THERE'S a problem with viewing Much Ado. Can we forget the mega-budget of the movie? Can Forbes Masson and Elaine C Smith make us forget Branagh and Thompson? Can Kenny Ireland get somebody as, er, attractive and believable as Keanu Reeves for Claudio? Most importantly, is the end product any good? Yes, yes, yes, and most definitely, yes. The quality of the Lyceum's production is apparent even before the cast enters; Russell Craig's elegant set design, simple, versatile and beautiful, and Ricky Ross's delicate overture set the right tone for a production which reveals a steady stream of little gems from beginning to end.
It's inevitable the attention should focus on Masson and Smith, and gratifying to discover them worthy of it. Masson, in particular, makes a marvellous Benedick. From his first entrance we see an actor in control and giving 100% to create a loveable, believable lead. His solo performances are the highlights of the piece; no-one else on stage has as many chances to play the fool as he, but he is aware and takes marvellous advantage of the opportunities offered. Masson's mastery of comedy is on display throughout, but never so much as during the garden scene in the first act, when a combination of faints, excellently judged reactions, and masterful work with props has the audience in fits. If criticisms have to be made, Smith may not be the absolutely exact fit of actor to character that Masson is, perhaps there's too little sexual tension between the leading pair, but when set against a production
with so many high points - Michael MacKenzie makes an excellent Don Pedro and Adam Robertson an effective if muted Claudio - such trifles can be forgotten. A textbook display of how Shakespeare can still be relevant, modern, and entertaining, and most definitely worth a look.
M
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article