|
Ever since Doctor Faustus was part of my A-Level English syllabus, I've been a devotee of Christopher Marlowe. Indeed, while at University I performed in both Tamburlaine the Great
(put to death by Joan Plowright's nephew) and Edward II (put to death by Jeffrey Archer's barrister). So I was very much looking forward to Lucy Bloxham's production of Doctor Faustus,
and a return to Theatro Technis after what seems like an age. I must confess that I don't remember the play as being quite so inconsequential.
The basic premise is massive - sell your soul to the devil for a period of years (24 in this case) and all power is
yours for the duration. But what does Faustus do with this omnipotence?
He throws food around at the Pope's banquet, sticks a pair of horns on a knight's head while visiting the Emperor,
and presents a pregnant Duchess with a bunch of grapes in January. This list, of course, doesn't include the scenes the Director cut from the play involving servants, innkeepers, ostlers
and the like. Was it really worth suffering eternal damnation for that?
I'd also forgotten basically how mediaeval the play is; considering it was written in the 1590s, so many elements seemed to hark back to the mystery and morality plays of earlier centuries.
Did English playgoers of the time still have such a literal view of devils and their ilk so many decades after the Reformation?
Jonathon Cooper held the stage from the start as a charismatic Faustus. This is a monster of a role and he tackled it very well. On stage already as the audience filed in, he cleverly
suggested the restlessness of the scholar before eventually launching into the long opening speech. I thought Mr Cooper was a bit over-expressive at the beginning but his performance soon
settled down, helped by the weighty on-stage presence of Robert Reeve as the devil Mephistopheles. I really liked this characterisation - it would be too easy to make Mephistopheles an other-worldly
creature, but in this production he was very firmly grounded in reality, conveying both evil and humanity at the same time. The scenes between these two protagonists were very well-handled, and
the opening of the veins so that Faustus could write his contract in blood was most impressive.
The Director had assembled a huge cast of 15 for this production - it just seemed unfortunate that 13 of them didn't really have a great deal to do. I can't fault any of the individual performances
specifically but then again I can't really name-check everyone involved. There were, moreover, some delightful cameo characterisations from Alexander Grant as Pride and the
Duke of Vanholt, from Niki Mylonas as his very pregnant Duchess and from Robert Pennant-Jones as the Old Man.
The basic problem with the play is that having established the essential battle between Good and Evil, (well-personified by the Good and Bad Angels frequently at Faustus' shoulder in the
form of Anton Renouf and James McKendrick), most of the play descended into near-farce which probably had them rolling in the aisles in the 1590s but which like so much Shakespearian
comedy rarely raises a snigger these days. I must confess that I groaned inwardly when I sensed the "horns on his head" gag coming up. Given the period, and the Papal contract issued against the
Queen in 1570, it was quite understandable to have a go at the Pope. I was intrigued that Marlowe was very precise about which Pope was portrayed by Nigel Oram - specifically Pope Adrian
VI whose brief reign lasted only 20 months. Why he, I wondered, when you had so many others to choose from?
Also intriguing to the amateur historian in me was the fact that Marlowe specifically chose to represent Emperor Charles V (Ian Hoare), thus ostensibly putting the play in a definite
historical context, while at the same time anachronistically referencing King Philip of Spain (his son) and the Duke of Parma (his grandson).
I am all too aware of the limitations on setting possibilities in this theatre and the set worked adequately enough without being particularly exciting. The entrance to hell downstage right
looked impressive, and the stage right seat banking served well as a curtained-off area for Lucifer and Beelzebub. It seemed a shame that not more could have been done to disguise the two
double doors at the back. The projected digital clock counting down the years was a clever stroke, but could the projector not have been used to further effect ? I was longing for a bit more in
the way of atmospherics - smoke or haze or something. I don't know if it was a wrong lighting cue but the Helen of Troy scene definitely shouldn't have been played in full-on stage lighting.
It's a play about magic and I just needed a bit more of it.
The costumes were an interesting mishmash of modern(ish) and mediaeval/ Elizabethan and they generally worked. The Seven Deadly Sins were fun, although couldn't envy have worn a green dress? The
Emperor's costume was a bit on the dull side, and I would have liked to have seen Alexander the Great in something a bit more ancient Greek. I was also slightly concerned by the fact that
Matt Cranfield was wearing his glasses throughout the production - for one role perhaps, but not for all four.
The end of the play took me (and the rest of the audience) by surprise. Faustus' final speech as his hour approaches is a real tour de force so it was a bit of a shock when rather than being
dragged off to hell screaming, he merely exited quietly upstage with a barely audible "Come Mephistopheles". It was an interesting take on the speech although I'm not sure it really worked.
All in all though, this was a fine effort all round and Lucy Bloxham is to be congratulated for taking on such a behemoth of a play as her directorial debut.
Photography by Robert Piwko
|
