The Play

I find it extremely difficult to start to write about this play in a way that will not lead me on to an interpretive discourse that would cover pages. After all, weighty books have been written on this play alone. Certainly, the play ranks as one of my favourites, despite the fact that most of the productions of it that I have seen have been painful to watch. It is the play of Shakespeare’s that has probably been ‘done’ the most either in whole or in part. As far as the latter is concerned the sub-plot of the ‘rude mechanicals’ is popular because it stands as a unit on its own, provided the transformation of Bottom is omitted. Popularity, however, has probably constituted the biggest disservice to the play itself.

So many groups embark upon a production which is an imitation of one that has impressed the producer sometime in the past. Others see the play as a marvellous opportunity to indulge in a costume spectacular, in which the fairies become pretty but totally meaningless ballerinas. Some cannot resist the temptation to flog the humour of the rehearsal sequences by giving them pure farce treatment, instead of regarding the participants as manual labourers seriously attempting something intellectual for the first time in their lives. Few take a leaf from Peter Brook’s copybook and actually get down to reading the play with a clear mind. Only then can one get down to questions like – “what kind of dream is this?” – “whose dream is it?” How does one interpret Puck, when Robin Goodfellow is traditionally an evil sprite? I have seen productions in which the relationship between Puck and Oberon is blatantly homosexual – and it made sense. This was part of an interpretation that originated in Germany, in which the whole play was seen an eve of marriage erotic dream, containing almost every known sexual perversion.

All this stresses the importance of the producer taking a clear and definite line on the play. The production must be positive, otherwise it will inevitably become a wishy-washy hotchpotch of visually pleasing confusion. The main virtue of the St Neots Players production was that it did take a clear line, and one that had due regard for the venue and conditions of the performance. The line was one of simplicity, in which all the stress was laid on the clarity of the story. The intermingling of the sub-plots was not allowed to confuse. It is futile to attempt a deep, intellectual approach in the situation where an audience can be attracted from the bar at any point in the action, and where the presentation is that of a shortened version. The cutting of the text, incidentally, was most judicious. Clarity and purposefulness formed the keynote, and the result was most effective.

The Acting

Thesus played by John McCabe

I have rarely seen this part played [well]. It looks deceptively easy. All you have to do is play it ‘straight’ [whatever] that means. But if you do, you are likely to create a Theseus that is so negative that he is totally devoid of personality. John was off to a good start with a strong stage presence and a good, powerful voice to go with it. His first appearance was imposing and his whole [performance] was well-controlled. Theseus’ function in the first scene is pure exposition, which gives him little to get his teeth into. He fulfilled this function well, however, – the exposition was clear and meaningful, although the poetry tended to suffer in the telling. Although expository the verse is good. He did, however, do justice to the peotry later in the play. Spontaneity was also lacking in places. There was a moment of anticipation, for instance, when he said “But soft, what nymphs are these” before he had seen anything – a small point but an unfortunate one. John was undoubtedly at his best in the final scene. Here, the personality came over in no small way, and the spontaneity was there. his approach was expansive and his dialogue extremely well-pointed. In total, this was one of the most impressive performances in the production and it should be noted that it was a performance of a character that is among those that have the least to do in the notion.

Egeue played by Ted Pygott

This is a short part but the line to be taken and the function of the character is clear and definite. Ted needed more confidence in his approach and more certainty of his lines. Vocal hesitations were weakening and very much at odds with the good physical control and strength that he possessed.