THEATRE REVIEW
A Hippie Macbeth
By Kent Barker
Since Stanislavski, actors preparing a role seek to uncover motivation. And while I hardly dare question the Bard, I wonder if some of his characters don’t have slight problems with motive.
Take Othello. Can we really believe that those few poisoned words from Iago actually make him believe his new passionate love, Desdemona, has been unfaithful? It’s frankly implausible. Much suspension of disbelief is going to be needed to get through the rest of the action.
It’s also partly true with Hamlet. One sight of his father’s ghost stalking the Elsinore ramparts and he’s all but beating up his mother and trying to bump off his stepfather. Possible but unlikely.
CREDIT: Peter Mould
And the same thought occurred while watching the new production of Macbeth at the Stables Theatre. The mild-mannered Thane of Glamis almost instantly turns to regicide following a few words from his missus. It won’t really wash. And I’m afraid it really doesn’t, given a slight paucity of chemistry between Matt Hastings’ Macbeth and his Lady, Mary Campbell. I’m a bit of a sucker for women in leather trousers so I’d probably have done almost anything for her – but I just couldn’t believe that Matt – I mean Macbeth – would have. As she says, he’s just too full of the milk of human kindness. And so we need some motivation. Later, in the sleepwalking scene, Mary Campbell is really excellent. But at the beginning of the play I can’t see why anyone would have bought her an ice cream – let alone killed a king for her – leather troose and Scottish brogue notwithstanding. It needs a serious sexual dynamic between the Macbeths to make it plausible.
Matt Hastings was a bit slow to come to the boil as well. Mind you when he did he was stunning, holding the audience in the palm of his hand and showing that less is often more on the stage. For a non-professional production this was high end stuff. Francis Viner’s direction and design was imaginative if sometimes a tad inconsistent. I dubbed it the hippie Macbeth for its ponytailed protagonists, guitar music, references to dope, and army surplus costumes. Having the entire cast on stage the whole time worked, as did – mainly – turning the cyclorama into a vast projection screen, often showing a slightly delayed and filtered video of the action from concealed cameras. During the ‘Tomorrow and Tomorrow’ soliloquy how-ever, swirling shots of trees proved a major distraction.
I know it’s the modern way, but turning Shakespeare’s sublime iambic pentameter into colloquial speech does tend to emasculate it. Perhaps we no longer want the declamatory style of a Garrick or Bernhardt – or even a Gielgud or Olivier – but to swallow those rhyming couplets, particularly at the end of scenes, proves anti-climactic – and it gives non-professional actors a much tougher mountain to scale.
On the whole though, the cast of 14 coped well with the words, Luke Morphew and young Edie B Miller standing out. Overall it was an ambitious production and the hard work that went into it from the cast, crew and a small army of volunteers, was plain to see.
• Macbeth is at the Stables Theatre until Saturday 12 February.
We hope you have enjoyed reading this article. The future of our volunteer led, non-profit publication would be far more secure with the aid of a small donation. You can also support local journalism by becoming a friend of HIP. It only takes a minute and we would be very grateful.
Are your unnecessary comments on a woman’s appearance, your sexual preferences and your need for sexual tension in order to comprehend emotions and actions an attempt to inject some masculinity in to this apparently emasculated take on Macbeth?
Even as a paying audience member women don’t owe you anything and an invitation to review a play is not an invitation to comment on a woman’s appearance.
We don’t want or need it.
Tired, sexist nonsense you still felt important and relevant enough to be heard.
I am writing to complain about the unnecessary sexist remarks made by Kent Barker in this review of Macbeth at the Stables Theatre
I was a member of the cast, playing both male and female roles and, just to be clear, I fully support reviewers giving their honest opinion on a play. Whilst Mr Barker stated that there was no sexual chemistry between the Macbeths, his comments “ I’m a bit of a sucker for women in leather trousers so I’d probably have done almost anything for her “ and “I can’t see why anyone would have bought her an ice cream – let alone killed a king for her – leather troose and Scottish brogue notwithstanding. “ revealed more about the reviewer than the play. The reference to buying her an ice-cream (or not, with the implication that this would be decided depending how sexy she is in her leather trousers) is downright creepy.
Come on, HIP – how did this 1980s sexist style of theatre critics drooling over the leading actors get through the Editorial Board? Yes, we’re “non-professionals” at the Stables but we all try to work together to achieve a level of excellence. Maybe the non-professionals at HIP should try to do the same.
From Sally Ann Lycett
“ponytailed protagonists, guitar music, references to dope, and army surplus costumes”.
Yes, because Shakespeare had a short back and sides, never utilised musical instruments and definitely didn’t write the words ‘Have we eaten on the insane root that takes the reason prisoner?’
Missed the point? The point has rather flown over your head….