Morte d'Arthur (2010)

[Queen Mab]

Here's the quick write up I did after seeing the show.

********

Wings, bare chests, shadow sex and kinky boots - just your average weekend at the RSC.

Le Morte d'Arthur isn't a small story. Written around 1450-1470 by Sir Thomas Malory, it was originally divided into 8 seperate tales. This was later divided into 21 books. This was going to be a long night. Nearly four hours in fact, with the added bonus of a "talkback" question and answer session afterwards. That is, if any of us (or indeed the actors) are still awake.

Gregory Doran (2008's Hamlet) directs and Mike Poulton adapted the text from Malory's humoungus peice of work. Some stories are left out (there's no Tristan and Isolde, for instance, and most of Lancelot's adventures are cut) but the majority of the Arthurian legend is in there; sword in the stone, the round table, the Holy Grail, birth of Mordred, Lancelot and Guinevere and Arthur's death. There were lots of stories told that I had never heard before and moments that you think you know, you suddenly realise you dont. Did you know, for example, that Merlin told King Arthur to kill all the newborn babies, lest one of them grow up to be his downfall? King Arthur is Herod, who knew?

Costumes are flowing dresses for the girls, chainmail, robes and belts for the boys. All fairly obvious, but beautiful nonetheless. I had the pleasure of being seated next to the aisle in the circle, where Noma Dumezweni's Lyonesse's momentarily appears. Beautiful lacing on the veil. The boys also sported a large collection of rather kinky calf and thigh high boots. Much appreciated by this audience member.

As always, there are no weak members of the cast. Special mention must go to Oliver Ryan's Gawain, Gruffudd Glyn as an eager young Gareth (who makes his entrance dressed as a dancing bear) and Peter Peverley's slightly psychotic Mordred. I enjoyed Forbes Masson's portrayal of Merlin as a riddling "Son of the Devil". Less benevolent guide, more mischevious madman, with shades of Puck about him. He's not the only one who seems familiar either; Dharmesh Patel does very well at channeling Lady Gaga in his cross-dressing devil. It's pointless for me to add any comments about Jonjo O'Neill's performance, the man's a wee genius and a sex god to boot. His scene played shirtless in skin tight pale grey leggings is a gift from the RSC Gods to all female kind.

The lighting department is on full display in this piece, utilising light and shadow to great effect, from the crystal light-show depicting the Holy Grail to the projected circle of light forming the Table Round. Screens are used to project images onto the back wall, including a flowing river which Elaine, having died from unrequited love, floats away on in her wooden boat (Mariah Gale being hoisted up into the rafters; it's a rather interesting effect). A white cloth also comes into play numerous times as backdrops and so on, and once being used as a tipi, within which a light and shadow performance of the conception of Mordred takes place. It's not exactly a PG-13 conception either. Much post-show debate ensued between us, over a drink in The Duck, as to whether this was a projection or whether Christine Entwisle and Sam Troughton were having some shadow lovin' behind that there sheet every night.

One thought that struck me was that whilst it is not unusual in an ensemble such as this for actors to have multiple roles (and usually it's completely forgivable and often excused by a crafty beard or wig), it did become a little distracting when they hit 3. Dyfan Dwyfor, for example, appeared as brothers Percival and Lamorak as well as Launcelot's squire Lavain. Now, I don't mind seeing lots of Dyfan (and we did see lots of him, pity though that it didn't fully follow the text which described him as "naked") but when you have a full ensemble of 44 actors at your disposal, you wonder why they've been divided in half to perform two plays. Especially considering the oft-mentioned lack of chemistry between Darrell D'Silva and Kathryn Hunter in the lead roles in Antony and Cleopatra (impecable on their own though they are). This could have been an epic play of a 44 strong cast.

Many comments have been made about whether or not Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur is fit to be staged. Perhaps it lacks Shakespeare's poetry, but it certainly has the feel of a Histories play, and a little bit of a Lear-esque tragedy. On the whole, I think the production works. Would it have been better over two nights? Probably. Did I enjoy it? Stupid question. Did I need a cold shower afterwards? Most definitely.

Edit - I have been reliably informed that it is indeed Sam and Christine faking shadowy sex, having been witnessed by a fellow fan. She saw them both entering and leaving the tent. I'd spotted Sam appearing to leave it but wasn't quite sure. Also present, and handling the light used to create the shadows, was Jonjo O'Neill. Appears Launcelot is a bit of a voyeur then.

********

The RSC also asked for questions to be put to Justin Audibert, Assistant Director, and one of my questions was answered!

www.rsc.org.uk/whats-on/morte-darthur/ask-the-assistant-director.aspx

[Rosalind]

Good review

I shall be seeing this again next week. Well when I say again I didn't see the end as Sam lost his voice on the first preview and Greg Doran stopped the play. I think we only missed about 15-20 mins. What I saw I enjoyed as did my son, he comes with me to see the non Shakespeare plays.

[Queen Mab]

^ the final fight is rather impressive, as you managed to see in the Unwrapped

[Witch 1]

Now I'm even more gutted I can't see this

[Whichway]

mail.tmsmail.us/bin/display_msg?id=818F65827591F994482C385E8DBFD2BF60319C89019BF00F

[Witch 1]

One week too early

[Queen Mab]

Rosalind and I have both booked places. So I'm now in Stratford 21-22, 24, 27-28 & 3-5. Oops?

[danielwhit]

Enjoy it - I would go myself if I wasn't tied up on London that evening.. Have to let us know what its like

[Lorannah]

Hmmm, I've tried to review Morte D'Arthur several times, opened the reply box and stared at the page. Not sure exactly why, possibly it's because it's a bit of a tangle as plays go, there are too many things to pick out; possibly because it is flawed in many ways; but probably because I simply adore it - it made it's way into my top 5 RSC productions with incredible speed for good reason.

But on Thursday, I saw it for the third and (sob) final time - so I think I should knuckle down and finally write it.

It's been an interesting progression for me in terms of being a viewer - the first time I saw it having tried to read the book three or four times but failing after the first couple of books. Thankfully the play helped with this reading difficulty as spotting passages or stories that I knew gave me a path to follow through the text, even when I was feeling bogged down in the never ending Tristram sections. So the second time I saw the production I was part way through and this final time I had finally finished it. I definitely found my perceptions altering whether through this greater knowledge or repeated viewings, but I was amazed at the small details they weaved throughout the piece. It really is a stunning adaption.

I've read some criticism of the text itself, personally I'm a fan - the rhythm is very different than Shakespeare - slower but the words have a weight to them I adore. And have become somewhat engrained, I keep going to use 'hight' in everyday speech. Plus both the book and the play have one of my favourite opening sentences ever:- "It befell in the time of Uther Pendragon." And Mike Poulton has left in some great phrases:- "outrageosity" and "thou smellest all of kitchen" are particular favourites.

But whilst Malory's text provides a useful (if sprawling) focus for the piece, I think it also, unfortunately, is one of it's greatest flaws - it limits it too deeply. There are fascinating stories woven throughout the work that I would have loved to see explored deeper but because the source text doesn't do that, there's little that can be done. Although there is a large amount of chopping and changing going on - lines are given to other characters or different stories and some stories are utterly mingled together.

Mostly my complaint is that the play isn't long enough, everything is a little rushed - stories and characters fly past too quickly for us to get much of an understanding of them - although the actors do incredibly well at differentiating between their varied roles and giving the audience a taste of the personalities behind them. I would have liked to have lingered longer on each part. This might have given time for more characters as well (ah, Sir Tor how I miss thee) and a chance to explore the richness of Arthurian legend.

I also feel with more time (ideally another play or two) - they could have worked on strengthening several through storylines, making the play more cohesive. As it is, like Malory's own work, the play feels sometimes a little scattered and confusing. I would have liked to see stronger focus on both the ideal of Camelot, King Arthur's relationship with his knights and the war between King Lot and King Pellinore's families, plus Lancelot and Guenivere's relationship could have been built in sooner.

Perhaps though it is the confusion and the rush that added to the production's appeal for me, mostly I left the play feeling astounded, utterly overwhelmed visually and emotionally. There is a subtle devastation woven through the riotous action of the play as you're taken on an emotional journey, mimicing Arthur's own, throughout the play. I think the production manages this echoed journey masterfully and it managed to make me cry every time I saw it.

This mimicing is also useful for allowing the audience to remain connected to Arthur, who as with the various legends, vanishes somewhat in the middle of the story. Because we're following him emotionally we remain connected to him.

I'm not sure how I feel about this absence of Arthur, as I said it's certainly not a problem just limited to the play. In one sense I do feel that the ARthur/Guenever/Lancelot triangle has been a bit done to death and I love that it allowed some of the characters I really love who never get a showing (Lamorak, Gareth, Gawaine, Lot and Pelleas never get enough love for example). But at the same time this is Arthur's story and he ends up feeling a little lost. Still they handled it well.

I was also very impressed with the way Sam Troughton and the costume department managed Arthur's progression through the story. It's like we get snapshots of all our iconic kings - the hopeful youth, the lusty young man, the cynical adult and the defeated old man. And with Arthur as our prototype King, the one that exists deep in our subconscious, who can be retold in a hundred different ways - that works really well. He is in a very real sense every king.

It does then though, feel a little strange that none of the other characters similarly age - apparently being a king is just that stressful.

On to the other perormances - they are all ridiculously good obviously, I'm yet to see a bad performance at the RSC. Forbes Masson is a bit of a show stealer with his Merlin and I also greatly enjoyed all three Welsh boys - Oliver, Gruffudd and Dyfan. James Howard and James Trahearne impressed me too. Not that it was all the boys - lots of good female roles in this too - Simone Saunders and Debbie Korley were both excellent. So much to love throughout.

And I loved the use of regional accents - throughout the legends there are references to places all over Britain and it was great to see that reflected. Particularly liked James Trahearne's Northern tones and the casting of Dyfan for the roles of Lamorak/Percivale whose family hails from Galis - Wales in the current venacular, it was also pointed out to me that Gruffudd put on a very passable North Wales for his early messenger.

I also love the use of narrators - it can be a very artificial technique but they play it very well and for me it beautifully reflects the oral traditions of Arthur whilst using some of Malory's more beautiful language. Plus it's used to add humour and they've taken care to assign the words to the character best suited to say them. Actually two of my favourite productions recently also used narration - Anne Boleyn at the Globe and Nevermore by Catalyst - I think it provides distance which allows you to consider what is being said but invites you in at the same time because you're being spoken to directly. I tend to find it a lot more emotional.

I obviously have to mention the effects as well - the production is crammed full of them - and they're a mixture of inventive and old fashioned which I find irresistable. I loved King Lot's tomb and particularly his horse - such a simple effect but from the side it was stunning - the use of breathing to create effects is always a big plus from me. Pellinore's death is great too.

The fighting too adds another wonderful dimension to the production. It's highly stylised at the beginning, accompanied by percussion - it makes everything fantastical add fun - highlighting the epicness of the beginning, then the light joy in the second act and finally becoming more real and stripped down. This additionally makes the final fights feel much more dangerous - they are suddenly real and lethal - building up the tension to the final battle between Arthur and Mordred (ooh, I forgot to mention how awesome Peter Peverly is in this).

I also have to say how much I loved David Rubin's stag - it's an awesome sequence which he embues with real power and dignity and is a beautiful reflection on the idea of cuckolding and sacrifice.

There's some excellent work with the costumes throughout (despite the occasional foray into spandex) - I particularly loved the black dresses and high hats for the ladies, though some of the other dresses were not so flattering. The men all managed to pull of tights surprisingly well, the boots helped I think and some of Arthur's costumes were stunning. Loved Merlin's look too. I did get frustrated by some of the armour, though mainly because of the loud clunking - can't be helped, but it could be distracting especially when the sound was coming from off stage.

Finally (wow this is ridiculously long) I love the ending more than I can say - the snow coming down and Arthur's death, Bedivere's plaintive plea and Merlin's final return, followed by the beautifully stripped down scenes of Lancelot and Guenivere - they're placed very controlled, no over the top emotion - and it just speaks to me of raw grief, especially after the high fantasy that we've been watching for most of the production. Followed by the candlelight and the beautiful, beautiful choral song (music and sound are used excellently throughout to create setting - but this tops it all) - it's one of my favourite things ever. It absolutely slays me.

So yes - in short - love it, love it, love it - needs to be longer.

[The Horne'd Moon]

Thought I'd step out of the cyber shadows and stop just watching you all (I'm a lurker, not a writer), in order to comment on this production, before it disappears forever.

I've managed to catch two performances, and would have liked to have seen more, if this had had a longer run. This is unusual for me - I'm more serial than repeat attender (though the London run is going to change all that). It's been my favourite of the current ensemble's productions, and I'm still trying to put my finger on 'why'.

Firstly, I think it's because it is a great spectacle. Production values are always high at the RSC, but Arthur has been particularly splendid, using so many different dramatic devises and effects that within the bounds of the auditorium the senses are being constantly entreated to look elsewhere and think else-wise. Lorannah has already mentioned King Lot's horse, built from the bodies of slain knights and their heavy breathing chain mail, and that is a personal favourite of mine too. But I also love the graceful ascents of the Grail angels (anything that swoops in or out excites the child in me, whether in awe or exhileration), the preposterous use of stilts for the Red Knight, the wonderful physicality of the (Herne the Hunted?) stag, the ‘Jeux sans Frontier’ jousting scene and the ethereal mists of the Lady of the Lake. It’s kind of like going to the literary circus. There is even a dancing bear! (Gotta love a dancing bear)

Secondly, as often happens after a Stratford trip, seeing an RSC play leads me to rethink and research some of the themes/sources/cultural references that the production has raised for me. It’s not always a strictly academic exercise, and I’m afraid I wasn’t brave enough to tackle Mallory, but I have gone back to a favoured area of study/knowledge picnicking and started to consider the pre-history of British mythology which runs through the Arthurian legends, particularly the notions of the Fisher King/Green Man, and the reclaiming of these legends for a pre-Romano ‘Celtic’ Britain. Current recommended reading “Excalibur” by Gwyn Alf Williams (everyone’s favourite Marxist Welsh-nashie historian).

But most of all I think what has made this my favourite production is that it is the most ensemble-led piece that has been produced. I might work myself up for a rant (under the appropriate thread) as to why it is wrong to be voting for your favourite actor on a discussion board which was set up to support an acting company which is currently dedicated to the ethos of the ensemble, or I might not. But I will state here that I think Arthur has been the play which has given the best opportunity for the greatest number of members of this extremely talented bunch of actors to shine, and show their stage craft. After a year and a half(ish) of regular bouts of staring intently at them in concentrated 3 hour stints, I’m starting to feel very fond of many of the ensemble* – and I'm probably fonder of those from the lower levels of the casting pyramid than those at the top. Whether a line or scene count would bear it out or not, this play certainly seems a lot more equally distributed amongst the cast than any of the Shakespeare plays. I find this very stimulating, and like the 'equality' of talent it suggests. There's a symbiosis between this casting approach and the variety of production techniques employed in this play that I'm sure someone more theatrically versed than me could expand upon. For me it's basically just lots of great stuff happening, being show to me by lots of great performers, and it's magical.

Now I’ve made the 'all for one' argument I feel curlish singling out any of the performances for special mention, so I’ll just say that after last Thursday’s performance I felt fondest of Oliver Ryan’s Gawain and Noma Dumezweni’s Morgan Le Fay. And at my previous visit back in June I loved Gruffudd Glyn’s Gareth and Peter Peverley’s Mordred most.

Anyway, enough late-night rambling. I hope those of you who are off to the Dust House filming tomorrow have a fantastic time, and I look forward to reading the report-back. If anyone from the RSC is reading this, I hope this is a play that makes a re-appearance in future years, now it’s finally committed to script. Maybe even, as Lorannah suggests above, as an extended two-parter?

(* I do so hope this is reciprocated. Though I have my doubts, as no-one from the cast has ever come up to me in the Duck and told me what a magnificent audience I was that evening, darling.)

[Lorannah]

Aug 23, 2010 22:38:58 GMT The Horne'd Moon said:

Firstly, I think it's because it is a great spectacle. Production values are always high at the RSC, but Arthur has been particularly splendid, using so many different dramatic devises and effects that within the bounds of the auditorium the senses are being constantly entreated to look elsewhere and think else-wise. Lorannah has already mentioned King Lot's horse, built from the bodies of slain knights and their heavy breathing chain mail, and that is a personal favourite of mine too. But I also love the graceful ascents of the Grail angels (anything that swoops in or out excites the child in me, whether in awe or exhileration), the preposterous use of stilts for the Red Knight, the wonderful physicality of the (Herne the Hunted?) stag, the ‘Jeux sans Frontier’ jousting scene and the ethereal mists of the Lady of the Lake. It’s kind of like going to the literary circus. There is even a dancing bear! (Gotta love a dancing bear)

Especially when the dancing bear slips a little bit of the Greased Lightning dance into his routine.

Anyway, many excellent points about the nature of the ensemble and the actors lack of thanks. But I wanted to mention, as you reminded me, how much I loved that a lot of the effects are sort of old fashioned. You can see how they're done and a lot of them are effective but simple. I loved that because between that and the narration (also a great equaliser of the cast because of the way it's shared) - it spoke volumes to me about the originally oral nature of these stories. There were moments for me when that could have been any time in history with me sitting and listening.