 |
| Geoffrey Rush as King Lear |
All photos by Heidrun Löhr
King Lear
by William Shakespeare. Sydney Theatre Company directed by Neil
Armfield. Set design – Robert Cousins; Costumes – Alice Babidge;
Lighting – Nick Schlieper; Composer – John Rodgers; Sound – Stefan
Gregory; Voice and text coach – Charmian Gradwell. At Roslyn Packer
Theatre (one-time Sydney Theatre) November 24, 2015 – January 9, 2016.
Reviewed by
Frank McKone
December 5
Magnificent!
There
are a couple of points I want to query, but to have men in the
audience, including me, in tears at interval, and again at the end is a
measure of the power of this production of
King Lear.
It’s thoroughly original in design and performance, taking the meaning of the play apart in a way I have never seen before.
First
is the recognition that this is a mythical drama, placing Shakespeare
in the company of Sophocles and Euripides. Though it is partly about
the nature of autocratic kingship, which in our modern democracy we may
think is no longer relevant, we only have to remember that the Athenian
democracy which produced the Ancient Greek theatre did not last long.
Beware!
Where it is about love – conditional or
unconditional – this story of familial failings is certainly relevant to
us all in any period of human history. Take care!
In
placing our abiding sense of self-importance against the uncomprehending
reality of the universe, this play, in this production, is huge. We
may rail against adversity, but the best we can manage is an acceptance
of our human condition, though even this is no consolation.
Our
tears at the tyrant’s gouging out the eyes of the naive old man
Gloucester, at Lear’s haunting wail as he carries in his dead daughter,
still hoping her breath will stir a feather, and at Edgar/Poor Tom’s
words which conclude the drama, are as much for ourselves as for any
character on the stage. As Shakespeare wrote, we – “all the men and
women” – are “merely players”.
How much can we hope
when the best Edgar can suggest is to “Speak what we feel, not what we
ought to say”, in the face of “The weight of this sad time”?
But
we can still hope in one important way. We can place our hope in art,
when we see it at its peak of humanity, maturity and skill. As I saw
it, watching this
King Lear.
Being mythic does
not imply that the setting must be in an ancient past, nor limited to
any time or place. Robert Cousins has understood this so well that
clothing may be modern, words may be amplified with modern technology,
nakedness may be explicit as it can at last be on a modern stage, rain
may be real water, swords may be no more than short knives; and all may
be presented for the first half in black empty space foreboding awful
things to come, yet turn white in an even more frightening open space
than before. Every element in costumes, props, becomes significant and
imbued with meaning in a weird way. Every detail stands out in our
minds because there are no boundaries which allow us to sit back
satisfied.
And every word, every sound, every switch in
tone of voice, every little stiffness in movement, or extreme
looseness, turns our attention on. With such a well-chosen cast almost
every moment is perfect, dramatically. Only two elements felt out of
place, to me.
As we approach Dover and the
invading/rescuing army is still at some distance, its presence is made
known by faint and a little too staccato drumming which, at that point,
distracted my attention from the characters on stage – until their words
made it clear what the sound was. I think this was a just a matter of
timing, perhaps on the night (or in the afternoon as it was in my case).
More
concerning for me was the directing of Eryn Jean Norvill as Cordelia.
I’m well aware of Norvill’s qualities as an actor from seeing her in
previous shows, so I think even the doyen of directors, Neil Armfield,
was in error in making her posture and voice more harsh in effect than
seemed right to me. I was not assuming that Cordelia should be as
soft-spoken and forgiving as she is generally played. I saw in the
playing of the three sisters that they each in their own way had to find
themselves as independent self-determined women, each at their
different ages and stage in their relationship with their father. Helen
Buday’s Goneril had things in control, as she saw things, while Regan
as Helen Thomson played her was still on the edge.
I
saw in Cordelia the late teenage daughter, without a mother (which
Shakespeare never explains) and needing to establish her self. To that
extent, with such an expectant father, I could see her pushing him too
hard (which he doesn’t expect, assuming she had been compliant when
younger). So I saw her forcefulness which made sense, and I could
explain to some degree her brittle quality of voice as she pushed
herself forward with a new youthful sense of purpose. But when Geoffrey
Rush’s beginning-to-be-delusional father reacts as aggressively as he
did, I felt there should have been more of a chance that she would
soften and back off a little, and use a rounder tone with him – though
still not giving in, of course.
I expected this would
show her developing sense of maturity, which showed in her dealings with
her two suitors. For me, she left that first scene with less sympathy
than I wanted to give her, and I have to say some of that feeling
returned when she reappeared as a properly motivated but unsuccessful
army commander, saying bitterly to Edmund “We are not the first / Who,
with best meaning, have incurr’d the worst”, but then in rounder tones, I
think, to her father “For thee, oppressed king, I am cast down; /
Myself could else out-frown false fortune’s frown.”
Again.
maybe it was just on the day, but I felt the presentation of Cordelia
was done with less subtlety than I saw in the other characters.
Which
brings me to the four characters which are central to the success of
the play: Robyn Nevin’s Fool, the Earl of Kent played by Jacek Koman,
and the key figures of Edgar/Poor Tom and Lear himself. Armfield’s
direction and the skills of these four ensured they held the play
together, notwithstanding the excellence all around them.
Robyn
Nevin played with beautiful timing, in relation to the other characters
and especially to the audience. There was a softness in the stand-up
comedy that made the question of the Fool’s almost fogotten death
terribly poignant. I’ll mention how effective the ending was a little
later.
Being about or perhaps even a bit more than
Lear’s age (I’m well past having a teenage daughter), I sometimes found
Jacek Koman’s accent a little hard to follow, but his consistency in
presenting the always reliable retainer in Kent was done with just the
degree of variety needed to make us still willing to hear him out and
want to go along with him on the very last page: “I have a journey,
sir, shortly to go; / My master calls me, I must not say no.”
In
some productions this becomes sentimental, but there was a shock and
even tears to realise Kent’s sacrifice for the sake of humanity.
It
may go without saying that Geoffrey Rush would be a great King Lear,
but what made him so? For me, in contrast with other Lears I’ve seen,
it was his special relationship with Poor Tom, apparently mad, a guise
taken on by Gloucester’s legitimate son, Edgar to escape attack from his
jealous born-out-of-wedlock brother, Edmund. Mark Leonard Winter plays
Edgar, while Edmund is played by Meyne Wyatt.
Lear
takes Poor Tom for real. Poor Tom’s a-cold because he is, literally,
naked. As Edgar plays Poor Tom more and more wildly to maintain his
disguise, Lear begins to match him, stripping off his clothes which
barely protect him from the constant rain. To the horror of the Fool
and Kent, but to my admiration for the actors’ willingness to go for
broke, Rush’s Lear joins Winter’s Poor Tom in a kind of devilish dance,
reminding me of the witches’ sabbath scene in Berlioz’
Symphonie fantastique.
In
other productions Poor Tom has been a-cold and timorous, while Lear has
stayed too kingly, even as a pretence. However justified in some
directors’ analysis, Geoffrey Rush and Mark Leonard Winter transport us
into a kind of euphoric state, almost ecstatic in their loss of normal
constraint. This was acting at its very best.
And so
to the end, which for me has always posed a problem. Most of the deaths
– of Goneril, Regan and Edmund – are off-stage. Only Lear, cradling
the dead Cordelia, is on stage with his supporters Albany, Kent and
Edgar. Quite out of the blue, as he is dying, Lear says “And my poor
fool is hang’d!” Albany says “Bear them hence,” the last words are
spoken, then
Exeunt, with a dead march.
As a
young student I thought this was a boring ending, and in other
productions the energy has dropped even before Lear has finally died.
And how did Lear know the Fool was hanged, considering that we hadn’t
seen or heard of him since Act III? Another interpretation, though, is
that Lear is referring to Cordelia as his “poor fool”, since we know
that Edmund ordered her to be hanged. Either way, the end concerned me.
But
at last I have seen how to do the end properly. As a play of mythical
proportions, Armfield and the design team bring on the dead, including
the Fool, bit by bit as the final scene proceeds. Against white
nothingness figures take their place, standing stiff, with the face and
the palm of one hand blackened, just as Gloucester’s empty eye sockets
had turned black. At the point when Lear dies, the sense of dread from
the surrounding dead reaches a climax, the last words are spoken, and
the curtain drops steadily and deliberately.
Magnificent! And a standing ovation!
 |
LtoR: Colin Moody, Helen Thomson, Eryn Jean Norvill, Geoffrey Rush, Mark Leonard Winter as
Duke of Cornwall, Regan, Cordelia, King Lear, Edgar. (Wade Briggs as King of France is out of shot)
Act I, Scene1 |
 |
Robyn Nevin and Geoffrey Rush as
Fool and King Lear |
 |
Helen Buday, Colin Moody, Geoffrey Rush, Robyn Nevin, Nick Masters as
Goneril, Albany, Lear, Fool, |
 |
Mark Leonard Winter, Jacek Koman, Geoffrey Rush, Robyn Nevin as
Poor Tom, Earl of Kent, King Lear, Fool |
 |
Max Cullen, Mark Leonard Winter, Geoffrey Rush as
blinded Earl of Gloucester, Edgar/Poor Tom, King Lear |
 |
Meyne Wyatt and Helen Thomson as
Edmund and Regan |
 |
Geoffrey Rush and Eryn Jean Norvill as
King Lear and Cordelia
Act V, Scene 3 |
Senate Arts Inquiry: 20 extraordinary, self-serving statements you need to read from the Government
Their inquiry into Brandis’ “National Program for Excellence in the Arts” drew an extraordinary and united response from artists and organisations across the country. They opposed the ludicrous plan that would severely damage — and possibly kill off — scores of small arts companies. These organisations act as the engine room and nurturers of talent for the big theatre, opera, ballet companies and orchestras that Brandis favoured by exempting them from the cuts.
“The Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Issues inquiry into the impact of the 2014 and 2015 budget decisions on the arts” released its report on Wednesday night. It found that the $105 million taken from Australia Council would jeopardise the viability of many individual artists and small to medium arts organisations and it recommended the government fully restore the funding to the Australia Council.
The following 20 statements from the Government’s dissenting response to the inquiry are breathtaking in their cynicism and attempt to re-write recent events to serve their own political purposes. If there was ever any doubt that Brandis’ NPEA was about politics first, and arts a distant second, then these statements prove it.
Dissenting report from Government Members of the Committee
(Statements in bold have been highlighted by Daily Review)
“The Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee (‘the committee’) inquiry into the impact of the 2014 and 2015 Commonwealth Budget decisions on the arts (‘the inquiry’) was a cynical attempt by Opposition, Greens political party and some Independent Senators to politicise reform of arts funding mechanisms.”
“Claims by the Independent-Greens-Labor majority of the committee (‘the majority’) that the inquiry was not political in nature are clearly not supported. Throughout the conduct of the inquiry the majority has attempted to create a divisive and combative atmosphere that characterises the government as inherently opposed to supporting Australian arts and culture. This characterisation is unambiguously false.”
“Government members of the committee are critical of attempts by the majority to marginalise the nation’s arts community, force them into taking a position against the government, and use arts and culture funding as a platform from which to launch cynical political attacks that lack factual basis and create uncertainty.”
“Government Senators were effectively disenfranchised from the inquiry process by being disregarded in the scheduling of public hearings. This supports the conclusion that the conduct of the inquiry was for political rather than parliamentary (or, in fact, arts and culture-related) purposes.”
“Government Senators note that the ultimate client of all taxpayer-funded programming is the taxpayer him/herself. The government is mindful that in the main its funding activities must, as far as possible, reflect the interests and expectations of the Australian taxpayer rather than the interests and expectations of particular sectors or interest groups.”
“Austerity measures across all portfolios have been imposed to seek efficiencies that will reflect the public interest in national debt-management. The arts sector could not be said to have been asked to perform any ‘heavy lifting’ in pursuing this objective.”
“The arts funding pool provided to the Australia Council by the Commonwealth Government consisted of a total appropriation in 2012-13 of $188,000,000; 2013-14 of $218,800,000; a total appropriation in 2014-15 of $211,800,000; and a total appropriation in 2015-16 of $184,500,000. The government’s reduction in Australia Council funding, following the increased appropriation in 2013-14, reflects the austerity that has been applied across multiple portfolios in light of the serious national debt position inherited from the previous government. This reduction also reflects the government’s confidence in the spirit of arts funding reform measures.”
“The inquiry was established to investigate the proposed National Programme for Excellence in the Arts (‘NPEA’) however the subsequent replacement of the NPEA with the Catalyst model during the conduct of the inquiry—and the endorsement of this change by the Australia Council—is not reflected in the committee Chair’s inquiry report (‘the report’) that instead quotes heavily from highly emotive submissions and evidence gathered in the early stages of the inquiry.”
“The evidence to the committee—in the form of submissions and testimony at public hearings—was inherently incomplete in that only a very small range of like-minded interest groups were invited, or volunteered, to present their case. Page 77 of the report characterises this evidence as the response of ‘..the broader community’ which is an irresponsible and misleading statement. Government members of the committee note that the ‘broader community’—that is, every Australian other than those with some connection to the arts sector—did not on this occasion take the opportunity to make their feelings known.”
“Page 17 of the report cites the ‘…remarkable level of consistency in the evidence provided’, which comes as no surprise considering the evidence provided to the inquiry came, almost without exception, from artists and arts organisations who have a vested interest in attacking the government’s budgetary efficiencies.”
“The number of submissions with a common approach is also unsurprising in view of the many peak groups whose websites actively encouraged and assisted with the wording of letters of concern to the inquiry.”
“It is noted that the particulars of the efficiencies imposed by the Australia Council in response to budget measures were within the remit of the Australia Council itself. The inquiry heard evidence that was highly critical of, for example, the decision to discontinue the ArtStart program. The majority were willing to incorrectly characterise this as a decision of government rather than promote the true facts that this was a decision of the Australia Council.”
“In responding to the shift from peer-reviewed funding decisions to a more accountable and transparent process vested in the minister and the Department of Communications and the Arts, the Chair’s report warns at page 34 of ‘…political interference…’ in the allocation of arts funding. Government Senators are disturbed, but not surprised, that the majority consider that funding directions made in the public interest by duly-appointed ministers of a lawfully-elected representative government could constitute ‘interference’.”
“Government Senators also note the inconsistency of the majority report which, while it condemns the Commonwealth for its processes, had no words of condemnation for arrangements in state jurisdictions. The arrangements put in place by the Commonwealth Department of Communications and the Arts in relation to arts funding grants largely replicate current arrangements in all state and territory jurisdictions, four of which are run by Labor governments.”
“Government Senators recognise the importance of fostering the on-going development of Australian cultural and artistic expression however they are not persuaded that the peer-review model is in all cases the most reliable manner of expressing the wishes and interests of the Australia taxpayer regarding support for the arts.
“Government members of the committee have concerns regarding the transparency and accountability of the Australia Council peer-review process and note that submissions and evidence to the inquiry have failed to reassure them that the Australia Council peer review process is not susceptible to bias.”
“Government members were concerned by elements of the testimony provided to the committee that seemed to betray an unhealthy sense of entitlement to the financial support of the taxpayer in the absence of an effective oversight or regulatory regime.”
“The decision by the Minister for the Arts, Senator the Hon Mitch Fifield, to create a new arts fund ‘Catalyst’ should be recognised for the valuable contribution it will make to an innovative arts and cultural industry. Instead it has been incorrectly portrayed by the majority as an attack on the autonomy of the arts sector. On the contrary, the Catalyst model lays the foundations for a sustainable arts funding model that will ensure our nation’s diverse arts sector continues to flourish.”
“The Australia Council is effectively accountable only to itself. It provides an annual statement to the parliament but in operational terms continues to be independent. The Catalyst program, as a facet of the Department of Communications and the Arts, will be conducted with far greater oversight by government and the parliament. Catalyst will make funding decisions in alignment with the guidelines approved by the minister, an elected parliamentarian whose role is to guide departmental operations in a manner that reflects the wishes of the taxpayer. For a portion of arts funding to be deployed within such a framework is a good step towards ensuring that, across the spectrum, arts funding fosters innovation, provides cultural development, supports industry and reflects the wishes of the Australian people.
“Government members acknowledge concerns about duplication of administrative costs however note that much of the burden will be shouldered by existing operational infrastructure within the Department of Communications and the Arts. When asked about the cost of administering the Catalyst program, the Executive Director of the Ministry for the Arts remarked that ‘Most of it we have absorbed within our current resources’.Additionally, with a smaller funding remit the Australia Council will benefit from being able to reduce its organisational footprint.”
Illustration: Michael Agzarian
about the author: Raymond Gill