Guy van Egmond
When the call came in to review Shakespeare’s North’s latest production, I was keen. I found their staging of Julius Caesar—last year at two/fiftyseven—endearing; though it lacked spectacle, the company had great enthusiasm and familiarity with Shakespeare’s work. I was curious to see what they’d pull off this time, bringing The Life of Henry the Fifth to the (arguably better-suited) Dome at BATS.
I had a quick skim of the play’s synopsis while I waited for the bus that evening, reasoning that being a little pre-informed would help me judge the play on its deeper qualities and not just on whether I could follow the 400-year-old story. Henry V is the last of Shakespeare’s ‘Henriad’, about the kings of England in the 14th and 15th centuries. This final play, a five-act installment, follows specifically Henry’s invasion of France and his success at the Battle of Agincourt.
Does reading through the story beforehand suggest a lack of faith, that I didn’t want to go in blind? Perhaps, but I’m glad I did. The show opened with an expository Prologue that waxed about the epic range of this story that must woefully be contained in the wooden walls of this theatre. It set the tone for the rest of the play, unfortunately, by being a long monologue delivered with a kind of misplaced overemphasis. It was the kind of delivery of an actor who has memorised their line perfectly and very much wants to deliver it correctly, but in doing so misses out on the real meaning of what they’re saying and why. This kind of recital delivery came back a lot. Kudos to the actors for reeling off monologues for many minutes at a time, but often the only snippets of text that I understood were the ones I’d just read as quotes on the Wikipedia page.
That said, there were some stand-out deliveries. Katy Comar, playing our titular royal, delivered vigorous speeches filled with visions of glory to rally her “band of brothers.” She held the space with a sense of nobility, but also addressed the audience as a kind of ‘king of the people’ figure (more on the shattered fourth wall later). Comar also shone in smaller dialogue scenes such as when Henry walks through his soldiers’ camp in disguise. Her performance allowed us a glimpse into the play’s moral thinking points: about the burden of leadership, the ethics and glory of war.
Comar was well supported by Allan Burne, who performed his assorted roles with vocal clarity and kept them defined with clear physical variety. Perhaps a benefit of his older age and (I assume) greater experience as an actor compared to the largely-in-their-early-20s cast, but Burne was the only actor who really embodied his multiple roles and played without inhibition.
Also a strong actress was Margot Allais, who spoke with a conversational ease in both English and French. The scenes between her as Alice, lady-in-waiting, and the French princess Katharine (Madeleine James) surprised me with streams of French dialogue. The playbill later revealed to me that Allais is a practiced francophone who also worked as the show’s Dialect Coach, but kudos are still in order to James and the other actors who rarely stumbled over the language switch.
That scene, wherein Alice attempts to teach Princess Katharine English in preparation for her betrothal to King Henry, was a solid comedic aside but highlighted the other flaw of this production: being overly ambitious and lacking refinement. The comedic scenes were good but ran on long after the jokes had run their course. The grandeur of this story about nobility and war was undermined by using pop-out umbrellas as swords. The attempt at putting on an entire Shakespeare play resulted in a rushed-through recital. They took an exciting angle by making all the actors ‘of the people’: dressed in casual clothing, joining us in the stands, speaking to audience members directly, but like the rote delivery this felt largely like going through the motions; it lacked intent and wasn’t followed through to any great noticeable effect.
It’s tough to write this critique, which I recognise is harsh, because I really love the ethos behind Shakespeare’s North. It’s a group of locals, mostly young people but making connections across generations and backgrounds, who put on Shakespeare for the love of it. It’s brilliant that I can say, “Oh, I’m going to go see Henry V tonight, down at BATS.” I just feel that this company, as it’s growing, would benefit from keeping the scope narrow and sharp. Maybe it is a youthful rendition of Henry V but then make the umbrella swords and tinfoil crowns mean something. Or lean heavily on the comedy and poke satirically at the institution of a monarchy. Or go full pathos and command the stage with grandeur.
I mentioned before that this company is growing, because it is. The group started putting on performances in Palmerston North, then came down to Wellington last year at two/fiftyseven, and are now performing for the first time at BATS. The women sitting beside me in the stands told me excitedly about all the theatre groups that they’d seen springboard from BATS on to greater stages and renown. I’m rooting for Shakespeare’s North to follow a similar trajectory and looking forward to seeing them move onwards and ever upwards.
The Life of Henry the Fifth is playing at BATS Theatre until the 29th of August. Tickets available here: https://bats.co.nz/.