Twelfth Night

Have appreciated Shakespeare's work for a long time. 'Twelfth Night' was one of my first Shakespeare plays. Actually along with 'Macbeth' it was the play that introduced me to and got me into his plays, through reading the text out loud in English class, while analysing the language as we went along. As a young adult, it's still one of my favourites of his. The story is complicated but lots of fun and charming, it has heart, memorable characters and moments and a lot of quotable lines.

This 'Twelfth Night' is an absolute joy from start to finish, one of the best 'Twelfth Night' productions seen and one of the funniest. It was fascinating seeing it done with an all male cast, which is what always happened in Shakespeare's day, and rewarding to see it done so brilliantly. Mark Rylance was also a major selling point, he became a favourite after watching 'Wolf Hall', and have also loved a lot of Stephen Fry's work. Neither disappoint.

Really liked the production values, which are traditional and tasteful in costumes and sets as well as sumptuous. The vast class divide that was present at the time is obvious too in the costumes. The video editing is clever and intimate, while not being claustrophobic. Personally didn't think that the authentic audience reactions were gimmicky at all and gave a sense of what it would have been like to be there at the time.

Shakespeare's writing is typically a great mix of funny and touching, delivered expertly here. The comedy is genuinely funny and often hilarious, with particularly Sir Toby and Sir Andrew. The drama/more emotional moments are very poignant and have a lot of heart. The romance has a lot of charm and sweet wit, the love can be felt. The story is easy to follow and staged in a way that's accessible, always tasteful and high in entertainment value and charm and never too safe or over-faithful. Also not too dry, very easy to make Shakespeare dry when traditional.

All the performances are superb, especially from unrecognisable Rylance at his most riotous as the most refreshing and interesting interpretation of Olivia seen anywhere (while also not forgetting her pathos). Close behind is Fry, an adept mix of haughty and hilariously foolish as Malvolio without being too much of an idiot. Johnny Flynn is a very charming Viola/Cesario, some may say he is not believable as a woman but that didn't matter to me as Viola's true identity is only shown like twice in the play. And more importantly because a woman being believable as a man is much more important for 'Twelfth Night' and this is one of the few productions to nail that aspect. Colin Hurley and the late Roger Lloyd Pack are also hilarious, making a lout hilarious and charming is not easy but it comes very naturally to Hurley.

Concluding, absolutely wonderful and a joy. 10/10.

I have seen the BBC production from 1980 with Felicity Kendal as Viola, which was cut in many places, and the Trevor Nunn film from 1996 which had fewer cuts, but a really off-putting Feste in Ben Kingsley. So I was ready for this Shakespeare's Globe performance from 2012 which seems so ideal in all its parts: acting, music, singing, dancing. Once more I felt as though I was back in London circa 1600.

Stephen Fry is splendid as Malvolio, the equal of Alec McCowan or Nigel Hawthorne; he's very dry and punctilious until the love-bug hits him. Mark Rylance makes a touching Olivia, and that dead white makeup is very striking. His timing and gestures are just about perfect. As Olivia's love interest, Johnny Flynn plays very well (I think there can't be anything harder than being a man playing a woman playing a man). Feste is so natural, so lacking in affectations that his performance is easily the best of all I've seen. If I had one reservation it would be the crowded stage in Act V; there's just too much going on to take it all in.

I saw the wonderful Mark Rylance in this play when it came to Broadway a few years ago and couldn't wait to see it again. No such luck. This is not the play. This is a tv show about making a tv show about the play. In the theater the play and players were foursquare before me on the stage. On the screen there were audience shots, reaction shots, sideways shots and other nonsense well calculated to display the 'miracle of television' but all of it at the expense of the concentrated intimacy necessary to enjoyment. I reject the notion--or excuse--that a different medium necessitates a different treatment. Surely this play he's been filmed before with stooping to such intrusive gimmickry?

This was my first time I had seen Shakespeare done on the stage in the way it would have been portrayed at the Globe theatre. I have seen films and TV that were based on Shakespearian writing but was never really interested until I watched this production! It is funny, witty, cheeky, rude, passionate and the cast are just brilliant. Even done in old English it's actually easy to follow. This production switch on my interrest and since then I have gone on to watch other Shakespearian productions and even read some of his books.

It makes it seem that all one has to do to achieve greatness is understand the words, feel them deeply, and speak them clearly. Which, on the evidence of most productions, hardly anyone appears to be able to do. I don't pretend to understand the paradox.