Review 
The Tempest
Stratford 1982

Reviewer:  Richard Findlater  
Drama Magazine

     The new Tempest at Stratford opens with a memorable coup de théâtre, which has the bold simplicity of RSC design and direction at its best.  As the King of Naples’s ship ‘splits’ off Prospero’s island, heading into the audience with sail full-stretched like a vast heraldic banner, it is almost instantly replaced, in the thunder and lightening of the storm, by the image of another ship, wrecked long ago, with tattered sails and broken masts. This, you feel at once, must be the ‘bark’ on which Prospero was beached, 12 years earlier; and here stands the exiled Duke of Milan, back to the audience, slowly lowering his magic staff as he calms the storm he has conjured for his great revenge.

     This haunting romantic ruin is the setting of the whole play, with no decorations or additions beyond a kind of proscenium curtain for the masque (and Prospero’s concealment of the chess-playing lovers).  Designed by Maria Bjornson, it provides a cohesive, strong but distracting framework which enables the director, Ron Daniels, to achieve and maintain an unusual degree of poetic, pictorial and musical unity, with the help of Stephen Oliver’s excellent sounds and sweet airs and Maria Bjornson’s costumes.  Against the bleached background of the ships’ graveyard she contrives with admirable economy (artistic and fiscal) to score small but spectacular effects:  notably, in the three shimmering, full-throated goddesses with gold lurex-threaded wigs and sequinned rainbow gowns, celestial operatic smilers whose radiance suggests a mirth of appropriately supernatural intensity.  Unearthly cloning is also, somewhat less convincingly, evoked by Ariel and his five fellow-sprites, all on the go, or striking balletic poses, in one-piece silver-grey anatomical tights, decorated in red and blue with tracings of veins and arteries, and topped by silver wigs punkishly flushed with pink.  Not until the final curtain did I notice the emphatic and seductive gender of at least two of these unisex fairies, which may be ascribed to the designer’s skill (and Richard Riddell’s lighting) rather than to the critic’s myopic enchantment.

     Derek Jacobi’s Prospero is the most credibly human portrait, in my experience, of Miranda’s father, Ariel’s friend (as well as master) and the avenging magus transformed into a forgiving realist who knows that when his charms are broken his enemies, however penitent, ‘shall be themselves’ again.  He lacks something of Gielgud’s lyrical magic and Redgrave’s penetrating power; but the fact that his performance stands up so firmly to such comparisons illustrates Mr. Jacobi’s still-growing mastery of the stage.  Among the more memorable aspects of his performance are the gentle tenderness shown by Prospero for his daughter, and the warm affection in a different kind he reveals for Ariel; when, at the end, Prospero suddenly apprehends that his ‘tricksy spirit’ will soon have left him for ever, Mr. Jacobi cuts us to the quick with his projected sense of anguished loss and emptiness.  He seems a younger Prospero than some of his predecessors chose to present, but that should be no obstacle to our belief or enjoyment:  Miranda is, after all, not yet 16, and the RSC does some service to audiences, as well as actors, by demonstrating—as in this year’s Lear with Michael Gambon—that such roles need not be venerably ancient.  Like Redgrave’s Prospero (and, perhaps, like Shakespeare himself:  the parallel seems inescapable) Jacobi’s magus is terminally exhausted by his necromantic reign.  But it is experience, not old age, that makes him talk about a retirement where ‘every third thought shall be my grave’, bereft of the ‘art to enchant’, bereft of Ariel and Miranda, too.

     Watching Derek Jacobi at Stratford, remembering Gielgud and Redgrave, it is hard to credit (in spite of disappointments and even disasters during the past 30 years) that so many leading actors in so many generations ignored this role:  that Prospero could be dismissed by Macready as a ‘characterless, stupid old proser of commonplace.’  Some may have been oppressed by an enlarged sense of autobiographical responsibility to the author:  the widespread feeling that, in Max Beerbohm’s words, ‘he who impersonates Prospero impersonates also the creator of Prospero, and  . . . so we need of him a double dignity and weight.’  Beerbohm described The Tempest as ‘the least Shakespearian of all Shakespeare’s plays’ because the author ‘put more of himself into it’ than into any other work.  For an actor to try to satisfy what Beerbohm called ‘our hunger for a realization of Prospero’s creator’ is an invitation to the wrong sort of shipwreck.  Yet in Mr. Jacobi’s performance, especially in his delivery of the later speeches and the epilogue, there are unmistakable and (one feels) authentic echoes of the master’s voice, and this effect is achieved without a show of ‘dignity’ or nudging revelation.

     Perhaps this fine performance of Prospero may turn out to be as significant a step in Derek Jacobi’s career as Michael Redgrave’s was for him at Stratford 31 years ago:  Redgrave was then 43, Jacobi’s age today.  He shows a commanding authority, technical range, stamina, insight and voice.  Theoretical problems of playing Prospero dissolve in practice.  Seeing the play afresh, this seems the way to do the part, even to be it. 

     I am not convinced that this may be said for Bob Peck’s interpretation of Caliban—a dark, simian, crouching figure in a loin cloth, with suppurating sores on his back and a Rasta-like coiffure of matted, braided hair.  Mr. Peck smoulders, plausibly, with rebellious rage and lust; he sustains a skilful fluency of ape-like movement and bodily rhythm; he handles the ‘Be not afeared’ speech with unforced lyricism; and, as in all his work that I have seen, he shows himself to be a powerful, thinking, acute and versatile actor.  But for me, in this Caliban, there is not enough poignancy or menace, too much naturalism, not enough mystery.  The sound doesn’t match the look of this monster; and the actor at work—very hard work it is, to be sure—seems too plainly visible beneath the make-up.

     An easier victory is won by Mark Rylance as Ariel; he has enough speed, edge and translucency, a blend of featherweight and quicksilver, to o’erleap the pitfalls of pantomime feyness and to help one forget the subtler spells long ago of Alan Badel and Brian Bedford.  Christopher Benjamin and Alun Armstrong do their accomplished best to keep Stephano and Trinculo alive through laughter.   The rest of the acting company serve the play and the production well enough.

  Back to Articles Index