King Lear by William Shakespeare. Bell Shakespeare Company
directed by Marion Potts at The Playhouse, Canberra Theatre Centre April
15 – May 1, 2010.
If there is one thing King Lear
makes clear, it is that kings can’t expect to comfortably retire on a
super pension, even if it is backed by 100 knights. What about an
actor/director? John Bell’s constitution is more than impressive. It’s
amazing to me that he can go on putting out such energy night after
night (and present himself for the public at the opening night cast
party). Can he keep going?
Considering the historical
significance of this play and this production, there is as much to say
about Marion Potts’ directing, the design and execution, as there is
about the acting. In King Lear and The Tempest, though
their earthly political plots look superficially familiar, Shakespeare
took flight creatively into an ethereal theatre of symbolism.
Because
this production marks the 20th anniversary of the Bell Shakespeare
Company as well as the year in which John Bell turns three score and ten
(and the $15 Anniversary Edition Souvenir Program includes a Wesfarmers
advert titled “Presenting the Extraordinary”), I cannot avoid the
question, does Bell Shakespeare reach the heights of William
Shakespeare?
BHPBilliton quotes Ben Johnson: He was not of an age, but for all time.
They go on “This comment was made about Shakespeare but we think it
also holds true for John Bell.” It’s nice of the biggest mining company
in the world to pay for the privilege of saying so, but I think it’s
not entirely true. John, indeed, has placed himself in a more
realistic relationship with William in his note as Artistic Director,
writing "It is incontestable that, to some extent, Shakespeare invented
us; and through constant engagement with his work, we go on re-inventing
ourselves."
So, to the performance I saw on April 16, 2010 just ten days short of William’s 446th birthday.
The
beginning was extraordinary as a circular white curtain rose to reveal
the Lear family isolated in an island of light. Off to the side, but
made visible, the instruments of emotion interplayed with the action of
the sculptural figures in the centre of our attention. Here was King Lear prefiguring The Tempest.
Shakespeare’s words were as clear as we might expect from Bell, and the
scene was set for “Nothing will come of nothing.” Much, in theatre,
will come of simplicity. The open stage with no more than a central
raised revolve, with light and sound, was all that was needed. Stage
design held the play in place.
For this we must thank
Marion Potts, designer Dale Ferguson, lighting designer Nick Schlieper,
sound designer Stefan Gregory, and composer Bree van Reyk: seen and
heard, even though largely mysterious to us spectators.
But
the edge was taken off the imaginative intensity, at various points and
in various ways. I found it difficult to feel the purity of truth in
the naïve Cordelia, dressed as she was in a mess of clothing, in which
she reappeared, with the addition of a cloak, years later as the mature
Queen of France. She needed clean lines, simple in style in Scene 1 to
contrast with her overblown sisters, an idealistic 15 year old who
naturally would entrance the King of France, with or without a dowry.
As grown-up strategic leader of the rescue invasion, she should more
than match her sisters for wealth in a costume of plain elegance.
Cordelia
was always my favourite Shakespeare character, and I was disappointed,
even though I could not fault the quality of any of the acting. The
characters seemed to be speaking just as themselves, even when speaking
directly to the audience. Whatever they symbolise, there was never a
hint of “speaking Shakespeare”. Perhaps the audience responded to three
actors in particular (though their parts also help) – Peter Carroll as
The Fool, Tim Walter as Edmund and Leah Purcell as Regan, especially
when she makes her move on Edmund. So spiteful towards her rival, her
sister Goneril , a ferocious Jane Montgomery Griffiths.
The
speed and ease of entrances and exits made the set work wonderfully.
The transitions from scene to scene are so often a major point of
weakness in other productions, but never in Bell Shakespeare. However, I
was surprised that the on-stage musical instruments disappeared after
interval and sound became distant and only electronic. It was an
emotional loss, especially because in the first half, characters used
the instruments to comment on themselves. It was an imaginative master
stroke, for example, to have Lear strike a cymbal and use his stick to
strike an inferior character.
But the major
disappointment for me was the staging of the ending of the play. Why
were Lear and Cordelia left grovelling on the floor downstage left,
where I could not see them except by wriggling about trying to peer
between the audience’s heads in front of me? Why were they not taken to
the central circle? Why didn’t the ending reprise the opening, with
Lear and Cordelia isolated on the island, delicately enclosed again in
the white curtain while Kent and Edgar spoke the words which reinforced
what Cordelia had said in Scene 1? Am I being too obvious? Shouldn’t
the symbolism be made this clear?
And, returning at
last to the constitution of John Bell, I have found, over perhaps the
last ten years or so, that the quality of his voice has often become
restricted to a flat, rather thin sounding tone. This could work, for
example, when he played Leontes in The Winter’s Tale, but it left
me cold in King Lear. On the night, there was much strength and range
of tone in Scene 1, but by the storm scene I lost feeling for this huge
old man facing up to the elements as if he might defeat whatever they
could throw at him, and in the final scene I could not feel the loss
that this father felt, realising that his failing was the cause of his
true daughter’s death.
Perhaps it is the clarity of
meaning which John Bell has brought to the performance of Shakespeare,
(which I still remember being impressed by when I first saw him in a
tent in Adelaide in 1964, and still today is a great achievement), that
has taken the focus off the creation of emotion in those of us
watching. So I conclude that this production is in many ways a very
good presentation of King Lear, but it does not reach the heady heights of Shakespeare’s imagination.
© Frank McKone, Canberra
No comments:
Post a Comment