A trip to see this play would be as vain as the endeavours of both production and actors, which is to say, not at all. It exhibited everything you look for in Shakespeare, especially one of his comedies: well executed word-play, physical animation (both facial and otherwise) and a set of costumes wholesomely designed.
The surroundings of Christ Church Cathedral gardens lent weight to the idea that I was watching an intimate royal court, attempting to reach intellectual enlightenment through sexual abstinence (on whatever irony that sentence might have I decline to comment). However, due to the nature of a garden play, voice can often be drowned and, though it was not to the overall detriment of the play, the actors risked not being heard in their quieter moments due to this. Likewise, some of the direction seemed not to take the audience’s vision in to account (the stage is not raised à la Globe), which was disappointing as I’m sure it was excellent. The costumes were an absolute delight and costume in general is one aspect that seems to be only lightly treated. Either a lot of attention had gone into sourcing them, or someone involved has a natural eye for this sort of thing, but whatever the case it was one of the many elements that went into the making of this charming production.
All actors were strong players, each portraying an individually well-grounded character, yet working together sublimely; it is always a pleasure to see a group who exhibit such a strong sense of togetherness, despite it being a relatively large cast. Merriment came across as genuine merriment and I almost felt envy at being barred from the action. Indeed, the typical Shakespearean technique of mingling with the crowd incorporated the audience, but never seemed overdone. Accents were unusually good – I don’t recall hearing a slip; physical animation was used to its full, bordering on, but never descending into, slap-stick; and facial expressions and an ability to stand on stage without looking like they don’t know how to stand on stage were indicators that the director had a strong set of naturally gifted actors. All of this added to what was a genuinely convincing performance.
Though I’d like to comment on all players, particular note must go to Moth and the Princess of France’s valet. The former was in complete control of character, her timing was remarkable and, despite having a smaller role, was a dark horse among the others. Hudson, on the other hand, was more subtle in comparison and his comic timing exhibited itself in various ways throughout. To mention just two of the actors is not to take away from the quality of the others; everyone had clearly developed their characters impressively and there was, on anyone’s part, no resort to disingenuous or vapid acting, which is so often the case with student theatre.
I must admit, however, that I’d like to have seen the clear innuendo of the text brought out a little more – it was there at times, but too sparse and the play seemed at times to risk becoming too serious, which meant that the final scene was not as hard-hitting as it could have been. Similarly, there was nothing too extravagant about what the director had done with this text. However, daring interpretations of Shakespeare can often just be such a disappointing waste of theatrical space and an audience’s attention, so this middle-of-the-line performance was, in this sense, perfect.
FOUR AND A HALF STARS
