This
production leaves me in a quandary. Is
it an intellectual representation of themes, or is it emotionally engaging
theatre? Either intention is possible,
but neither is successfully achieved.
Praise first,
however. Ian Croker stood out as
Enobarbus. In the difficult acoustics of
the Arts Centre, his enunciation was clear and the character's emotions and
understanding of the political and warfare manoeuvrings were plain to see. He held the play together. It was a mistake to ask him to also play the
Clown who brings the asp to Cleopatra, but Croker managed even that transition
very well.
Christa de
Jager's Cleopatra became much more successful after
But otherwise
things fell short of good intentions.
Mark Antony (Douglas Amarfio) was never "the crown o' the
earth" as Cleopatra calls him, nor ever "my brother, my competitor in
top of all design, my mate in empire" at whose death Octavius (Duncan Ley)
weeps. Amarfio's vocal skills and
presence on stage were just not up to the mark.
Ley, too, despite strong performances in other plays, was constrained by
a business suited Octavius - even at the height of battle - and could give no
more than occasional flashes of the consummate strategist that he needed to be
to defeat Pompey, then Antony and Cleopatra, and go on to become Augustus
Caesar.
Costume design
seemed to try to be thematic, but the mix of beautiful and erotic ancient
Egyptian women among modern suits and army gear made Cleopatra look too much
like a good time girl on the make in Bangkok instead of the powerful Queen of
Egypt which de Jager did her best to play.
If the Romans had also been dressed in their historically correct
costumes, the setting would have been immediately established in a consistent
style, allowing the play to tell its own story without problems like soldiers
with modern guns committing suicide by falling on their swords. Otherwise go all modern, or timeless, but be
consistent.
The result? "Take to you no hard thoughts" but don't expect too much.
Return to Frank McKone's Home Page