Synopsis This biblical epic tells the story of the House of David, which is brought to tragedy by crimes against itself. David's sons, recently home from war, begin to wonder who will succeed their ageing father. One evening Amnon, his eldest son, hears a beautiful singing voice coming from behind the wall of his father's harem. Completely captivated, he scales the wall and sets out to discover who owns this voice. The ensuing love story, both dark and moving, leads to utter disaster, as revenge and family honour divide the ambitious sons of David. Running time 3 hours
The RSC's Spanish Golden Age season got off to a cracking start in April with Laurence Boswell's terrific production of Lope De Vega's The Dog in the Manger. Sadly, Tamar's Revenge, the second offering, is of a different pedigree.
Whatever problems prompted the deferral of the press night, originally scheduled in early May, seem not to have been fully resolved in a production which, despite the best efforts of the cast, remains a largely uninvolving affair.
The play, as the title indicates, is most definitely not a comedy. Written by Tirso De Molina, the basis of the story - the incestuous love of Amnon, eldest son of King David for his half-sister Tamar - is taken from the Book of Samuel.
The translation by the poet James Fenton is fleet enough for the most part - although some of the colloquialisms clunk - but the committed cast struggle with bringing the frequent and lengthy monologues to life. And Matt Ryan as Amnon is personable and passionate but rings little variety in his tempest.
Best of the bunch is John Stahl as King David who brings a real sense of authority. Katherine Kelly as Tamar grows in stature as her play wears on.
The setting is stark: three banks of spotlights cast harsh light on to a bare white stage over which a harp hangs. Minimal props come and go. Costumes vary from neo-Middle Eastern to present day 'smart but casual', while Tamar and her friend Dina are bizarrely clad in gymslips and black leather bra tops.
Without labouring the point; these simply do not make sense in the context of the play which is bound up, as with The Dog in the Manger, the very strong code of propriety which informs Spanish society at this time.
Even so, the sense of violence and violation when Amnon rapes Tamar at the end of Act Two in what is quite a graphic scene, brings the play shockingly to life. Members of the cast can also be seen in House of Desires and Pedro, the Great Pretender, which complete the season later this summer.
They have made an awful error with the lighting and costumes, which alienate the audience from a wonderful cast and exciting play. A desperate waste - the designer and director should be sacked for allowing this to happen. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (213.122.108.130)
29 Jul 04
In a word, rubbish. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (199.67.203.133)
17 Jun 04
Firstly I enjoyed the play. I was a little apprehensive about going i must confess but my niece was over from the US and she wanted to go to a play in Stratford. Tamar's Revenge was the only Play available so we went. I am glad we did as the play was very entertaining - acted with a good deal of youthful energy using a script that was easy to follow and understand - although the basic plot was fairly simple - mmaking it possible for the actors to concentrate on the focuused action rather than being caught up in numerous twists and turns. If yo get a chance go and see it - don't think you will be disappointed. By the way - it seemed to be shorter than 'advertised' if that makes a difference - about 25 minutes or so. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (62.232.87.20)
15 Jun 04
I saw this last week. I don't know about the press-night thingy, but I loved the play, which was superbly done, and a fascinating text. my husband and I haven't stopped talking about it a week later. I'm urging everyone to go and see it. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (82.69.37.108)
Disappointing, especially after a thrilling production of 'Dog in the Manger' (five stars) in the afternoon. Hard to understand how the same theatre company can put on two such contrasting quality productions at the same time.
The only convincing performance was given by Katherine Kelly as the victim of incestuous rape, but even she was hampered by a banal translation and simpering school-girlishness in the first half hour or so.
Costume? Seriously flawed and a mishmash of eras and 'meaning', if indeed, the latter was intentional. For example, school girl-type little skirts and plain blue shirts, evening wear for the harem, plain modern grey trousers for the lads and grubby-looking plain grey shirts, to shalwar kameez, leather, suit jackets and robes for king (all at once, on one occasion). Was the costume the king wore in the last scene meant to portray him as incapable of action as the eunuchs, who he resembled?
- USER: Whatsonstage.com (195.92.168.166)
03 Jun 04
Totally disagree with the person below, yes this was imperfact but it was brave and innovative. Full of sybolism - like the blindfolding. I thought the direction was extremely courageous and unpatroniing of the audience not just iving them froth and fluff but real exposed pain and emotional depth with no lights or even in some cases other technical trappings to hide behind. Brave. Bravo. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (82.69.37.108)
27 May 04
It is a long time since I saw such an amateur production on a professional stage, and that insults the very good work done by many amateur companies. As someone who sees all the RSC productions at Stratford this was an extremely disappointing show. It is hard to constructively criticise the actors, many in their debut seasons, as they all seemed to suffer from the same problem, namely complete lack of direction. I thought that the play itself, when you could extract it from the constant shouting that was used to convey emotion, was interesting, moving, amusing and advanced for its' time. The pity was that it was ruined by the actors booming, monotonous and embarrassing delivery of the lines. I wondered if they had understood most of them. Shouting louder does not convey emotion it just embarrasses the audience, and they were certainly shifting in their seats last night. A large number of the audience did not return for the second act and who can blame them? There were a number of wonderful speeches in the play which should have conveyed heart rending emotions...anger, betrayal, love, lust, pain. Most of them were delivered with loud expressionless screeches, causing the wrong sort of humour in those listening. The total lack of lighting to create atmosphere meant intrusive use of cast doubling as props people, often ruining the end of scenes. The lack of any set and the bright white light neither gave the idea of heat or mood. Blindfolding the actors to give the idea of darkness was so ludicrous it reminded me of children who hide their eyes and so think that you cannot see them. Childish and pretentious. There were so many times when we almost burst out laughing for the wrong reasons that I wondered if were watching a spoof. The direction as a whole lacked any ability to tell a basic story in a convincing way. I do not think that the RSC audiences are averse to new ideas but they do not deserve to be patronised and served up this kind of meaningless and "Studenty" production. We pay far too much to watch, for that! Altogether a truly dreadful evening at the Swan - USER: Whatsonstage.com (213.40.3.65)
23 May 04
I saw this last week on thursday and I thought it was really really interesting. Its not done in a traditional way but really symobollic and like a dream almost. The young actors performances were really raw but it was gripping and thought provoking and extremely moving. I can only imagine the powers that be at the RSC cancelled the press night because they don't know what to make of it - its very un RSC - actually rather innovative and bold and breaks barriers. I urge everyone to go and see it, the RSC is a publicly funded company and so should not always play it safe but try to experiment and explore work that is more original like this. Its a real shame they didn't stand by it and let it have its press night last week. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (82.69.37.108)
11 May 04
Firstly it is important to note that this is a reveiw of an early performance of Tamar's revenge and in light of the RSC's decision to postpone the press night it can only be assumed the production will alter with time. The play is a biblical epic, containing rape, incest, murder, war, threats of patricide/regicide and all that goes with it. Certainly the stuff of high drama, yet while this is a disturbing piece, with some merit - giving food for thought which live in mind beyond the production, the sum of the parts is interesting rather than good. The first thing to strike the audience is Ben Ormerod's lighting. The stage - and most of the auditorium is constantly (with one lighting cue excepted) bathed in bright white light - with the unfortuntate effect that the cast must be able to see the bemused faces of an audience not getting what it is expecting. The effect is undoubtedly meant to reflect the searing heat of Israel but the idea is better than the effect - a more selective use of this idea - such as in the "garden scene" when the actresses are bizarely blindfolded but also soaked in water giving a very sucessful impression of the heat - yet if the same lighting effect is used throughout why are the actors not soaked in sweat for the rest of the piece. Simon Usher's direction is brave and inventive - as in the blindfolding - yet again, it does not quite come off - always a risk with invention. This is particularly challenging for the RSC - whose audience arguably do not want/expect to be challenged in this way. But for me, the biggest problem is in the material - though it is difficult to say if this is in the original or in James Fenton's translation. The first act in particular is clumsy and difficult and in the third act (presumably as in the original) we suddenly revert to a couple of pointless songs which seem out of place. Fenton's translation is faithful to the Spanish theatre's use of shorter scentances - hardly a sub-clause in sight - and this leads to a very stilted and stocatto sound. This has an implication for the actors whose performance is therefor difficult to judge. On the one hand, the excellent Rebecca Johnson - whose Abigail is a very minor role, lifts the pace suggesting that the actors are at least culpable, yet having read the translation, one has some sympathy with them. Katherine Kelly's Tamar is a fine portrayal - ranging from sexy to deeply disturbing and you are left feeling as "dirty and violated" by her performance as the character is. John Stahl's King David - like a Titus Andronicus Lite - is a booming presence. Matt Ryan's Amnon is less convincing. Part of the point of the story is that he isn't the warrior that his father is, but he is still a soldier and not a sulking teenager - his portrayal is like Romeo stepping into Titus Andronicus, though even Romeo convinces us he can kill. Ultimately, as with Tutus, one problem is that it is difficult to warm to any of the characters except the vulnerable victim - and that makes for a difficult production. The direction is brave, but perhaps at this point in time the RSC needs solid quality rather than bravery and many of the ideas which must have been interesting in discussion come over as a bit too "artsy" in production and the contrast between this and the Dog in the Manger is enormous. Yet Katherine Kelly's performance is still in my mind - and it is usually only exceptional performances that have that effect on me (hence two stars). I hope improvements in the production can give her a suitable vehicle but without changing fundamentally, it is hard to see this happening. - USER: Whatsonstage.com (62.252.192.10)
Whatsonstage.com - Discount London theatre tickets, theatre news and reviews, Theatre videos, Theatre discussion, National Theatre Listings. Covering London's West End, all of Theatreland and all UK theatre. The best
for London Theatre Ticket Discounts.
