Update (07/19/06): My review of Macbeth posted today at Style. Check it out.
So this is where it gets difficult. Saw MacBeth last night at Agecroft, didn't really like the production. No time to elaborate right now. Review forthcoming...
Update (07/17/06): Here's a link to the Times-Dispatch review, wherein the production is described as "interesting" and "quirky." I'm pretty sure my review will appear in Style in this Wednesday's edition and I'll post a link as soon as there is one.
4 comments:
I agree with your comments. I noticed that besides Lady Macbeth and the Witches there was no energy on stage. Macbeth, Banquo, Macduff, Malcolm ALL lacked any kind of stage presence. It's also hard to feel an emotional connection with the characters when you can't hear what they are saying. Actors that perform at Agecroft are normally well warned of the frogs, trains, and other noises that they need to be heard over. This cast seemed ignorant of that. I've seen several productions at Agecroft and most are above average to great, unfortunately Macbeth is decidedly below par.
It took me a while to find this site (richmondtheater? richmondvatheatre? too many close spellings) but Im glad I did. I saw MacBeth on Sat and was disapointed. I usually love the Agecroft shows and I kept wanting to love this one. But I was confused from the beginning -- I thought Banquo was MacBeth. The bloddy scenes were good but the rest seemed like filler. I'll be going to their indoor shows this fall though; they were pretty great last year.
Thanks for the clarification, sarachkah. I was a little worried that I had let you down...
As a past performer at Richmond Shakespeare who has NOT seen MACBETH, I'm sorry to read that the consensus is that this production is less than stellar, so I suppose it must be true. Though I'm guessing at the cause, as an "acting insider" I have to think this is due to one director's acting approach as opposed to others. While I've employed "method" techniques myself, I haven't found them entirely reliable for stage performances, and I have come to believe that method acting is well suited to TV and film, where one really "true" take is the goal (I have some experience here as well, and it IS a different challenge for the actor, no doubt about it). On stage, you have no such luxury and must employ a more energetic, external technique, duplicated performance after performance with little variation. Again, this is just a guess, but having worked with some outstanding actors (and having seen many others at the top level)and knowing there's some good talent in this production, I have to think the problem lies in the direction. No one shoots for a "quirky" or "languid" performance, nor do they want to see one.
Post a Comment