A Midsummer Night's Dream
Posted 28 February 2012 - 10:37 PM
Maybe Hammersmith's just too far out.
But if ever there was a reason to make that journey, this is it.
Don't just go yourself; take someone you know (and we all know these people) who thinks Shakespeare is too longwinded, leaden, serious, antique, high-minded or outmoded.
Yes, Filter rip the play to pieces. Yes, many of your favourite lines will be missing. They did the same with Twelfth Night. But then, and now, they manage nonetheless to bring the true heart of the play wholly intact to the audience. Everything Shakespeare wanted you to feel is luminously here which you simply can't say for all productions which reverently include every word he wrote (which few do anyhow, of course). A legion of teenage girls sat in front of me clearly astounded at how much they were enjoying something Shakespearean. What Filter does is lower a drawbridge to the Bard. I guarantee you take someone wary of Shakespeare to see this, and they'll be so much more inclined to go and see something else. Everyone needs a stepping-stone, or someone or something to hold their hand. That's what Filter does. They're not just doing another version of Shakespeare; they're making Shakespeare edible.
Yes, there are moments that work better than others. For me, it's only once Puck makes his first (truly mindboggling) entrance that it really got going, but from then on, it's a giddying stream of invention: the hi-fi way they present the fairies, the lo-fi way they do the spells, and the way they make us think about the metaphysics of a play within a play: it's all delivered in remarkably original ways, each making you think anew about a play that's so familiar to many of us.
Billington says it pays a debt to One Man, Two Guvnors. Quite the opposite. Filter were doing this kind of magic long before that show came to town. Go and have a blast. Certainly everyone in the audience on Saturday did.
Can't wait for them to do one of the History plays.
Posted 28 February 2012 - 10:41 PM
Posted 01 March 2012 - 11:09 PM
Posted 02 March 2012 - 12:21 AM
However, I would change the appropreate age from the current 11+ to maybe 13~15+ due to some explcitish sexual contents (am I too old-fashioned? or just too old?), such as peni*-cooling and vigin*-washing (but there were funny!).As the ticket for weekdays matinees are only 12.5, I think I will catch another matinee soon.
Oh, and inside of the Lyric was lovely, though my seat smelt of stale urine.. I didn't know that within a modern building such a traditional theatre was hiding. The roof-terrace was lovely too.
Posted 02 March 2012 - 07:40 AM
Posted 03 March 2012 - 12:48 AM
If you are, then so am I - I'd have said 13+, myself. But then there are probably a lot of pre-teens around these days who wouldn't bat an eyelid at that sort of thing.
Posted 08 March 2012 - 08:12 PM
I found the show even more hilarious this time around. I noticed more details and could appreciate that attentions are paid to smaller matters too. However, two microphones failed to work and that resulted in depriving the play of some clever sound effects (i.e. fairy's voice sounding fairy-like etc.)
When the show opened The Times critic gave it only 2 stars, so obviously the magic doesn't work for some people. Or rather, some critics can't tell a good play when they see one?
As I wrote in the bad behaviour thread, a fight broke out after the show about teenagers' behavious and the teacher not doing anything about it.
Anyway, I hope more people will go to see it. For people living in North London, I'd say it will be worth crossing the River for this play. It is very unique!
Posted 08 March 2012 - 11:44 PM
Posted 09 March 2012 - 11:41 AM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users