TD 303
April 15, 2012
Live Performance Critique #2 – Love’s Labour’s Lost Today I went to go see Love’s Labour’s Lost. Having read many Shakespearean plays I was somewhat aware of what to expect from today’s play. I had not, however, read Love’s Labour’s Lost before. So after the opening scene I was pleased to find out that the play was in fact a comedy. I was not pleased, though, with the length. Also, three hours watching a play isn’t my ideal way to spend a Sunday afternoon. This doesn’t mean, however, that there weren’t certain parts of the play that I enjoyed. It was impressive how all of the actors were able to memorize/improvise all of their lines without a notable mess-up. Before going into the theatre I wasn’t sure what time period the play would take place in. It could have been like Leonardo DiCaprio’s Romeo and Juliet or the Ethan Hawke Hamlet, in which the play takes place in modern times. Or it could have taken place in the late 1500s or early 1600s, I had no idea. When I saw Berowne, Loganville, and Dumaine dressed in what appeared to be early 1900s preppy clothes dancing and playing badminton I knew this wouldn’t be a typical Shakespearean play. As the play progressed I started watching not because it was required of me to do, but more so for enjoyment. The thing I appreciated most about this play was the use of humor. I know this play was a comedy, but just because something is a comedy doesn’t mean that it is in fact funny. Love’s Labour’s Lost was quite funny though. There were certain instances throughout the play where the entire audience—myself included—burst out loud laughing. Instances of this included when King Ferdinand of Navarre was reading a letter silently while Don Adriano de Armado read the letter aloud. Initially, I couldn’t figure out why the audience was laughing, but when I looked more closely I could see the humor. Another humorous exchange occurred between Don Adriano de Armado and Moth. I liked how they were wearing pink socks and their discourse was intriguing. They took a few words including “juvenile” and “young” and made a lengthy funny scene out of it, and I appreciated that. I also—shockingly—liked the ample usage of sexual humor and innuendos. It added to the overall comedic air, and it piqued my interest at times. All the characters were frank, albeit in Shakespearian language, about their sexual conquests and endeavors. For example, Rosaline made a suggestive sexual motion on a pole she was holding and many other characters added an extra hip thrust or two to enhance their words. The character I liked the most in this play was Costard. When he first appeared in his flashy, flamboyant clothes I thought he would be the gay jester or something to that effect. Well he was clownish and I felt he stole every scene he was in. He was funny and foolishly switched letters; he gave the one supposed to go to Rosaline to Jaquenetta and the one supposed to go to Jaquenetta to Rosaline. He was mischievous and similar to many other characters in other Shakespeare plays. I felt that he was properly cast for this role and I couldn’t see anyone else in the cast being able to play Costard as well as he did.
One thing I did not like, however, was the lack of chemistry between Berowne and Rosaline and between King Ferdinand of Navarre and the Princess of France. While these characters are supposed to be in love with each other it did not appear so on stage. There wasn’t “love in the air” tonight so to speak, and when Rosaline kissed Berowne at the end it was not passionate or romantic. It seemed forced, and ultimately did not, in my opinion, achieve its purpose. If you aren’t going to see this guy for one year plus a day, you better make that one kiss count. The main thing I did not like about this play was its length. I knew it was going to run almost three hours, but I have never been to a three hour play before so I was not ready for how long sitting there for three hours would take. The first segment was interesting and humorous. However, once the intermission rolled around I was becoming very tired. In fact, I fell asleep for a bit after the play resumed. All I remember was something about Muscovites and the girls playing a trick on their suitors. Then for the rest of the play I was groggy and not as attentive as I was at the beginning. If the play would have been condensed down to two hours I would have paid more attention and been more interested. This show was for mature audiences, especially due to sometimes sexual content and subject matter. There were, however, a few young children in the audience. I feel in the 17th century this play would have been enjoyed by those with a healthy funny bone, and in today’s environment it would be appropriate for pretty much anyone who is mature. I would not recommend this play simply for the fact that it is three hours long and many, if not all, of my friends would leave or fall asleep well before the play’s end. I particularly noticed the usage of extended monologues and soliloquys by many of the characters. As we come to the end of our class it is clear that you expect us to be pretty far along with our acting abilities now, as compared to the beginning of the semester. By seeing how these characters gave their monologues in context with their scenes, I was able to see how I should give my monologue when I present.