Reader Reviews
Macbeth (Royal Shakespeare Theatre, Stratford-Upon-Avon)
Back to Show Details| Score | Comment | Date |
 | A good production in general, if lacking much in the way of memorable moments. Pal Aron apart, the performances are strong - Hicks gives us a more considered villain - more in keeping with modern day political power than the tyranical norm - but his tortured portrayal and ultimate feelings of the senselessness of it all are moving - as is the excellent final tableau. Enjoyable but nothing out of the ordinary. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (62.252.192.13) | 19 Sep 04 |
| GREG DORAN INSTEAD OF BOYD! GREG DORAN INSTEAD OF BOYD! GREG DORAN INSTEAD OF BOYD! GREG DORAN INSTEAD OF BOYD! GREG DORAN INSTEAD OF BOYD! - USER: Whatsonstage.com (62.254.64.14) | 17 Aug 04 |
| Again, like with Corin Redgrave, the RSC bring in Greg Hicks, and give him an incompetent cast and director. Shoot Pal Aron. Please. He literally bored me to pins and needles with the worst Edgar I have ever seen (in 6 Lears - two amateur!), and now reappears as a dreadful, dreadful Malcolm. I'm not going to bother with the RSC again. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (62.254.64.14) | 15 Aug 04 |
| Not as poor as the current "Lear", not as excellent-with-reservations as the current "Hamlet"...oh, what the hell, I'll give it a 3 for Sian Thomas' impressive Lady Macbeth and Clive Wood's Macduff (RSC please note: why isn't this outstanding actor playing the title role?) I've admired many of Greg Hicks' performances in the past but his Macbeth left me cold until the last few scenes; his delivery veered between "making blank verse sound like naturalistic TV dialogue" and "I must put a new spin on this line, bugger the sense". As Banquo Louis Hilyer gives a magnificent display of Coarse Acting - I could have cheered the Murderers on - but the worst performance of the evening must be Pal Aron as Macduff. He gives the impression that he is simultaneously translating the verse from Serbo-Croat, stressing words at random and generally removing most of the meaning; did he actually attend the much-vaunted 12 week rehearsals? I find it worrying that such a grossly inadequate actor could have landed a major role (two major roles, as he's an equally bad Edgar) with the RSC. Oh, and the costumes...I'm not advocating a return to the days of tartan and claymores, but must Scotland look so much like Ruritania? Duncan's operetta uniform and Lady Macbeth's frilly frocks give the impression that they are about to burst into song... Despite a few imaginative touches this production is a wasted opportunity. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (195.92.168.169) | 05 Aug 04 |
| Don't mind the straight 2h 10 without the interval - it's just that I say Anthony Sher's at the Young Vic and this was not in the same league. My daughter's boyfriend (not a regular playgoer, but doing Macbeth for GCSE) turned to me after 30 minutes and asked "What's with the funny voice then?", which perfectly summed up Greg Hicks' over- mannered delivery. And what were they thinking about for the Witches? What was that all about? Sian Thomas was one of the few redeeming features for me - I thought she brought out the sexuality of the part wonderfully. But as for the rest - God help us. What are the RSC thinking of? The hopeless Lear, a worthy but ho-hum Romeo, this feeble effort - a friend commeted that they were now a second, if not third, rate company. I remember how wonderful they were 40 years ago, you knew that you would enjoy a first-rate production. How sad to take the 4 great tragedies and screw up like this. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (82.43.121.49) | 25 Jul 04 |
| Totally disagree with your reviewer. While the play is technically brilliant, there is little or no emotion from the cast, excepting Clive Wood who ws superb as always. I cannot understand why Greg Hicks was given ths part,as he spends so much time posturing that the character is lost. Give the role to Clive Wood. Lady Macbeth was overacted te night I saw it, admittedly near the beginning of the run - she may have improved (doubt it). I hate to say "come back Adrian Noble", but the performance seldom engaged the emotions. Kate Phinn - USER: Whatsonstage.com (84.92.12.189) | 20 Jul 04 |
| I could have murdered the Malcolm. It makes one feel less sympathetic that 80% of actors are unemployed: if that 80% is WORSE than he is, then thank god. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (62.254.64.14) | 03 Jul 04 |
| What were the RSC thinking when they put this to the stage? Nothing works, nothing fits. I can't believe arts council fund companies like the RSC to produce such rubbish. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (213.83.110.180) | 01 Jul 04 |
| Sorry, I thought this was an awful production. The director brought very little indeed to the party, and most of the actors were (uneasily) flying solo. I'd include the two leads in that -- reputable performers who created no chemistry and will be anxious to airbrush this one out of their CVs. Crucially, no sense was established of a social and behavioural context for these characters -- i.e. of the order which then becomes disordered -- and without that it is not surprising that the actors floundered. The costume designer didn't help by giving them silly pastichy things to wear, Malcolm's daft bit of fur above all. Proof of the pudding: an almost full house granted this a curtain call of no more than 20 seconds. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (213.162.109.12) | 28 Jun 04 |
| Unlike some of above, I thought the no-interval idea was a very good one. Two hours 10 minutes is considerably shorter than many movies, which we sit through without need of an interval. I thought what failings there were in the production would have been magnified if it were broken up - the pace and momentum achieved by a single sitting helped give a clear through-line which wasn't always there in the performances. Never a mention of the music here - I thought Gary Yershon's score was subtle and effective, though now and then it did sound like a parody of what Shakespeare scores are meant to sound like - all fanfares and pounding drums. One thing though - it is SO ANNOYING that the musicians get up and leave (very visibly) when there are even five or ten minutes without any notes to play, and then parade back in again when the next Q is due. The entire cast and production team have been slaving to hold our attention and achieve clear focus (whether they have been successful is another matter - but that was their intention at least) and every so often we are totally distracted from the action on stage and reminded this is 'only a play' because musicians are strolling in. I applaud the use of live music, and seeing musicians, but sit still and don't leave, otherwise I'd rather you were a recording. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (195.200.139.66) | 07 Jun 04 |
| I agree that this play is not best suited to the cavernous main theatre, but within those limitations, this is a far better production than some would suggest. It has much to savour. Dominic Cooke has a flair for stage use, and the set and direction are impressive, assisted by some truly wonderful lighting. There are moments of terror - which is not easy in such a setting. Greg Hicks is everything Macbeth should be, and Sian Thomas's Lady Macbeth has power and the sleepwalking scene in particular is strong (though for me, she always looks a little too much like a pantomime dame although I know that is harsh!). Clive Wood's Macduff is also worthy of note, and his reaction on hearing of the fate of his family is genuinely moving. Pal Aron's Malcom is a little strange and it is hard to see how Scotland would be better off with him than even Macbeth - he is if you like the Boris Johnson to Macbeth's Thatcher .... the problem is limited to the final scenes though when he tests Macduff and never really appears to come out of the weak ruler that he is temporarily trying to convey. I disagree with a former reviewer - Hicks's performance alone is worth the money, and there is more to it than that. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (62.252.192.10) | 25 Apr 04 |
| Poor show with poor performances. The RSC are going downhill rapidly and this production demonstrates just how quickly they are going - USER: Whatsonstage.com (194.66.249.18) | 19 Apr 04 |
| Dire performances, poor set, and a waste of money. Sorry but this really isn't worth seeing. There are and have been much better productions of this great play. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (194.66.249.18) | 16 Apr 04 |
| Greg Hicks is good but he alone isn't worth the ticket price. The design aspect was confused - a mixture of eras that clashed making no sense to the audience. It's in desperate need of an interval - running at just over 2 hours is too long to sit in one session for a play that doesn't grip you and keep your attention. Give it a wide berth. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (194.66.249.18) | 15 Apr 04 |
| Hicks is marvellous but this production falls into trying to be 'different' from the Sher and McKellen versions and thereby fails. It's a shame - Hicks as Coriolanus and Brutus was superb, and Cooke's (director)production of Cymbeline was amazing. And I agree, Malcolm should be shot. He's utterly, utterly terrible. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (62.254.64.6) | 14 Apr 04 |
| Everything was done very well but the whole lacked tragic dimensions. Greg Hicks did not demonstrate that Macbeth was a great man spoiled, which is odd in light of his wonderful Coriolanus. The Malcolm was appalling. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (193.118.206.221) | 06 Apr 04 |
| Greg Hicks is too mannered. Sian Thomas is a non-entity. Director is an idiot. Don't bother. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (62.254.64.6) | 25 Mar 04 |
| For God's sake, demolish the RST and replace it with an auditorium of sensible size. So many potentially fine productions are scuppered by the size of the stage and the enormous gap between it and the Balcony. And re-open the Other Place - it's heartbreaking to see this excellent little space, the home of some of the company's best recent work, standing empty. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (195.92.168.168) | 23 Mar 04 |
| This is a brave, but almost fully flawed production - director Dominic Cooke has fallen into a modern Shakespeare curse - that it 'has to be different'. Someone should remind him that ALL great productions come from exploration of the text, and NOT from steering around what has gone before. It is a shame that this doesn't work, because Hicks and Thomas are a fine pair of Macbeths - Hicks is especially revelatory, every line as clear as cool spring water - Macbeth's downfall traced point by deadly point. Thomas is slightly less impressive, but makes an excellent stab at a part only ever made a success by great, rather than very good, actresses. The two main actors are ably supported by Clive Wood, a terrific Macduff - extremely moving in his gasping fall to his knees upon being told of his children's murder - and worth a mention too is John Killoran, surely a rising star of the RSC - who supports Hicks, sinister and present throughout. Louis Hilyer is a terrible, gruff, 'hammer horror', unconvincing Banquo and Pal Aron simply over the top as Malcom; he understands very little of the text. The direction and set is poor, although there is some nice touches, and the withces are laughable. Walk, don't run. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (195.194.148.2) | 22 Mar 04 |
