Reviews

I was really looking forward to seeing this, because of Tom Hiddleston and because I really liked the play itself when I read it to prepare. Unfortunately, I was disappointed overall. This wasn't how I wanted to see Coriolanus done.

First up, I should acknowledge that the atmosphere in the theatre itself would no doubt be very different, and that the camera-work employed by NT Live was quite poor and didn't do the action on stage justice. Even so, I found the production dull and unengaging. This is not to say that there weren't some strong positives. Tom Hiddleston (Caius Martius Coriolanus) and Mark Gatiss (Menenius) were definitely the stand-outs amongst those on stage in their presence and skill, though neither, for me, truly got to the heart of their roles. The production's visual style, which was sparse and stuck to a very limited colour palate, was pleasing overall, as were the simple costumes. Good use was made of the minimalist set and the music for the scene changes was effective in its creation of atmosphere.

On the other hand, the production plodded along with no sense of urgency. The rest of the cast ranged from adequate to poor. The constant recycling of a very small number of actors through the various minor roles without any differentiation as to costume or demeanour did nothing to help with understanding the play's action. For example, one actor played a noble lady, a senator, a Roman citizen and a Volscian, with minimal clues as to which she was at any one point. The choice to cast women in roles written for men was ill-judged, as it undermined a key theme of the play, that is, the stark line between the male-political and the female-domestic spheres and their competing demands on Coriolanus. Three of the instances of kissing cheapened the production, undermining the integrity (such as it was) of the tribunes' cause, the martial respect between Coriolanus and Aufidius, and the dignity of Coriolanus' family's appeal to him. The visual effects involving chairs and chains, pouring water and characters marching from front to back, seemed gimmicky and pointless. Nor was it clear what it meant that cast members stood at the back of the stage in shadow when not speaking. Were they present, absent, or what? Some of the cuts to the text removed some important perspectives on Coriolanus and made the action harder to follow.

The biggest disappointment in the production for me, though, was that in the end it was quite timid. It was neither the human tragedy of Coriolanus nor the triumph of people power that the irritating, introductory mini-documentary seemed to promise. It made no push to address the flaws in the play's text that taking a strong stand one way or the other would have provided an opportunity to do. Stuff happened, Coriolanus died, and in the end it all seemed to add up to nothing very much. Certainly I didn't walk out of the cinema feeling any sense of resolution. I mention this because, as described in the text of the play I have, other productions have introduced features that provide definite judgments on what has just occurred and the actions taken by particular characters.

So, overall, while I am glad to have seen at least one production of this play, the flaws outweighed the virtues.