Review: The King's Speech at Nottingham's Theatre Royal
It's not just some stirring Elgar music at the end that has you leaving the theatre feeling warm and positive. The King's Speech is that sort of play. And this is a fine production: on an imaginative and effective set a clutch of high-order actors are working from a first-rate text.
Some of the outdoor scenes are brought in by effective use of back-projected film – crowds outside the palace for instance, or Hitler ranting in Germany.
That's not to say there are no negatives. The action switches from one location to the other, sometimes cinematically quickly, so it's sensible to have an essentially empty stage, part of which revolves, to facilitate scene shifts. But frequently, for reasons of tempo, a scene begins before the necessary setting has revolved into place and it can be annoying.
This play, albeit un-produced, preceded the film, and it's interesting to compare them. More is made in the play of the married relationship between Lionel Logue and his wife Myrtle (Charlotte Randle); indeed Logue is an altogether bigger character than he is in the film. And Churchill (Ian McNeice) and Cosmo Lang (Michael Feast), both well done even if McNeice is a bit bulky for the mid-thirties Churchill, are almost a comedy duo in the role of chorus.
George VI (Bertie) is beautifully done by Charles Edwards. It's not just the stuttering: he gets the affronted class insecurity and the feeling of hopeless failure splendidly.
Jonathan Hyde's Logue is even more compelling. There's strength and kindness there combined with a mischievousness. He's a failed actor, and the scenes where he's being humiliated in auditions are extraordinarily touching.
Logue and his wife – Australians – are the chief targets in this play of the appalling snobbery and ethnic prejudice which are some of its most significant themes.
Alan Geary
The King's Speech is at the Theatre Royal till Saturday, 18th February
Alan Geary
Comments
by walsy
Friday, February 17 2012, 10:54AM
“I don't suppose I will have a better theatre experience for a very long time, than when I saw The King's Speech at the Theatre Royal on Tuesday. What a production!!
The script is factually accurate, and provides all that is required for some very fine actors to show off their theatrical skills. We saw these in abundance! Australian-born Jonathan Hyde was wonderful as Logue – incredibly, it was the first time he had played an Australian character. He brought great charm to a role which must have thrilled him to perform. Charles Edwards is clearly an actor of immense talent, and his superb performance as the faltering, insecure, stammering Bertie will surely propel him to stardom if, as seems likely, the play is given a run in the West End during Jubilee year.
The supporting cast too were magnificent. Emma Fielding was a delightful Queen Elizabeth, Charlotte Randle, an endearing Myrtle Logue and Daniel Betts, a really nasty David (later King Edward VIII). It was also marvellous to see Joss Ackland (with a list of film, TV and stage credits longer than your proverbial arm) as King George V. The play is unexpectedly full of humour, with the interaction between Churchill (brilliantly played, not for the first time, by Ian McNeice) and Michael Feast's pompous Archbishop Cosmo Lang, complementing some equally humorous exchanges between Bertie and Logue.
Visually, the production is quite fascinating, with the revolving stage used to brilliant effect, and nothing is static for long. The back projection of newsreel footage of the time adds authenticity at key moments, and the music is wholly appropriate.
The play culminates in the King giving his speech. Over the strains of Elgar's music, Bertie delivers his words to us, his loyal audience, who are willing him on to succeed. Before the crackle of his microphone had faded, I saw eyes being dabbed around me. The rapturous applause showed the whole cast just how much the audience had appreciated their work, and the outstanding piece of theatre that they had been privileged to see.
The only downside to this production was the need to build up the stage to a ridiculous extent, which meant that those sitting towards the front of the stalls saw little below the actor's knees! It had to be done this way to compensate for the steep rake of the stage, when the revolving element was added to it.”