Right, I am going to have to blog very, very, very quickly today as my internet is being incredibly tempremental and could die at any second. During the quick period that I have taken to research the productions of Faustus, (googled the reviews and 'sage history') I can now tell you a little about the productions of it.
Historically, according to the University of Warwick's English Literature dept (they have a Faustus database- impresive or what) the earliest productions of Faustus were between 1594-1597. Lord Admiral's men were the theatre troop that put it on at the Rose theatre- so there you have it Faustus at its earliest. Little is recorded about the production in Faustus' early years, I guess there wasn't a buzzing industry of arts critics in the 16th and 17th centuries. However following a revival in 1602, Faustus was on the stage for a long period during the 1600s. According to wikipedia in one 1932 production, two devils actually appeared on the stage! (Someone obviously had a really good sense of humour!)
Following links from the warwick website there are some reviews of productions of Faustus in the 20th Century, unfortunately there isn't access for non-Warwick students/ staff, I might see if I can look in the Times archives and comment later (when I know I have a secure internet connecion) on what they have said.
The most recent production of Faustus was this year. The play was staged at the Globe Theatre in London for the first time ever in its history. Unfortunately, it wasn't particularly well met by the criticis, Brian Logan from the Guardian wrote, "You leave feeling you have plumbed the contents of the theatre's wardrobe department, not the depths of the spiritual abyss." (Guardian, 24 June 2011) Logan picks up that a problem with the production is that, "The horrors to which he has pledged his soul, meanwhile, are weakly represented by Arthur Darvill's Mephistopheles, and by a Lucifer wearing silly facial hair."(Guardian, 24 June 2011) It may very well be that Arthur Darvill wasn't convincing, but then I have always thought that Mephistopheles was meant to be the subtle messenger of hell- not obviously evil or horrific, but a character that possesses a greater gold over Faustus as the play progresses.
Charles Spencer's review in The Telegraph is equally critical of the production, he describes Paul Hilton's Faustus as, "vocally underpowered" and says that Arthur Darvill is "woefully miscast as Mephistopheles"
Anyhow, better go now as I think the internet is on its last legs, just wanted to also mention that I saw the RSC's version of 'A Midsummer Night's Dream' down in Stratford at the weekend- my favourite Shakespeare production yet
Links to reviews (tried to get The Independent one too but internet wasn't coopertating)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2011/jun/24/doctor-faustus-review
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/theatre/theatre-reviews/8597343/Doctor-Faustus-Shakespeares-Globe-review.html
No comments:
Post a Comment