What is the Irish Shakespeare? This is not to ask for an
Irish equivalent, but to define an Irish approach to a British icon. It could
be said, from recent Irish productions of his works, there's an effort to
undermine some ideas that form the foundation of the plays; such as The Abbey's
production of A Midsummer Night's Dream, which took a story thematically
orientated to youth and vitality and dropped it into an incongruous nursing
home. Or perhaps more relevant: The Abbey's King Lear with its Celtic
aesthetic; a synthesis continued here with Garry Hynes' slimmed (but still
hefty) Henriad.
DruidShakespeare brings us Shakespeare's History series:
Richard II, Henry IV (part one and two), and Henry V, a sequence of plays some
refer to as The Henriad, and give it a distinctly Irish flavour. Its
"England" is a minimalistic stage of soil and steel, appearing as a
happy marriage between a bog and a meat factory. Richard, the doomed monarch of
the play's first part is brilliantly moody, played by a spookily white Marty
Rea; full of explosive joy and plummeting despair, dancing between comic and
horrific. This dance continues past Richard's downfall into Henry IV, as the grave,
guilty seriousness of Derbhle Crotty's Henry is contrasted with Rory Nolan's
bumbling Falstaff and the Eastcheap crew. It's this point of the (very) long
play that interest begins to wan; the loss of Marty Rea's Richard is only
partially compensated by Derbhle
Crotty's noble and sympathetic Henry IV. Aisling O' Sullivan makes for a much
too haughty and stiff young Prince Hal; his pranking of Falstaff is more
mean-spirited bullying rather than charming ribbing, and the expressionistic
take on the battle feels much too anti-climactic after the tense build-up to
the confrontation with Harry Percy and co. Henry IV part two follows this lull,
though it benefits greatly from its abridgment (Part two unabridged has a few
too many acts). The play once again finds it's comfort spot in Henry V; Aisling
O' Sullivan is a much better King Henry
than a Prince Hal, as she gives the plays numerous speeches with the necessary
grandeur; and peppering of Aaron Monaghan ludicrous, growling Pistol adds some
welcome levity.
Drama critic Fintan O'Toole wrote that DruidShakespeare asks
"How can a state rid itself of the chaos and violence from which it
emerges?" That key words, "violence" permeates the play, with
deaths accompanied by spurts of blood. Similarly, "chaos" is a good
descriptor of the play; its mood is borderline schizophrenic with its shifts
from serious drama to farce. Henry V's comical French opponents prance around
the stage with their ineffectual fencing one moment, and not long after we see
them brutally executing Henry's soldiers. If the play offers a solution to
Fintan O' Toole's question , it's by purging the state of its misfits, of its
loose cogs. As Henry V's rejection of Falstaff breaks him, through his war with
France, Henry cleanses his state of the rest of the comic misfits, petty
thieves and fools who have no place in Henry's vision. Astutely,
DruidShakespeare has these misfits rise from their deaths as a lingering elegy
to flawed humanity crushed in the machinations of a state.
Is this a definitive Irish take on Shakespeare? Who can say.
But DruidShakespeare c certainly delights itself in its wrestling with its
source material, with small ironies such as Henry IV referring to himself as a
true born Englishman when this play's Henry is neither English nor a man. It
delivers on drama and laughs; and manages to entertain despite a slight dip in
the middle, which is impressive for a play five-plus hours long.
Great observations on a great play.
ReplyDelete