Freema Agyeman scores in football-themed Shakespeare
⭑⭑⭑
Freema Agyeman & Nick Blood in Much Ado About Nothing. Photo: Marc Brenner
Dear England is playing at the National Theatre, and now our second most subsidised theatre, the Royal Shakespeare Company, has a football themed play as well. But did Much Ado About Nothing score or was it a load of balls? And did Freema Agyeman from Doctor Who and New Amsterdam, and Nick Blood from Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D as Beatrice and Benedick hit the back of the net?
First of all, spoiler alert, I will be talking about the plot of Much Ado About Nothing. You won’t be surprised that this production doesn’t set Much Ado About Nothing is set in modern times. Some people object to reimagining Shakespeare’s plays in other times and places. Personally, I find it can offer helpful insights, and this particular Shakespeare play needs them. Let me explain.
There are two parallel love stories in Much Ado About Nothing- a comic one which is probably what makes it one of the most popular of Shakespeare’s comedies, and a serious plot which can be a problem for a modern audience to comprehend.
Let’s look at the light-hearted element first- the relationship between Benedick and Beatrice, two people who are wary of hitching themselves to a partner. So, in all the time they’ve spent avoiding marriage, they’re become quite mature, and able to present a front of cutting cynicism. Shakespeare leaves no doubt there is something in each of them that is attractive to the other, except they won’t admit it, and they cover this by insulting each other. So the fun is in the way they’re eventually tricked by their friends into admitting that they do love one another, and then how love changes them. Benedick finds himself having to choose between his love and his comrade.
Freema Agyeman has only recently returned to theatre after a long spell acting on American TV but she is already building a reputation as a stage actor, and this performance will undoubtedly cement it. She speaks the lines beautifully. Her Beatrice gives as good as she gets, and offers apparent confidence to mask her inner emotions.
Nick Blood is a likeable Benedick with an appropriate swagger. However they don’t bounce off one another as much as you might hope: They should be like two Premiership footballers repeatedly tackling each another. Instead their dexterous verbal sparring never goes beyond a Sunday morning kickabout.
The darker plot concerns a young couple called Hero and Claudio- and it’s a can of worms, because it conjures a highly misogynistic society, which is hard to relate to, even though Shakespeare exposes the sexism among the men, and the unfair treatment of women.
We meet a veteran footballer Don John who’s essentially a mischief maker, someone who has no clear reason for causing trouble, and no complexity or depth. This makes him less interesting than many of Shakespeare’s villains, who are given motives or redeeming qualities. To be fair, this production does suggest that he’s jealous of his young rival Claudio, but that’s not pursued. Nojan Khazai plays him with an alpha male charm.
Don John uses deception- and this is a play that involves a lot of chicanery- to ensure that the relationship between two young fiancées- is torn apart on the eve of their wedding. He does this by tricking Claudio into believing Hero, far from being faithful, has a lover. As an audience, we find it hard to believe Claudio, even as a credulous young footballer (they’re not always renowned for their intellect) and her father, who both profess to love her, have so little faith in her. Even more unlikely is the moment when all is revealed (after even more trickery): he says ‘sorry’, she forgives him.
Daniel Adeosun gives a solid performance in the thankless role of Claudio. Eleanor Worthington-Cox does an excellent job as Hero. another difficult part as she is presented for much of the play as a voiceless victim- she doesn’t even defend herself against the false accusations. She does show a lively disposition in earlier scenes, where she is given more to do than in the original Shakespeare with some added songs, and at the end is given some added ambition.
Shoots but doesn’t score
It’s hard for a modern audience to comprehend such a misogynistic, male dominated society. So that’s the problem directors face: to find a modern parallel that we can relate to. Michael Longhurst, fresh from his Shakespearean success with the David Tennant/Cush Jumbo Macbeth, has chosen the world of elite men’s soccer as the setting- not the English Premiership which surely is a league of gentlemen after Gareth Southgate’s tenure as England manager (I know because I’ve seen Dear England.) No, Italian football.
After all, Shakespeare’s play is set in Messina and perhaps the men’s behaviour fits, no doubt unfairly, with our stereotypical image of a certain kind of Italian male. Leonato, the owner of Messina FC, is the spitting image of Sylvio Berlusconi which usefully reminds us of his Bunga Bunga parties, one of which seems to be taking place on stage. It’s a fine characterisation of a self-centredh millionaire by Peter Forbes.
We can see that the position of women in this world is mainly as trophy wives and girlfriends. Beatrice is not one of them. She is an ex-footballer turned commentator, and we don’t need reminding of very recent occasions when misogyny was displayed against female football commentators.
So setting the play in the world of football is a good concept, and it works well initially. Unfortunately it never quite hits the back of the net, because as the play progresses, the football becomes less and less in evidence, and less convincing as the plot darkens.
Much Ado About Nothing. Photo: Marc Brenner
When you first enter the auditorium, you see what appears to be a stadium stretching into the distance. Thus far a triumph for designer Jon Bausor. However, the thrust part of the stage is dominated by a communal bath. Unfortunately this doesn’t work as well as you might hope. It’s used to comic effect on a few occasions but otherwise tends to get in the way of the cast moving round the stage.
The women are objectified and verbally abused by the men, the paparazzi and in comments on social media which are flashed up on the auditorium walls. So, quite a lot of misogyny going on there- with manipulated photos and fake news offering trickery that Don John could be proud of.
The actors playing the footballers are all physically fit, so they look like they could be soccer heroes, and the women are all very glamorous and could be wags. They give decent performances, speaking the words well, as you would hope from the RSC, and creating a world of casual offensiveness and sexist banter that comes naturally out of Shakespeare’s prose. What’s missing is a certain nastiness that the text demands; it’s as if they are passing the ball rather shooting at the goal.
The Watch- here seen as security staff- who inadvertently discover the truth of Don John’s plot are sometimes cut from the play. A lot of people seem to find their antics unfunny, but here Antonio Magro makes an excellent Dogberry, speaking his malapropisms with a dignified , obsequious demeanour.
I do have one quibble. Let me ask you a question. What do you enjoy most about Shakespeare? I suspect that no matter how interesting the interpretation is, and how well it’s acted, at the end of the day, we’re going because we love Shakespeare’s language. Because, while he may steal his plots from here, there and everywhere, when he interprets that story for us, he has such an understanding of human nature, that he creates complex, interesting characters who express themselves through the most wonderful poetic language which conveys to us all the emotions that they feel and makes us feel them too. And who might you think would protect that language more than the Royal Shakespeare Company?
So, I felt let down that this production of Much Ado About Nothing messed with Shakespeare’s language. Okay, not in a huge way, but to actually change some of the words for modern references and expressions, for example, bringing the word “twerking’ or ‘vaping’ into the text. I just feel it was plain wrong. I know it may sound stuffy and reactionary, and some will say, you’ve got to bring Shakespeare up to date for a modern audience and so on. But there are plenty of ways of doing that through the interpretation. The words are our one actual connection with Shakespeare, and why you shouldn’t mess with them, RSC!
As the final whistle blew, I felt the fun wasn’t fun enough, and the serious stuff not serious enough.
Much Ado About Nothing can be seen at the Royal Shakespeare Theatre in Stratford-upon-Avon until 24 May 2025. Buy tickets direct.
Anne-Marie Duff is chilling in 20th century classic
★★★★
Anne-Marie Duff & Mark Bonnar in The Little Foxes. Photo: Johan Persson
Like me, you probably see more acting on TV than in the theatre. That means I’m always interested to see whether a favourite actor can make that transition from screen to stage. The Little Foxes at the Young Vic was packed with faces from British television. Mark Bonnar who you will have seen in Shetland and Guilt; Steffan Rhodri best known as Dave Coaches from Gavin & Stacey; Anna Madeley who is Mrs Hall in All Creatures Great And Small; and one certifiable star in Anne-Marie Duff most recently seen in Bad Sisters.
I have seen all these actors on stage before, but it is still a thrill to be reminded that, like so many other screen actors, they are often only giving us a glimpse of their skills when they’re in front of a camera. The real test of their acting ability comes when they are trapped in the time and space of a theatre show, communicating directly with a live audience. This cast passed the test with distinction.
Lillian Hellman’s The Little Foxes was premiered in 1939 but this attack on capitalism focuses on a family of landowners from the American South around 1900. So, the first question you might ask is, why did Lillian Hellman, who was a communist by the way, set her play around 40 years in the past? I’m guessing it’s because 1939 was not the best time for an anti-capitalist message. America had just experienced successful state intervention in their free market system in the form of Roosevelt’s New Deal, so a mixed economy may have seemed more attractive than a communist one. More than that, communists, capitalists, rich and poor were in the process of uniting in a fight against fascism, or at least that was the perception. So it might have been easier to show unadulterated capitalism, raw in tooth and claw as it were, from a couple of generations earlier.
The first half introduces us to the Hubbard family. There are two brothers- Ben played by Mark Bonnar, cunning as a fox and arrogant as a peacock, initially strutting about the stage, nonchalantly shrugging off challenges. Ben boasts of the way his family, who were traders, took advantage of the Civil War to buy up property while the Southern grandees were being defeated, fighting for their principles. He is even proud of their exploitation of what he calls ‘coloured people’.
The other brother Oscar, a weak bully, is played by Steffan Rhodri with a rat-like blend of slyness and nerves. The lead character is their sister Regina played by Anne-Marie Duff. Her bravura performance dominates the evening, entrancing us with her hyperactive character, who is by turn charming, quivering with frustration or displaying a diamond hard will power that is genuinely chilling. Her sparkling eyes and wide smile are a mask that covers her amorality.
The brothers inherited their father’s money. When they have an investment opportunity that will make them a huge fortune, Regina is shocked and angry to find she has been left out of the spoils. She plots to get both her share and revenge, by using her ailing husband’s money to make up the additional investment her brothers need.
After a slow first half that establishes the characters and their situation, the play takes off like a SpaceX rocket, as these greedy siblings ruthlessly trick and use one another. Regina becomes more ruthless than any of them in her ambition.
It’s a savage expose of people whose greed trounces love, loyalty and all other moral values. But, is it relevant today? I guess the answer to that partly depends on your politics, but the fact is, capitalism remains the dominant system, despite regulation and the welfare state. Add to which, we appear to be entering an era of less regulation, in America at least, and we have seen the privatisation of public services in the UK. So I suppose it is a good time to be reminded that however high the quality of service or product we receive from companies, their number one priority is profit, not people.
Powerful performance from Anna Madeley
Anna Madeley in The Little Foxes. Photo: Johan Persson
The play presents some alternatives. Oscar’s wife Birdie is from an aristocratic family. She represents the ‘old values’ based on patronage, duty and responsibility. She is an alcoholic, bullied by her husband, and ghosted into a lack of confidence. She may be brittle- she laughs nervously, she looks down, there’s fear in her eyes- but still expresses her beliefs. It’s a powerful performance from Anna Madeley, showing Birdie beaten down but still proud. The quality and depth of her acting won’t surprise you if you’ve seen her as Mrs Hall, giving much-needed weight to the cosiness of All Creatures Great and Small.
Regina’s husband and daughter show that behaving morally is an option. They are played by John Light and Eleanor Worthington-Cox, the latter subtly showing how her character grows in strength as events force her to choose between standing up for her beliefs or standing by watching. In fact, the play’s strongest message is that most of us stand by watching bad things happening and do nothing about it. In stark contrast, Oscar’s son, played by Stanley Morgan, is morally bankrupt, like his father.
The black servants show two different sides of the class that has been most exploited and abused by this family. Freddie MacBruce as Cal goes about his job without question, but Andrea Davy’s Addie is firm in her opinions and tenderly loyal to those who treat her well.
Quite a few reviewers criticised the design, suggesting that its mid 20th century look was not appropriate, and even confusing, when used in a play set in 1900. On the contrary, I think Lizzie Clachan’s design is a stroke of genius. First and foremost, it doesn’t distract. A turn of the century design could have made the story seem of a bygone age, irrelevant to today. On the other hand, modern day clothes would have been too anachronistic for a play that’s set over a hundred years ago and mentions horses and carriages.
Instead, Ms Clachan cleverly plumps for the neutrality of clothes of the time it was written. The dominant beige reinforces this. The absence of the trappings of the life of the well-off suggests these are people who want wealth for its own sake. They aren’t even that interested in enjoying the luxuries that come with it.
It’s a damning picture of capitalism but I think it’s unfair to suggest, as some critics did, that it fails because the main character doesn’t evoke enough sympathy. I found that I had plenty of sympathy with her over the way she was treated and therefore cheered her on as she exacted revenge. But that sympathy only heightened the shock of seeing just how far she would go and what sacrifices she would make. Yes, she does become a monster but it seems possibly sexist to me to suggest that this portrait of a greedy capitalist woman can only can only be of interest if we have sympathy for her. I don’t think you have to sympathise with the murdering Macbeth to get involved in his character and story, or with the greedy Lehman Brothers to find them fascinating. I didn’t like Regina as a human being but it was gripping to see how far she would go and whether she would finally realise there is more to life than money.
Director Lyndsey Turner delivers a powerful interpretation and the excellent cast squeeze every ounce of drama out of it. Before the interval I was wondering whether it was ever going to take off but when it did it was riveting. And if you love watching great acting, this is one not to miss.
