My Thoughts on CYMBELINE, or, Why I Can't Wait for SOUTH PACIFIC

I noticed the amplification problem earlier this week in the Newhouse. Even in that tiny theatre during dialogue scenes it was very hard to hear. The singing you could hear but did not sound amplified. I mentioned it to an actor afterwards and he confirmed that they were wearing mics. Perhaps they are having volume problem. I don’t know just find it to be an interesting coincidence.

---

Yes, that's another thing to mention. Lamos has staged the show so it almost plays entirely to the center section. This is the first time I've noticed a production to utilize the space in that way. Kind of disconcerting having backs turned to me (in the 500s section) for the bulk of the afternoon.

I can't say it looked good on paper, since, well, I've never found reading Shakespeare to be an easy feat. Seeing it performed, or performing it, is much easier than actually reading it. Especially for the first time. I hadn't been familiar with Cymbeline (besides the famous "Fear No More" speech) prior to seeing it, so that could have been part of the problem.

If you're referring to "well, with the cast, design team, and director, it looked good on paper" than yes, I agree with you. It looked very good on paper, but just didn't do it for me.

In the end, if you're a Shakespeare fan, it couldn't hurt to go see it. It's not one of his oft-performed plays (probably because it isn't a very strong script), and I give Lincoln Center credit for putting it on (especially since Shakespeare is moer in the domain of the Public Theater...they actually did it in Central Park a number of years ago, but that's neither here nor there).

Updated On: 11/17/07 at 10:59 PM

Have fun.

Saw it last night and had a pretty good time.

I think the lion's share of the success of the production should be credited to Mark Lamos. CYMBELINE is a supassingly odd, lopsided play that has had many directors foaming at the mouth to get conceptual with it. A couple of years ago Bartlett Sher did an amazing production that incorporated medieval Japan with Old West cowboys, Mark Rylance did it at BAM with a cast of eight (!!). Lamos has decided to do CYMBELINE the hard way: straightforwardly...and although this lack of gimmickry makes for a bit of a draggy second act, it's amazing it works at all.

Martha Plimpton (one of my favorite actresses) plays the lead and she is still an odd fit for a Shakespearean ingenue. Plimpton excels at playing no-nonsense gals and perhaps isn't enough of a romantic figure to play these lovestruck ladies like Imogen and Helena. It's far from a shameful performance, but its starchy around the edges and a little one-note.

Jonathan Cake walks away with the show as Iachimo. Iachimo is a sort of Iago-very-lite and is often played as a cunning Machiavell, but Cake here is more of a braggy adolescent jock with a big mouth. He milks good laughs from the part and finds great variety in the one moment of CYMBELINE that measures up to the greatness of Shakespeare's other plays, Iachimo's monologue as he notes Imogen's chamber, steals her bracelet, and drools over the mole on her breast. Unfortunately, Iachimo disappears for much of the second half...he's definitely missed. I didn't much like Cake in MEDEA a couple of years ago, but here he comes off as a bona fide star. He's the only actor in the cast who brings a palpable sense of spontenaety and danger to the stage...you really don't know what he's going to do next. Oh and did I mention that he's a complete hunk that makes any Hollywood heartthrob of the moment look like a bag lady? Mee-yow!

Michael Cerveris is sadly too old for the role of the impressionable Posthumous. Plimpton and Cake probably are, too, but Cerveris' age is much more distracting. Why would a man this clearly mature fall for Iachimo's cunning?

John Cullum and Phylicia Rashad do fine work as the king and queen. The actor who played Cloten (forgive me, I can't remember his name) is downright excellent. John Pankow as Pisanio...not so much. But the great thing about the ensemble is how uniform they all are. Too often in Shakespeare productions I have seen, the cast all seem to be approaching their roles from different angles, and the result can often look like a group of actors who appear to be acting in different productions. The cast of CYMBELINE are all on the same page with the same approach and this smoothes over ALOT of the awkwardness in individual performances. Once again, I think Lamos deserves the credit for this. The supporting players are solid from top to bottom.

Hearing problems? I was in the loge and I didn't notice any problems. Either they fixed microphone issues or Lamos tossed out some "I can't hear you people" moments at notes time.

Overall, I had a grand ol' time with CYMBELINE, but I highly recommend you familiarize yourself with the text before you go. It ain't SOUTH PACIFIC...its a bumpy but rewarding ride.

---

I've heard nothing but bad things about Cymbeline. That being said, I already bought my student ticket way in advance, so it's too late now! I'm seeing a Wednesday matinee though, so maybe I'll fall asleep alongside the senior citizens rather than being the only one still awake at 5 PM.

I bought my ticket to South Pacific yesterday. I couldn't be more excited, although it took a while to find good seats.

I loved that Lamos didn't back off the second act dream sequence...it's as random and as bizarre as it is in the play.

Oh, and the spectacular lighting design is Tony-bait.

---

Updated On: 11/30/07 at 01:35 PM

I saw it this past Wednesday night, and I too very much enjoyed it. I actually saw the performance at BAM last year for school, so that had me familiar with the play. I might be in the minority of those who really like it -- better than some of Shakespeare's "better" plays like Hamlet or Romeo and Juliet...blah. I love the hysteria that comes about in the end, and there are very funny moments, and Imogen is clearly one of Shakespeare's most intelligent and headstrong (but good) female characters.

That said, I did have some problems hearing in the loge. I moved down in intermission and then I heard fine, but yeah, since I had trouble hearing, I'm glad I was familiar with the play. The one I heard least was Phylicia Rashad, which is interesting, because the one I heard the least at BAM was the one playing the queen -- maybe there's something unhearable about her part?

At certain parts, they had wonderful effects, and I agree, it'll definitely be a contender for lighting design at the Tonys.

I'm very glad Lincoln Center chose to do one of the less well-known and apparently less well-liked plays of Shakespeare, even though I like it more than most.

---

Hahaha, that's really funny, Chrys. Michael's shortness doesn't help the matter.

---