I thought they must have cut down the text, they must have bastardised it, they must have really fucked with it. I was thinking, they must have really ripped it to pieces and put it back together again and then I read it again and thought, no they haven’t, Shakespeare just sort of wrote a psychological thriller one day. You can stretch it out to three hours if you want but there’s no need. And if you’re outside yourself you’ll just keep consuming and consuming and consuming. The fact that we are doing it as Scottish I don't think is massively relevant. But I don’t really feel it is a play about Scotland or what it is to be Scottish.
I just remember thinking that was fucking thrilling. That’s part of his problem in the play, that he keeps consuming. It’s just a story inspired by history that was designed as a present for James I.
See more » I was very excited about these four new versions of great plays. The comedies (using the meaning of the term applied to the plays) use language to sustain a world where love and intrigue are complex, lacy things.
Then I saw "Much Ado about Nothing" which happens to be the best of these and my hopes soared. This effect can be carried by cinematic means, with potentially as much sophistication.
A 47-minute version by Ludwig Landmann reached silent screens in 1913, and three years later, John Emerson unveiled his 80-minute take, under the producing supervision of director D. Both the Landmann and Emerson films are lost, but the : Patrick Stewart Goold adapted his own stage version from the Chichester Festival (and later the West End and Broadway) for BBC4, employing the same cast and the same military-dictatorship setting based on Stalin's Russia.
The film was shot entirely on location in the unique warren of eerie tunnels beneath Welbeck Abbey in Nottinghamshire: not unlike a military bunker, but with a ballroom.
It is no overstatement to say that his king of Scotland is a revelation - the reviews have certainly said as much. And it makes their loss all the sadder, when he delivers the "Tomorrow and tomorrow and tomorrow" speech, which is an expression of utter blackness and fatalism and almost bordering on nihilism. So it opened up the idea of maybe doing the proper text young as well.
The first Scottish actor to play Macbeth in London in many years talks to theartsdesk. I just usually don't shave until I get a job and they make me. But the situation that the Macbeth archetype found himself was pretty much exactly the same one. A lot of the play is to do with just four lines, which begin “I have given suck...” And what’s brilliant is that these two 30somethings in our production are going through something that is very very rife right now, with people trying to have kids and not being able to in their thirties.It loses so much power that the only fun is in the references to Shakespeare the same fun you get from those teen parody compilations. We have lost all of the context in which the play was written, all that stuff about divine selection of rulers, magical insight into the mechanics of the universe, and locally the controversies about James and his rough Scots exoticism.So replanting that context into an elite kitchen is a very clever idea.But in the tragedies, the language is used to build structures great and small that knot concepts in challenging and troubling ways.This, potentially could be effected cinematically, but to lead the narrative you would need a rare cinematic genius. So what you have is the story roughly preserved and a few character traits that come along with it. Equally comfortable playing romantic leads and action heroes, he has never been quite a force in theatre. He has prioritised screen roles over stage opportunities.