Just watched the full "National Theatre at 50" BBC special thing, which I know aired a few weeks ago and no one else cares about this level of theater geekery but WHATEVER, it gave me a few thinky thoughts, mostly about casting.
So obviously this event was staged to celebrate the fifty year anniversary of the UK's National Theatre, and of course they packed in as many of their most famous alums as possible to do as many scenelets from their most popular plays. In more recent cases, they simply brought back as many of the original cast as possible -- HISTORY BOYS! -- but for others, I did think their casting choices were...interesting.
Like you get Benedict Cumberbatch in, for obvious reasons, and you give him the "dead in a box" monologue from Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead (one of my favorite plays, and favorite monologues, in the history of everything, incidentally). But that's really not an obvious choice. There's a reason Cumberbatch has become famous for playing intensely cerebral, brilliant characters -- he does it very, very well. So...Rosencrantz? Really? Not that he can't handle broad comedy -- I offer up drunk!Sherlock as Exhibit A -- but of the pair, he's clearly a Guildenstern. Of course, Rosencrantz's monologue is the showstopper from that play, so it makes sense that that was the bit they'd chosen, but in a massive cast of actors to choose from that includes James Corden, why on earth would you give Cumberbatch that monologue? He did it well enough, but it just...doesn't quite suit him. God, of all the characters and monologues Tom Stoppard has given us -- give Cumberbatch any male character in Arcadia or The Real Thing, give him Jan from Rock 'n' Roll, give him Housman in The Invention of Love! And by all means, give him Guildenstern in one of the cracking dialogue sequences. But Rosencrantz? Eh. You had James Corden right there. COME ON. For that matter, you had Jamie Parker, who played Guildenstern like three years ago, but who'd also be a fun Rosencrantz.
Also in the world of ...huh? casting was that Louis & Prior scene from Angels in America. Which, okay, not necessarily the first scene I would have picked from that play, but not bad. Andrew Scott was an interesting choice for Prior. I was kind of put off by him at first -- his performance had a few too many shades of Moriarty in it -- but it grew on me as it went along, and I'd be curious to see a full production staged with Scott in the lead. It's not an obvious choice, but it'd certainly interesting. But Dominic Cooper as Louis? Really? Not to repeat a theme, but you had Benedict Cumberbatch right there. Admittedly, not a showy role in that particular scene, but Cumberbatch would be a MUCH better Louis. (And the Sherlock/Moriarty shippers rejoice.) Or, hell, you dragged Stephen Campbell Moore in for like two lines in the History Boys scene, as long as he's hanging about you ought to give him Louis. He's the right type. Look, I like Dominic Cooper an awful lot, but he's not a Louis. He's not quite right for any part in that play, really, although I think in thirty years he'd actually make a spectacular Roy Cohn...but I digress.
(I do feel like younger actresses were totally overlooked the whole evening, apart from the one they got to play Eliza Doolittle -- you had a wide range of male actors, and then you had Judi Dench and Maggie Smith and Zoe Wanamaker and Helen Mirren and Penelope Wilton and Frances de la Tour, all of whom were spectacular, but...National Theater hasn't produced a single talented actress currently under the age of sixty? That's weird to me. Maybe because the History Boys as a collective were popping in and out all evening, which kept a youthful vibe going among the dudes, but all of the women were grand dames. This is kind of the opposite of the usual problem -- and it was LOVELY seeing all those fabulous older ladies get their due -- but it did feel weirdly unbalanced. They did show archival footage of younger actresses -- or, rather, of currently much older actresses back in the day -- but only the one actually onstage. Much as I love that they featured a gay couple by doing Louis/Prior, it would've been nice to get a good Harper scene in there to showcase a different sort of talent.)
But man, it was so awesome to get that History Boys scene, with almost the entire original cast represented. (Minus Russell Tovey and Sam Barnett, alas.) Having Alan Bennett himself playing Hector was, really, the only possible option. And upgrading Sacha Dhawan from Akthar to Posner was fucking inspired. I mean, my heart belongs to Barnett's Posner, but goddamn if I don't want to see a full production with Dhawan's Posner now. He was GREAT. I mean, okay, obviously all those boys are too old to be playing teenagers at this point, but still, they were clearly having a blast, and the French scene is just so funny. Best part of the production, I thought.
A bit sad that only one of the many, many scenes/monologues/snippets all evening was by a female playwright, and no female directors were interviewed. That's probably more representative of the National Theatre culture than anything else.
Ugh, now I'm going to be up all night fancasting the rest of the Andrew-Scott-as-Prior version of Angels in America. Bring Zach Quinto back as Louis, the way he played it Off-Broadway a couple of years back? Hmm, I think he'd be weird paired up with Scott. I desperately want to see Chiwetel Ejiofor as Belize, but he's probably a little old for that role by now. Amy Acker as Harper? Jonathan Groff as Joe? IDK.
So obviously this event was staged to celebrate the fifty year anniversary of the UK's National Theatre, and of course they packed in as many of their most famous alums as possible to do as many scenelets from their most popular plays. In more recent cases, they simply brought back as many of the original cast as possible -- HISTORY BOYS! -- but for others, I did think their casting choices were...interesting.
Like you get Benedict Cumberbatch in, for obvious reasons, and you give him the "dead in a box" monologue from Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead (one of my favorite plays, and favorite monologues, in the history of everything, incidentally). But that's really not an obvious choice. There's a reason Cumberbatch has become famous for playing intensely cerebral, brilliant characters -- he does it very, very well. So...Rosencrantz? Really? Not that he can't handle broad comedy -- I offer up drunk!Sherlock as Exhibit A -- but of the pair, he's clearly a Guildenstern. Of course, Rosencrantz's monologue is the showstopper from that play, so it makes sense that that was the bit they'd chosen, but in a massive cast of actors to choose from that includes James Corden, why on earth would you give Cumberbatch that monologue? He did it well enough, but it just...doesn't quite suit him. God, of all the characters and monologues Tom Stoppard has given us -- give Cumberbatch any male character in Arcadia or The Real Thing, give him Jan from Rock 'n' Roll, give him Housman in The Invention of Love! And by all means, give him Guildenstern in one of the cracking dialogue sequences. But Rosencrantz? Eh. You had James Corden right there. COME ON. For that matter, you had Jamie Parker, who played Guildenstern like three years ago, but who'd also be a fun Rosencrantz.
Also in the world of ...huh? casting was that Louis & Prior scene from Angels in America. Which, okay, not necessarily the first scene I would have picked from that play, but not bad. Andrew Scott was an interesting choice for Prior. I was kind of put off by him at first -- his performance had a few too many shades of Moriarty in it -- but it grew on me as it went along, and I'd be curious to see a full production staged with Scott in the lead. It's not an obvious choice, but it'd certainly interesting. But Dominic Cooper as Louis? Really? Not to repeat a theme, but you had Benedict Cumberbatch right there. Admittedly, not a showy role in that particular scene, but Cumberbatch would be a MUCH better Louis. (And the Sherlock/Moriarty shippers rejoice.) Or, hell, you dragged Stephen Campbell Moore in for like two lines in the History Boys scene, as long as he's hanging about you ought to give him Louis. He's the right type. Look, I like Dominic Cooper an awful lot, but he's not a Louis. He's not quite right for any part in that play, really, although I think in thirty years he'd actually make a spectacular Roy Cohn...but I digress.
(I do feel like younger actresses were totally overlooked the whole evening, apart from the one they got to play Eliza Doolittle -- you had a wide range of male actors, and then you had Judi Dench and Maggie Smith and Zoe Wanamaker and Helen Mirren and Penelope Wilton and Frances de la Tour, all of whom were spectacular, but...National Theater hasn't produced a single talented actress currently under the age of sixty? That's weird to me. Maybe because the History Boys as a collective were popping in and out all evening, which kept a youthful vibe going among the dudes, but all of the women were grand dames. This is kind of the opposite of the usual problem -- and it was LOVELY seeing all those fabulous older ladies get their due -- but it did feel weirdly unbalanced. They did show archival footage of younger actresses -- or, rather, of currently much older actresses back in the day -- but only the one actually onstage. Much as I love that they featured a gay couple by doing Louis/Prior, it would've been nice to get a good Harper scene in there to showcase a different sort of talent.)
But man, it was so awesome to get that History Boys scene, with almost the entire original cast represented. (Minus Russell Tovey and Sam Barnett, alas.) Having Alan Bennett himself playing Hector was, really, the only possible option. And upgrading Sacha Dhawan from Akthar to Posner was fucking inspired. I mean, my heart belongs to Barnett's Posner, but goddamn if I don't want to see a full production with Dhawan's Posner now. He was GREAT. I mean, okay, obviously all those boys are too old to be playing teenagers at this point, but still, they were clearly having a blast, and the French scene is just so funny. Best part of the production, I thought.
A bit sad that only one of the many, many scenes/monologues/snippets all evening was by a female playwright, and no female directors were interviewed. That's probably more representative of the National Theatre culture than anything else.
Ugh, now I'm going to be up all night fancasting the rest of the Andrew-Scott-as-Prior version of Angels in America. Bring Zach Quinto back as Louis, the way he played it Off-Broadway a couple of years back? Hmm, I think he'd be weird paired up with Scott. I desperately want to see Chiwetel Ejiofor as Belize, but he's probably a little old for that role by now. Amy Acker as Harper? Jonathan Groff as Joe? IDK.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}