,

Against the envy of less happier lands,

This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.

It fair brings a lump to the throat - that wily old poet knew what he was doing with those words.

There is some lovely poetry in this play but, for me, some of it was missed by the over-long speeches, particularly by Richard. Sometimes less is more. But it's a grand production so go along and see it if you can.

'King John' at Shakespeare's Globe

We went to see 'King John' a few weeks ago, a play I've neither seen before nor read. King John isn't really on the radar at all and all I know about him is that he was Richard the Lion Heart's brother and signed the Magna Carta. Since it's the anniversary of the Magna Carta then I suspect that's why the Globe chose to revive the play. And I'm jolly pleased they did. I can see why it's not often performed but there are some smashing speeches hidden in that play and some wonderful poetry and it's great to see a production that's not scared to bring them out.

It's ostensibly the tale of John from coronation to death-bed but we also see Richard's son Arthur and his illegitimate son (known as the Bastard), power struggles with Eleanor of Acquitaine to her dynsaty (and power) intact, wars with France, Vatican meddling and all sorts of goings on. It's all over the shop so it was good to see it controlled and focused to tell an (almost) coherent narrative. I liked the staging that had most of the action taking place on red carpets laid out in cruciform shape on the stage which reflects the cross of St George on the English flag. It also controls the action.

My favourite characyers in the play were Lady Constance and the Bastard. They were consistent in purpose and, in the case of the Bastard, he developed into a loyal supporter of the crown which he can never have. Some of the other characters were very lightly drawn, like Arthur (the heir) who should have been a stronger character but it's not there in the play.

I've never seen Tanya Moodie before but she magnificent as Lady Constance, a queen determined that her son will inherit the crown and she has a stirring speech at the end of the first half that gets the blood boiling. The wronged wife, the legitimate heir, at odds with her mother-in-law Eleanor and the she vanishes and we hear nothing more about her. I want to see more of Tanya!

The other pleasant surprise was Alex Waldmann as the Bastard, Richard's illegitimate son. I saw him in 'Widower's Houses' earlier this year and it was nice to see him in a more powerful role. He was well good and I'll definitely be watching out for him in the future. He moved from illegitimate son on the make to loyal supporter and was a joy to see.

Jo Stone-Fewings played King John and definietly strayed into panto territory but it all worked and helped to make sense of the character. I can understand why this play is rarely performed but this production helped to make sense of it all. A bit of judicious editing might help future productions but I'm mighty glad I saw this production. Another thumbs up for the Globe!