Three Days in the Country, after Ivan Turgenev, adapted and directed by Patrick Marber, National Theatre, London, 8* out of 10

Shortening Turgenev’s original “Month in the Country” to three days, Patrick Marber focuses on the comedic side of this Comedy of Manners. Even on the first preview night, this was a smooth and most enjoyable sell-out performance on the big Lyttleton stage.


In a long hot summer, in the 1850s at the Islaev country estate the Arkady Islaev (John Light) and his wife Natalya Petrovna (Amanda Drew) are hosting guests for the summer. Their young son Kolya is being tutored in German by the young student Alekesei Bilyaev (Royce Pierreson) protégé of the German Professor Schaaf (Gawn Grainger).  While Arkady Islaev busies himself with running his estate, Bilyaev awakes the the passions of Natalya Petrovna and her 17-year-old ward Vera (Lily Sacofsky). Before deciding on whether it would be wise to engage in any sexual relations with the upper echelons of the house he has to decide whether a mutually enjoyable fling with Katya the maid (Cherelle Skeete). Meanwhile Nataly Petrovna and Vera have to consider other potential partners for what they have in mind, none as young and vigorous, as Bilyaev, though. There is Rakitin (John Simm) Arkady Islaev’s best friend and secretly in love with Natalya, who has made him her best friend and confidant and there is the hapless middle aged neighbour Bolshintzov who thinks young Vera would be a way to marry his fortune together with the Islaev estate. Livening up the proceedings is country doctor Shpigelsky (Mark Gatiss) who is better evaluating his own strength and weaknesses then making accurate diagnoses.

Shortening Turgenev’s original “Month in the Country” to three days, Patrick Marber focuses on the comedic side of this Comedy of Manners, although this being 19th century Russian comedy there is quite a bit of melancholy and drama but not the deeply felt pathos of the Chekhovian Russian soul. It should be noted that Turgenev wrote his play before the Chekhovian masterpieces had gained recognition. He had to wait a few decades to get his play past the Tsarist censor. Nonetheless interest in Turgenev grew Chekhov’s plays had become famous. In a sense Turgenev is Chekhov-light and funny. Being caught in a loveless marriage cannot be much fun for Natalya Petrovna, and restrained by her sense of bourgeois morals and absent the modern apps of Tinder and Ashley Madison, she has to make do with desiring, or not, the male company available at her country estate. 

Thanks to an attractive set and costumes, direction that underscores the intent of the writer and a very competent ensemble of actors this production, even on the first preview night, was a smooth and most enjoyable performance on the big Lyttleton stage. Mark Gatiss stands out by making the most of all the best lines, followed not far behind by John Simm’s Rakitin and Amanda Drew’s Natalya Petrovna.  Enthusiastic applause by audience in  the sold-out preview performance.  

http://www.nationaltheatre.org.uk/shows/three-days-in-the-country

Three Days In The Country

Richard II, by William Shakespeare, directed by Simon Goodwin, Globe Theatre London, 8* out of 10

Richard II contains acutely observed and depicted characters and some wonderful lines. The production is uncomplicated and focuses on the essential.  It is carried by a competent cast of actors who deliver their lines with great aplomb. This play is especially rewarding for those interested in politics or English history.

Anointed king at 10 years of age, Shakespeare’ s play deals with the last 2 turbulent years of Richard’s reign. At the beginning of the play, the King, known for his good looks, is called to arbitrate a bitter dispute between his cousin Henry Bolingbroke and Mowbray. He changes his mind several times on how to settle it. First he agrees to let them fight a duel; but then he interferes at the last moment and decides to banish both from England, Mowbray for life and Bolingbroke for 6 years. He never explains that unequal treatment, which looks arbitrary to the other Barons. They sense their king is becoming dangerously arbitrary and perhaps quite insecure. 

Relying on a very limited retinue of manipulative characters the king becomes ever more tyrannical and inconsistent in his decisions. When he needs money for a war in Ireland and hears that John of Gaunt is about to die, he alienates the landed nobility further by deciding to confiscate the dying man’s land and treasures rather than letting the inheritance pass on to Henry Bolingbroke. Enraged Henry returns early from banishment to take back what he sees as rightfully his. As things go very well for him, he decides to increase the level of his ambitions; or is it only that he decides to reveal the full extent of his ambitions only now?  In any case, Henry now wants to force Richard to abdicate. But once Henry has wrested the crown from Richard, what to do with an ex-king who, while still alive, will always be a danger to the man who has deposed him? 

For Shakespeare the wildly inconsistent Richard’s rule at the end of his reign, his narcissistic character and his inattention to keeping a wide group of his Baron’s satisfied, lies at the root of the coming Wars of the Roses between the Houses of Lancaster and York. 

Richard II contains acutely observed and depicted characters and some wonderful lines. There is John of Gaunt’s declaration of affection for England, “This royal throne of kings, this scepter'd isle, this earth of majesty, this seat of Mars, this other Eden, demi-paradise”, and there are Richard’s musings, as he realises his reign will come to a premature end “for within the hollow crown, that rounds the mortal temples of a king keeps Death his court”.

The production is uncomplicated and focuses on the essential.  It is carried by a competent cast of actors who deliver their lines with great aplomb. Charles Edwards in the role of the capricious Richard II and Edward Gaunt as John of Gaunt, Richard’s uncle and the father of the usurper Henry Bolingbroke, stand out. 
    
The risk you take when going to see a production at the semi-open-air Globe Theatre is that your enjoyment may be affected by the weather and other environmental factors that do not play much of a role at more conventional theatre venues. During the Friday Matinee performance of Richard II the clouds over London opened their floodgates and the passenger planes landing seemed to want to give their passengers a glimpse of the performance. The audience sitting on the covered benches stayed dry but could not hear all of the text while those standing in the pit probably heard every word, but did get absolutely drenched in the process.

Nevertheless, playing and watching Shakespeare in the rain at the Globe Theatre, "these scepter'd aisles this demi-covered stage", is inspiring; actors and the audience form a special bond and have a great time.

http://www.shakespearesglobe.com/theatre/whats-on/globe-theatre/richard-ii-2015