Real life killed “Shakespeare” – almost!

It would have been really interesting if it hadn’t been horrible. Real life “overtook” “Antony & Cleopatra”, and real life always is so much worse even when it isn’t mine. (These days I probably don’t have one, and I must say: I am NOT sorry!) The worst part of real life – in this case – is that I think I should be doing something. Even though I know that nothing can be done when the milk has already been spilt. The contemporary answer to tragedy is therapy. If we are lucky … (And I am afraid love trouble might be resistant to therapy?)

Nonetheless I have a few ideas and experiences for “storage” which I had before real life hit. First of all – I didn’t miss the Oscars this time! I usually miss the Oscars on purpose because I mind getting up in the middle of the night just to be disappointed. This time I was only disappointed ONCE, about “best actor”, because neither Christian Bale nor Viggo Mortensen got it who both would have deserved it BIG TIME. But there were probably others no less deserving. Then everything was forgotten because I almost couldn’t believe it that Olivia Colman got “best actress”. Not because she hasn’t been the best – she probably was! – but because I had been totally convinced that the stupid Lady Gaga would get it. I was so delighted – and relieved! – that I had my first glass of prosecco at about 4.30 in the morning. And it only got better because a short time after this “Green Book” actually won “best picture”!!! It should have been “The Favourite”, of course, as to artistic value, but I was so insanely delighted that one of my three favourites (“Green Book”, “The Favourite”, and “Vice”) had made it that I didn’t mind the political correctness bonus in this case - and had my second glass of prosecco at half past five! Secretly, I liked “Green Book” much better anyway, though my personal favourite had been “Vice” because I am always so unreasonably delighted when I hit on measurable traces of intelligence. (I had been hard pressed to find them in “Berlin Station” right now - until I determined that they are not to be found in the dialogue. Apart from that, it’s a great story!) And, like “The Big Short”, in this respect, “Vice” was a feast. (It was even better because the best moment for me is always when I STOP laughing, and in “Vice” this moment came rather early.) It was probably a good thing that I wasn’t up early enough for “best actor in a supporting role” because I might have had a third glass. Just now I made sure that Mahershala Ali actually got it (– which I thought he did already in 2018, but there had been a glitch in the news coverage of the Bayerische Rundfunk (!), and I didn’t double-check.) He actually learned to play the piano to impersonate Doctor Shirley! (I sat in the cinema wondering all the time if it really can be him – not what we hear, of course, but what we see! – and it was!!!) But this wasn’t even remotely the best thing he did. He was quite as good as Viggo as to nailing the human content of this character, which is basically what I am going to the cinema for. (Not even in Munich cinema tickets are cheap anymore. They were, for a time, because of the competition, but then, I suppose, they had to implement minimum wages.) So – Unbelievable! Probably the best Oscars ever …

Now, I still don’t get any time for either writing or “Shakespeare”, so in the meantime it appears real life has “gone away” (temporarily). Love trouble fixed?! When I don’t have to witness the heartbreak I can’t help finding it funny that, at first, I didn’t GET “Antony & Cleopatra” because I didn’t really get which kind of story the play is supposed to tell. I kept asking myself: Why the SAME THING over and over again? Now I think that it must be part of the attraction: breaking up and getting together again. I just wondered because of “Berlin Station” if bitching might actually be appropriate foreplay for getting the kind of dynamic sex “we” might be dreaming of but never get because we are nice and accommodating …??? I take the risk of appearing naïve – which I couldn’t hide anyway! -  but I really hate bitching, and BITCHES! So I keep forgetting that men might not – provided the right bits are on display. (Which might actually be IMPORTANT for understanding Cleopatra – or Antony, in the first place!) O boy, this is getting really bad … but real life does that.

What is getting really interesting – but also rather demanding – about “Antony & Cleopatra” is that my reading tends to work “the other way round”: Not fiction analyzing real life, but real life analyzing fiction. I am a bit afraid – and thrilled! – of what might happen next. Not yet quite ready to take up the play again …

… which I wanted to do because of Cleopatra. As to Antony - quite like in “Richard III” - I have SEEN it all! Nonetheless Ralph Fiennes will doubtlessly receive his due when I finally can get to him for incredibly EFFICIENT acting. There was, in fact, only one other actor I ever saw doing what he did with Richard IN THE THEATRE: to nail a character so completely that there is literally NOTHING TO ADD, and that was Richard Armitage in “The Crucible”. But, in one of these hours I was awake in bed and didn’t have to think about real life, it came to me why, in my opinion, Sophie Okonedo “worked” as Cleopatra even though she didn’t do the “right thing”. I am afraid it is complicated …

… apart from what I already wrote: that it is crucial for an actress to play Cleopatra that she can convey convincingly this quality of ageless feminine attractiveness – without BEING too young. Which I think Sophie Okonedo can - better than any other actress I could think of at the moment. (Unlike Eve Best (in the Globe’s production) and Josette Simon (in the RSC’s) she didn’t have to CONVINCE me that she is Cleopatra! Whereas for Antony Ralph Fiennes would have been about the last actor I would have casted. But, for reasons I will unfold later, he became the best Antony I will probably ever see – though the competition was fierce, in this case, as Antony Byrne displayed the same kind of expert “Shakespeare acting” as Tunji Kasim in the RSC’s production. (And he was brilliant at dying! I’d never have thought that anybody could make Antony’s ending appear entirely believable and “satisfying”.) So, Sophie Okonedo was SUPPOSED to work.

It is complicated because the explanation came to me when I compared her style of acting with the completely different style of acting of Tunji Kasim as Octavius Caesar – and discovered what consequences this had for the “timelessness” of the character. Thinking about what I had seen when I was in London, it struck me that she had been the only actor who had bothered to give her character a contemporary definition - in agreement with the contemporary setting of the play - and which I acknowledged thinking that she played Cleopatra as an “ageing celebrity” –  with her “amimetobion” on display daily on Instagram. (Actually, for me, the kind of living hell I always associated with Lady Di …) This kind of “topicality” is certainly ONE way of getting to the point FAST and comparatively effortlessly. Which is probably why it is so popular – and often works great, as was proved by my immediate response to her playing “Think you there was or may be such a man …”. But – like the last “Julius Caesar” by the National Theatre wearing a “Trump cap” – it is almost always an oversimplification. We get the semantic implications of this character in a heartbeat, but then what? I find that it often stops what Shakespeare “wanted” us to do: close “reading” of the text – for example by following Tunji Kasim playing Octavius Caesar. This certainly takes an effort and is probably something that has to be LEARNED – as, I think, this manner of acting can be learned. Which was exactly what Shakespeare intended with his text. It helps the actor and the audience to process the COMPLEXITY – which is, as I am finding out once again! – comparable to the complexity of real life situations. On the other hand, I usually get a “breakthrough” when I witness actors display THEIR PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP with the character because I cannot help but empathize when I see this. (Which might explain my weird relationship with Voldemort! And I might have found the explanation why “Richard III” and “The Crucible” felt like a three (and a half) hour breakthrough. It was the perfect COMBINATION of both: Great, brainy analysis and passionate empathy for the character we are supposed to empathize with. In both cases there is an unmistakable “slot” provided by the writing for us to do this! All you need to make it work is the right actor.)

The interesting point, though, was that Sophie Okonedo suggested by the way she showed us who Cleopatra is in her opinion that we are dealing with a contemporary character. Which we are not! And which was in disagreement with the rest of the production which totally “resisted” the contemporary setting of the play. And this is what became, in my opinion, the overall reason for its success. Tunji Kasim WAS Octavius Caesar, a ROMAN; that he wore a suit and tie instead of a toga didn’t make the least bit of a difference. (Same for Antony, by the way: the only significant thing in his case was the change of attire from the “effeminate” Egyptian gear to suit and tie/uniform when he returns to Rome.) Women in smart office suits and laptops instead of Roman officials might be stretching it a bit – aesthetically! – but the audience will buy this any time because of the consistency of the setting which is the important thing. We are NOT SUPPOSED to think about it! The inner semantics – what is going on, who are these people? – remained undisturbed by the change. And I am certain I would never have found cause to think about this if Sophie Okonedo hadn’t broken the implicit rule – unintentionally, I suppose. But thinking about it made me find out something important.

The effect her acting had on me – especially compared with the variety displayed by Tunji Kasim or Ralph Fiennes – is that it reduces complexity. And this usually isn’t good where “Shakespeare” is concerned. The reason that it kind of worked with Cleopatra is that she is, in fact, less complex than Antony – or rather that her overall situation is less complex. This is what came to me lying awake and thinking about the play: that Shakespeare dealt with her as a political and social entity only implicitly because there is no need for it. Where Antony is concerned there is a tearing conflict between his political persona as one of the three “pillars of the earth” and the private “amimetobion” with Cleopatra. For Cleopatra there is not. Her personal and political ambition – having great sex and lots of fun with Antony and defending Egypt from being swallowed up by Rome – are ONE AND THE SAME … UNTIL THEY ARE NOT! In the end, Antony has stopped “working” and is going from admirable to ridiculous. So Cleopatra CANNOT stay with him any longer and – even though she doesn’t WANT to – HAS to do what she has always done: get into bed with the most powerful Roman – figuratively in this case. Her motives are not made explicit – probably because of the suspense? – but I think the dynamics and political implications are kind of obvious.

So - contrary to what I felt initially seeing the play in London – Antony is AT LEAST as important as Cleopatra because he is the genuinely TRAGIC character in this story. “Tragic hero” would be entirely misplaced in this case – this role might be reserved for Cleopatra whose death is presented as much more dignified and heroic. Though, in fact, it is probably not. She kills herself because her strategy hasn’t worked, and this is her way out from ending up in Caesar’s triumph, visibly stripped of all her dignity and power. (What struck me specifically about this play is the obscenely immoral attitude towards lying. Like the pronounced courtesy in “Macbeth”, I think it is supposed to be significant. All the time people are making promises that they already KNOW they are going to break – often even the other party already knows this because it is just the way politics works!) The main reason I came to the conclusion that Antony is not so important in the end is that I basically MISSED Antony when I was in the theatre, and focused on Cleopatra.  

As I already wrote, this got rectified when I saw the recorded production in the “Cinema”. And, even though it is now too long ago for me to remember a lot of specifics, I know I will always remember this theatre experience – quite like “Richard III” – by remembering how deeply I ENJOYED Ralph Fiennes performance. The first time I was just so surprised and delighted and almost couldn’t believe that it was actually possible to get THIS out of “Shakespeare”. Now I am rather sure of what to expect from him, and that I WILL get it. And, in my experience, it helps to know what it is and why I want it so much.

To explain the difference between what he is doing and what Tunji Kasim or Antony Byrne were doing – basically; Shakespeare acting is always complex, and there are certainly individual parts and variations in any case which I cannot see – I recall the moment where Antony gets the message about Enorbarbus’ defection. It is one of these “quiet” moments where we – in the cinema! – get a close-up of his face, and there were tears in his eyes. I mean REAL tears, not the “one eye one tear thing” that obviously most actors are learning how to do. And the tears as such were totally beside the point anyway because nobody IN THE THEATRE could have seen them. Not in THIS theatre, with its huge stage, where the first rows are probably twenty feet removed from the actors. Unless he “produced” them for the cinema, and I don’t think anybody is THAT calculating. I know that “calculating” is in fact mostly a good quality in actors (!), but it might in fact be one of the few things that LIMIT Ralph Fiennes that he is NOT. He kind of HAS to “go there” FOR REAL – which was interesting to witness when I became aware that he isn’t that “professional”, that there was no “default mode”. I believe most actors can run what they are doing “on autopilot”, even maybe for a whole show – and this is actually an important quality for the theatre! The audience will probably notice if it is a substantial role, but the production is not in danger, there will not be a total “drop out”. Therefore Claudia may be right to mind it very much if somebody doesn’t know his text, or fucks up in a leading role, because the audience doesn’t get what they are paying for. I grant this, but I also noticed that what I am PAYING for – a spectacular and perfect show starring famous actors – is not really the reason for me to go to the theatre. It has always been something different though, of course, I usually EXPECT perfection like everybody else. But I can have all this any time in the cinema, or watching my BBC and Netflix series. Ultimately, I am looking for the same thing there, but there is no place like the theatre to reveal the truth about actors. What I noticed about myself being in the theatre (or, actually, seeing a PLAY in the cinema!) might apply to certain actors as well: THERE IS NOWHERE TO HIDE. And, even though I can see the problem, I totally love it that Ralph Fiennes isn’t interested in “default acting”. That he obviously never lost this wonderful “innocence” and “immediacy” of the experience that makes him so great as an actor. (I even noticed this about Christopher Eccleston, having now seen so much of his early work. It is totally different what he is now, as an actor. Probably better in many ways, but there are obviously good qualities that can get lost by becoming more and more professional.) I think, for Ralph Fiennes, it is probably part of the “program”: There is no point in it FOR HIM if he cannot do it “for real”. So, there is NO POINT in doing it at all. And it is probably just impossible to know if you can still do it after the tenth or fifteenth performance. And this is, of course, a problem. (The most likely explanation for the TOTAL “drop-out”, though, is that he didn’t feel well on the day I saw the show. I specifically remember that the part after the interval that felt like half an hour of ranting and shouting definitely “wasn’t there” when I saw it in the theatre. Or simply problems with his voice because the singing was the only part that was better when I saw it in the theatre, and it was obvious that he hadn’t strained his voice as much as on the day they recorded the performance. I suppose he decided that he couldn’t do the ranting and shouting, and there probably is nothing he could have done instead to convey the intensity of Antony’s feelings.)

There is a possible misunderstanding I have to clear up before getting on with this. What I have written might suggest that I don’t find professionalism important, or that a lack in professionalism might make actors better actors. On the contrary - it is probably the one quality I admire and find in almost all British actors: that they learn to be so exceedingly pragmatic and professional. And I find it appalling how naïve and unprofessional German actors appear sometimes. Generally speaking, I totally hate it when people are unprofessional about work issues. At work, the only way to impress me is to be more efficient than I am. So THIS is totally not the point I was going to make.

But professionalism has many faces, and it cannot lead to sacrificing the best qualities somebody has as an actor. In my opinion, Ralph Fiennes is a master of this kind of DETAILED ANALYSIS of the human matter we find in “Shakespeare” – and which I missed where Sophie Okonedo is concerned. He just has a totally different technique of analyzing, which I actually find to be unique on this scope. When I saw him play “Richard III” I was just so amazed with the complexity. There was actually a whole NEW DIMENSION he gave to this character. Playing Antony, there were again so many different emotional qualities and so many changes of mood and behaviour AS THERE ACTUALLY ARE in this character when I am reading and analyzing him. I remember how Antony gave me the creeps FROM THE BEGINNING, even more than Cleopatra did. And this is, of course, because Shakespeare is so RIGHT about him. When, in real life, people suddenly stop working and start happening, it gets messy. It is very rarely “reasonable”, or dignified. And there is PAIN and SHAME that “we” don’t want to see because it makes us feel helpless. And, maybe, makes us aware that things like this could happen to us as well. (I think I was there already about Christopher Eccleston and “Macbeth”. This is what is supposed to happen when great method actors take up a Shakespeare character, and it usually happens.) I think what Ralph Fiennes is doing – and what I meant by “innocence” – is trusting Shakespeare not by following the “text-flow”, but by trusting him “with his life”. He knows he HAS this stuff in himself, in whatever form, the good feelings and the bad, the pain, the shame … And he is actually “going there” every time to get it out of himself. And he really LIKES this. Even ESPECIALLY the pain and the shame. I remember that I thought already when I was in the cinema that THIS was special: there is probably no other actor who would have analyzed and taken up the shame like this. And even though Antony is despised for it, I think it is actually a good quality that he is prepared to DEAL with the shame – which most tragic characters are not! What they usually do is to get out under it as fast as they can. And this is what “we” usually do! But I think that if we would be allowed more to show these bad feelings without automatically embarrassing everybody a lot of therapy would become unnecessary. (Of course, for Romans, “therapy” is no viable concept! What they had instead was a sword.)

So, obviously, Ralph Fiennes was THE actor to play Antony. He would be for any character that is “filled” with conflicting human stuff like this – but he analyzed the political stuff equally brilliantly. It was a pleasure how “completely” Tunji Kasim and he worked together as antagonists. The differences were played out perfectly on every level: physically, emotionally, socially, and politically. There was nothing left vague or unexplained of what Shakespeare analyzed so brilliantly. Of course, it becomes a beautiful and satisfying show only when THIS happens. One actor can never achieve this single-handedly, but if one of the crucial characters “drops out” or is played inefficiently it can never happen.

So, that was it – finally! – about “Antony & Cleopatra”. May they rest in peace … No, probably not because I entered into an e-mail exchange with Claudia about the play and especially these two characters which proved that they are in fact “catalysts” for bad feelings. There were a few issues about Antony in particular that were interesting and which I might want to take up in my next post.

Apologies!!!

I would never have thought that I might be so absolutely delighted to make apologies! I went to the “Cinema” to see “Antony and Cleopatra” with Claudia, and now I have to apologize for what I have written in my last post.

First of all, I am almost insanely delighted to be able to apologize to Ralph Fiennes. I didn’t WANT to acknowledge how disappointed I was with him – and how much this mattered! And this shows me how substantial a place he has in the large aesthetical section of my heart. (And disappointing me and then making up for it appears to be a good move to make it even more substantial.) I wasn’t really sure about him until now, I guess – even though his Richard was my second greatest theatre experience! – because I never acknowledge “falling in love” when it actually happens. I think I granted him the “unlimited credit” seeing him as Voldemort – after having seen “Richard III” - which is a character I don’t care about the least bit. I just loved the way HE cared about him. (And I am still trying to get his version of the Red Dragon which appears to be kind of impossible - and won’t stop trying until I have it! Maybe it actually isn’t good, but I won’t believe this until I see it …) (First apology!)

The reason I don’t just delete my last post is that – nonetheless! – it is one of the best posts I have written. And, actually, there is very little in it I would change – from my past point of view! First of all I was right in this respect that the show I saw was far from being as good as the one they recorded for the cinema. (I don’t know, but paying for the flight and the expensive ticket for a seat with a bad view, being forced to breathe in the bad air and bad breath of my neighbour, and all the distractions and other inconvenience I don’t have being in the cinema, and THEN seeing the show on a bad day! There actually is a lot to say FOR seeing it in the cinema, especially in this case – which will be dealt with later.) Even though it was partially my fault – having read it so often and having seen the other versions, so that I was kind of “glued” to the text, and not really free to appreciate what they were doing with it - I am adamant that not just Ralph Fiennes but most of the actors weren’t really good on the day I saw it, so the production couldn’t really “take off” and make the play come to life in the way it happened when they recorded it. It wasn’t just beautiful, it was really, really good! (Second apology!)

There are a few actors, though, whom I don’t include in the apology because they were good on the day I saw the show in the theater, and I did them justice, although probably not as much as they deserved. These were experienced Shakespeare actors like Tim McMullan, who played Enorbarbus, or Tunji Kasim, who played Octavius Caesar – and who appears quite young for being such an expert … (Probably looks younger than he is …??? IMDB says nothing about his age … but I can do the math on Wikipedia: He must be almost forty! So, obviously, quite old enough for Shakespeare.) And Sophie Okonedo who played very well, maybe even better than on the day it was recorded where she overdid it a few times – but with Cleopatra being such an eccentric this didn’t really hurt. An important part of my last post is about what happened between her and me, and this was basically the same when I saw the play the second time.

The other two I want to write a few sentences about because they both present a certain type of “Shakespeare acting” in a very accomplished way. (O, and apologies to no one in particular for daring to write a whole post about acting – again! But what’s the point of apologizing if I know that I will always do it again …)

I have already seen Tim McMullan play Shakespeare more than once and always disliked him because of the way he speaks the text “through his nose” and doesn’t appear to be interested in the physical aspects of acting, which makes his characters appear artificial and lifeless. But I was really, really impressed by the way he “dissected” and analyzed Enorbarbus, and made me see what a complex “matrix” there is for this character, and what a central function he has for the play. As Enorbarbus seems to be a very spontaneous and natural kind of guy, Tim McMullan didn’t fit the character at all, but he covered another aspect of him in a really interesting way. An aspect of “Shakespeare” that usually isn’t covered anymore - or only “implicitly” - on a contemporary stage. The most important structural function of Enorbarbus is, in my opinion, that he analyzes almost everything that is happening – and especially his master Antony and his relationship with Cleopatra - from a COMMON SENSE point of view. Which really is a big help for the audience to deal with the complexity. (As to the complexity of the human stuff and the political matters this play is really intimidating!) I became aware of this realizing how much “happened” when I heard him describe this first encounter between Antony and Cleopatra – where she is on her barge on the Nile and he waiting in the market place for her arrival. And because this is such a central aspect of “Shakespeare”, in my opinion, this will become a bit longer than I thought. There certainly is a reason for Tim McMullan being cast so often for Shakespeare even though he is deficient in common requirements for contemporary acting. What he has to offer is this superior understanding of how language – and especially the beauty of language – works in “Shakespeare”. That it is IN ITSELF a means of analysis. In fact, this is half the point of “Shakespeare”: that the aesthetic use of language affects us DIRECTLY, and that things will happen “in us” just because what we are hearing is so beautiful. I am aware that this sounds like philosophical commonplace - until we realize that this happens all the time when we are reading. I just did when I reread one of my favourite works of French literature, “Une vie” by Maupassant, because somebody made a film about it. The film was crap, but the reading was so great! I read most of it aloud, though I am totally convinced that I cannot speak French anymore, but the language was just so beautiful and enticing that I suddenly could. I really felt as if I understood every word I was reading! And I remember being fascinated with the discovery that the first form of literature was probably spells. It is just such a great expression of this function of fictional text that when we put the words in the right way so that they work ON US like a charm they would be able to do all kinds of things! I think the best thing anybody ever said about this to my knowledge was this casual remark of Richard Armitage about “The Crucible”: that there were still sentences in the play he couldn’t really say. Of course he said them anyway, and what came out was then most likely the best way they could have been spoken. And if an actor can convince himself to deal with great language in this way – experience how it affects him directly and use this – that will make great “Shakespeare” because this is exactly what Shakespeare intended. - THIS was great literature happening on the stage and, in my experience, had a “deepening” effect that extended to the entire production. Motivated ME to deal with the complexity instead of being intimidated by it.

Tunji Kasim, for his part, is absolutely perfect in the art of great “Shakespeare acting” I already tried to describe a few times as FOLLOWING EXACTLY what Shakespeare has written. It is certainly quite difficult to LEARN – like playing a complicated musical instrument – and requires hard work and a powerful brain. I have seldom heard somebody manage the complexity of these sentences with such transparency! But when he is on the stage most of the work is already done. It is just concentration and habit, and, consequently, will not take such a big toll every time. And because of this it is, generally speaking, the best way of playing Shakespeare because it is the only way of really getting the complexity on the stage WITHOUT an impracticable effort. What the audience sees will be EXACTLY the same every time they are running the show. Maximum efficiency for delivering the highest standard of plays and playing he could imagine – THAT is what, I think, Shakespeare intended. And there must have been actors at the time who could meet these requirements, as there are today! As a rule, EVERY Shakespeare character can be played successfully and satisfactorily in this way, but there are characters whom this style suits better than others because of the changed expectations of a contemporary audience. (I suppose I mean: MINE 😊!) Octavius Caesar certainly is such a character, who requires a scope of superficial qualities to be shown very clearly: a rational, cold, ruthlessly ambitious, kind of prudish person who is suspicious of emotions – and all this is important to show in the clearest possible way to set up the contrast with Antony and get the antagonistic relationship, which we want to see, on its way. But this doesn’t mean that he missed out on the emotional side, on the contrary! If I hadn’t seen Tunji Kasim’s Octavius Caesar I probably wouldn’t have realized that there is one, but there is this very strong emotional link with his sister Octavia. It absolutely is in the text, but I never saw it getting out on the stage before. And it is really important as motivation for his merciless rejection of Antony in the end. Where “Shakespeare” is concerned, not just the brainy analysis and what has to happen physically on the stage but also all the NECESSARY emotions are IN THE TEXT, just waiting to be played!

Thinking about the art of these two actors – mainly as a contrast to what I observed about Ralph Fiennes – I realized that there was still a different method of playing Shakespeare in “high definition” represented by Sophie Okonedo. Which I didn’t take into account because it is what most actors are doing “naturally” – even what, I believe, constitutes what “we” usually understand by acting: to develop a very clear and powerful representation of WHAT KIND OF PERSON it is they are playing and then taking everything “from there”. In my opinion, she did this extremely successfully, basically fulfilling my expectations. Not surprisingly, as she would have been my dream cast for Cleopatra anyway ( - whereas I felt that Ralph Fiennes was a strange choice for Antony!) The interesting thing in this case is that both Claudia and I experienced the LIMITATION of this CONTEMPORARY method of acting where “Shakespeare” is concerned as we both missed the political and intellectual – “grown-up” – dimension of Cleopatra. I already feel another apology coming on … and an urge to state that I totally love Sophie Okonedo as an actress. (I was delighted to discover in the program that I have seen her already in “The Crucible” – without knowing that it was her at the time! - where she impressed me as the slave woman who is sentenced to death and, I think, doesn’t understand what they are doing to her, repeating that she is finally going home – which appears to be the only thing she ever wanted. I am usually not very empathic in this way, but somehow she made this a moment I’ll never forget!) She has this crazy energy and naturally graceful way of moving and acting, and this great “open” face that can look like a mischievous monkey, a baby girl, and her grandmother in rapid succession. So, the “infinite variety”, in her case, is not just an expression, and “age cannot wither her” might, to a certain degree, apply to the actress herself because she somehow kept this four-year-old girl in her alive. (IMDB says that she just turned fifty! There is hope yet, isn’t there? Though probably not for everybody. I became unpleasantly aware recently that I HAVEN’T bid farewell to middle-age yet, and am debating with myself if I am wrong …). Cleopatra certainly is a character that came naturally to her. And she brings a very special kind of humour to her characters which I like, though, in this case, it contributed to my impression that she played Cleopatra too superficially. But this is the most immediate benefit of this style of acting: that there is almost always a personal side to it which might turn out interesting if “we” find it interesting. In Sophie Okonedo’s case I obviously do because I already noticed it about her Queen Margaret – strangely one of my favourite characters in “Shakespeare” – in the “Hollow Crown”. She was one of the few actors in this production who added a new dimension to this character – quite like Simon Russell Beale did with Falstaff. And she was the only actor in “Antony and Cleopatra” who played her character as a contemporary person – to fit the entirely contemporary setting of the play! – not as a historical queen. I laid this impression down in my last post when I wrote that she was playing Cleopatra like an ageing celebrity. And Claudia texted me the day after the show: “I get Cleopatra now. She is this great queen, but she fell in love and is acting like a teenager.” (I think it is kind of obvious why I still prefer e-mail (and blogging) to texting, but texting definitely has its benefits!) The morning after I began to write about this – when I woke early and stayed in bed because it was Sunday – the analysis of what I think is the problem with this, and the reason why, in my opinion, it kind of worked for Cleopatra nonetheless, came to me. But this will become a lot longer than I intended, and I will continue with Cleopatra and Antony in my next post …