A review by Oxford Prospect theatre critic
Julia Gasper 26 July 2009
OXFORD THEATRE GUILD is a cherished institution that is an essential part of the summer scene. Their productions of Shakespeare, performed by talented amateurs, have got a lot to teach the so-called professionals, and their Henry V was a lot better than the two recent professional productions I have seen.
The role of the redoubtable Henry, playboy-turned-soldier-and national-hero was taken with gusto by Alistair Nunn, who brought power and energy to the part. He certainly looked like a military man in his bearing and delivered the great speeches to his troops, at Agincourt and Harfleur, with authority. I would make only one tiny point, which is that by getting a bit too worked up in his prayer speech the night before the great battle, he did detract a bit from the effect of the St. Crispin’s Day oration that follows.
The extremely difficult role of Pistol was taken by Tim Younger, the best Pistol I have ever seen, absurd, pompous, cowardly and finally pathetic. Brian Drowley managed to double the roles of Sir Thomas Erpingham and Bardolph, the rogue who gets hanged for stealing. He was terrific, though he might just have made a little more of his memorable line, “Base is the slave that pays…” An even greater tour-de-force was accomplished by Adam Potterton, who doubled the roles of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the brave Welsh soldier, Fluellen.
Among the many excellent performances, we must mention that of James Silk as the Dauphin, and how very splendidly French he looked. Of course he has to be a loser in this play, though the chorus does admit at the end that the English victories were rather short-lived. Kevin Elliot made a brief appearance as the Governor of Harfleur, shrouded in a cowl. Charlotte Evans was a delightful young Princess of France. The chorus was performed in a variety of ways by a group of four women, who used mime and gesture to stimulate our imaginations, and the final chorus, in which the death of Henry V and the succession of his baby son were also mimed, (or acted in dumb-show to use the Elizabethan term) had great impact.
How refreshing it is to see Shakespeare done straight, with no gimmicks, a cast wearing proper costumes, and some very suitable music, composed specially for this production by Lorri Atkins and performed by an Elizabethan wind consort. This was not a slavishly “period” production, as the 20th-cent wartime songs, for example, seemed absolutely appropriate, but it was Shakespeare done the way people expect – and hope – it will be done. What a welcome change.
This is a perplexing play, and it gives in many respects a far from heroic or idealized picture of war. The emphasis on the goriness and wasted lives, the grave moral responsibility of the leaders, the plunder, rape and disease that an army inflicted as it crossed a country, and even the dubious politics that that led up to the war, all counter-balances a simple picture of a national hero and a glorious victory. It’s curious how Shakespeare always seems to be bang up to date. You put on the old, familiar stuff again and find yourself reflecting on how similar its themes are to what’s in the news today. In the opening scenes, the two bishops discuss how they want a war to prevent the king from imposing a severe tax on the church, and they then proceed to find him all the pretexts he wants for an immediate invasion of France – was this the dodgy dossier of the fifteenth century?
We hope to see many future productions from Oxford Theatre Guild of the same high standard. Long may it flourish!
Julia Gasper.
