Edward II at The National Theatre

For the majority of my degree I have been a not so slight Shakespeare obsessive. There’s really nothing better than the multi-layered plots, complex characters, and stunning language of any one of Shakespeare’s plays. With this in mind, for my third year Special Author I chose Christopher Marlowe. There are all sorts of crazy rumours suggesting Marlowe faked his own death at the age of 26 and went on to become Shakespeare. The reality of it is, we know almost nothing about Marlowe and his life. The majority of his works were only performed and printed after his death, and even his name was of uncertainty until relatively recent years. What I’ve come to adore about Marlowe is his investment in language, and the ways he can translate Classical traditions and influences onto his own stage, which can in turn be translated onto the modern stage. It is a truly magical transition to study.

Marlowe’s plays are rarely performed, so whenever one of them pops up it’s an exciting opportunity to see how his hugely adaptable and often ambiguous script has been interpreted. I’m clearly not the only one who thinks this, because when I went to see Edward II at the National Theatre a couple of weeks ago, the theatre was completely packed. And it’s a big theatre! I’d never been to the National Theatre before so it was a real treat. Its mixture of a modern foyer with various exhibitions, restaurants and cafes, with the more traditional stage areas makes it fun, inviting and exciting whilst retaining the much loved old-fashioned feel of a trip to the theatre. Oh, and it goes pink at night – amazing!

In a nutshell, Edward II is a tragedy/history play based on the King Edward II who faces mutiny from his advisors and eventual torture and death for retrieving his lover Gaveston from exile and running riot in the kingdom, neglecting both his duties, and his wife and son. The play enjoyed a revival in the early 90s, when there was a lot of discourse and debate surrounding homosexuality and AIDS. Edward and Gaveston are often seen as homosexual martyrs, especially in Derek Jarman’s haunting and graphic film adaptation of 1991.

This production has received very mixed reviews, most are negative. In a particularly damning review from The Telegraph, one of the main points of contention is the comedy of the production, and I am inclined to agree. The entire performance was extremely farcical, Edward reminded me of King Richard in the Disney version of Robin Hood – a childish king who sucks his thumb and takes advice from a snake. Need I say more?

The majority of the first half consisted of him and Gaveston running around the stage shrieking with laughter and causing havoc. Meanwhile, the down-trodden neglected Queen Isabella struts around sulkily, champagne and cigarette in hand, berating her poor lot in life whilst her child runs at her heels filling up her glass at any opportunity. This comical vibe is all well and good if you’re just out for a fun evening at the theatre – but to make such extreme comedy out of what was originally a profound, tragic and controversial work seems rather too bold and brash.

Having said this, the second half is completely contrastingly dark and sombre. We are suddenly confronted with the extreme Marlovian brutality that was expected, but its clash with such a comic, slapstick first part undermines it – whether there is a point trying to be made here, I failed to understand, no matter which way I looked at it.

The mish-mash of Renaissance and modern costumes seemed completely random – whilst Edward was in traditional King’s clothes, Gaveston was in a leather jacket and jeans, and Edward’s brother-turned-sister was in a feminine trouser suit. Indeed, the sex change of Edward’s brother Kent as well as one of the advisors, Pembroke, to women, didn’t seem to have much lasting impact. The presence of two screens on either side of the stage which depicted various scenes was a point of interest, but again, where was it going? In short, I felt as though I was being confronted with as many experimental theatrical devices as possible, all on the cusp of making an interesting point, but none quite reaching one, rendering them pretty much obsolete.

Despite what may seem a wholly negative review, I did actually enjoy the performance! As a reviewer and a literature student I undeniably found a lot of the devices hard to get past, but once I let go of expectations I was able to enjoy the play just as a dramatic exhibit of love and suffering. The use of Gaveston’s actor as Edward’s murderer who sodomises him with a burning rod conveyed the homosexual take they were aiming at – however the lack of physical engagement between Gaveston and Edward throughout the play illustrated a prudishness at actually carrying this out, which was again frustrating.

I was certainly moved at the end by Edward’s son’s (now the King) final speech: standing centre-stage, he calls out commands and orders to an empty stage. The pessimism and anxieties regarding power, control, and the monarchy that is so Marlovian are certainly highlighted here – if the only influence that is taken from Marlowe himself.