Theatre Review: King Lear

The Play: King Lear

The Company: Bell Shakespeare Company

The Theatre: The Fairfax Theatre at the Arts Centre

Stars: 3.75

Until: 11 August

My Shakespearean weekend continued with the Bell Shakespeare's production of King Lear, which I was looking forward to, as strangely, King Lear is my favourite of the Bard's tragedies. 

As tickets are as hard to find as rocking horse poo, I was pleased to score a single on the Sunday matinee. I've been watching Robert Menzies on stage for years and was looking forward to seeing him in the lead role. It was one of the drawcards. I also love most of what Bell Shakespeare put on the stage. I was hoping this would be a cracker. 

What was unforeseen was on arriving at the theatre we were told that Menzies had pulled out of the performance due to illness, so we were going to see the understudies. Although disappointing, I was still getting my Shakespeare fix, but it was going to be interesting how this would play out. The role of Lear was taken over by James Lugton (who normally plays Gloucester), who had his role taken over by Michael Wahl (who normally plays Cornwall), who's role was taken over by the understudy. 

And if I'm honest, it worked pretty well. The first act felt a bit slow, but the second act was great. 

As this has to be about the tenth performance of Lear that I've seen over the years, there was a lot to appreciate. 

The cut down set - really, just and empty stage, a couple of metal panels which produced the noise of the storms, and a couple of rough stools. Circular discs attached to the ceiling added to the light effects. 

As Lears go, this was a solid effort. Was it the best I've seen? No - I have to give that to Sir Ian McKellen a few years ago. But it was solid.

There was a lot to like. Kent and Edgar were played by women (Janine Watson and Alex King) and both were fabulous. The woman sitting next to me did not share my opinions, but that was her prerogative. I muttered something about "Okay, boomer" under my breath and got on with it. Why should it bloody matter if Kent and Edgar were being played by a she/her pronouned women. Does it bloody matter? I loved the performances. They were playing a character, not a gender. The woman next to me didn't seem to get this, but that's her problem. 

Cordelia and the Fool were played by the same actress to great effect. Something I love about Bell Shakespeare is that the use actors of every colour, creed and size. It's an egalitarian stage, something they've always striven for.

Anna Tregloan's staging and costumes were pared right back, which gave the words space to speak, just as Peter Evans' direction was sure and not fussy. Gone are the days of an actor overblowing their soliloquys. Instead, the text does the talking, complete with gentle Australian accents and no fluff. It's good to see. 

James Lugton's Lear was a recognisable one - a man coming to terms with his decisions and mortality. Yes, I would have loved to see Robert Menzies in the role. It wasn't going to happy. 

This is a more than competent King Lear. As I get older, I get more out of it. It's interesting to go into this knowing you have aging parents. Pondering what you would do in similar circumstances does not bear thinking about. For this is a play which is ostensibly about aging and the ravages of time. 400 years on it still has some salient messages. 

Today's song: