Titus Andronicus

There is so much good to say that has already been said, so I will focus on the one negative -- the obsession with Paul Davies Prowles, whom I'm convinced was a producer's son. According to Wikipedia: (Jane Howell wanted to focus on him as if to ask the question "What are we doing to the children?), which does not come across at all. Paul Davies Prowles -- who appears to be between the ages of 14 and 19 and delivers his lines with the look of a deer in the headlights -- shows up wearing modern glasses in a play that is set sometime before 1000 AD. This is a character Titus praises for having young eyesight. A reminder this play is titled Titus Andronicus. It would be like focusing on Mercutio in Romeo & Juliet.

One of the BBC series which I can respect on the basis that it is approached like a stage performance. It is bound largely to one set which may disappoint some people, but works quite well if you consider it as a piece of theater. Performances are theatrical and large, some hit and some miss. One definite miss is the much misconcieved Aaron the moor who seems more jovial than the evil precursor to Shakespeare's later Iago. Lavinia and Tamora also seem a bit weak and off the mark, but then Lavinia is hardly afforded the time within the play to truly establish sympathy. Tamora fares better, but still seems like it could do with a bit more regal poise. She was a queen after all. The good performances on the other hand do have their flaws, but are largely very strong. Saturninus is way over the top, but admirably tackles the huge ego and short temper of the sinister ruler. Special kudos must be awarded to the actor portraying Marcus Andronicus. He achieves the moments of over the top style reflected in much of the cast, but he also has moments of wonderful subtlety and maintains a stoic and staid respectability. His performance may very well be the finest in the production. Finally, Peacock most noticeably brings his weighty gravely voice to Titus, and brings with it the necessary bellowing fire to the whole affair. His performance is even larger and more stylized than most, but I was actually moved deeply by some of his speeches in the scene immediately after he has his hand lopped off. When reading the play, they are just words on a page, but his voice cries out to the rafters full of anguish and horror at the events beset upon him. Quite nice. On the whole, the affair is carried off with a fire and style that may occasionally be missed in Shakespeare productions, and that helps one to overlook it's flaws. Maybe not an incredible video, but good theater.

Though "Titus Andronicus" is the least impressive of Shakespeare's tragedies, it is quite a sophisticated and subtle drama despite its overweening goriness. The BBC's 1985 production of the play is especially to be commended for its retention of most of the text; the excisions are minor and generally well-judged. There are a few somewhat curious directorial decisions -- such as the heavy emphasis on the young Lucius and an equally heavy emphasis on the fate of Aaron's child (a fate that is left entirely unaddressed by Shakespeare's text) -- but the overall staging of the play is solid.

Trevor Peacock is excellent in the title role. Unlike Anthony Hopkins in the BBC's production of "Othello," he appears to be the rugged soldier whom he is portraying. His husky voice (also on display in his depiction of Feste in "Twelfth Night") is well suited to his often poignant lines.

Hugh Quarshie is likewise outstanding as Aaron. On the page, Aaron can come across as a one-dimensional evildoer whose love for his son is his only leavening quality. However, Quarshie brings him to life as an evildoer who is shrewd and witty as well as ferociously dangerous.

Edward Hardwicke and Elaine Atkins deliver fine performances as Marcus and Tamora respectively. Brian Protheroe is generally good as Saturninus, though he highlights the emperor's puerility excessively; his performance would have benefited from slightly more gravitas.

The remaining performances are likewise impressive, apart from that of Paul Davies Prowles as the young Lucius. That one lackluster performance is a minor blemish, however, in a production that otherwise does justice to a somewhat underrated play.

'Titus Andronicus' is not among my favourites of Shakespeare's plays, a playwright of whose lesser plays are still worth the watch and read. Of his tragedies though it is in my opinion one of his most disturbing and moving. It is very powerful when performed well, Shakespeare's dialogue is unmistakable in style and rich in emotion and the characters are typically compelling. If asked as to whether 'Titus Andronicus' is worth the watch or read or both, the answer would be yes.

In 1978 to 1985 the BBC did a series of Shakespeare performances, performing all of his plays, even the lesser known and problematic ones. The quality was uneven, as has been said more than once, but the series overall is just fascinating and most of the productions are well done or more and feature solid and more performances from very talented actors, varying from deservedly lauded to the under-exposed. This 'Titus Andronicus' is the last of the series and to me it's one of the best, doing full justice to the play. Saw the 1999 film version some years ago and loved that version too in its own way.

Did feel that Anna Calder-Marshall and Paul Davies Prowles were slightly bland in their roles, but part of it is down to that neither role is particularly meaty to put it lightly.

All the rest of the characters are never less than excellently performed. Thought the standouts to be Trevor Peacock's noble Titus and Hugh Quarshie's slimy, shrewd and sometimes witty Aaron. Edward Hardwicke is an authoritative Marcus with the right amount of subtlety and forceful, while Brian Protheroe is suitably sinister if not always nuanced. Eileen Atkins is regally poised as Tamora.

While not the most lavish or elaborate in terms of production values, 'Titus Andronicus' is not dreary or cheap either.

Excepting a slightly jarring opening, the staging is compelling. Very poignant and disturbing, it doesn't quite have the pulls-no-punches feel of the film version. It is still uncompromising and doesn't tone down anything.

Overall, really great. 9/10