Jack Thorne writes frequently for television and it shows. Long form drama and emotion are not his thing. He's a workmanlike assembler of other peoples' materials (a snapper up but not at Autolycus level yet). So here Shakespeare provides 90% of the heart and emotion - emotion being somewhat lacking although constantly referred to.
The meat of this text is an argument between two different periods/styles - the two main protagonists being Gielgud and Burton. It has lots of laughs and much pathos but few big dramatic moments of its own other than those inserted from the Hamlet text. What it definitely does provide are some of Burton's big moments and one of Gielgud's big moments - these all remarkable - but without these it would just reflect the dicking around between Gielgud and Burton. From the opening there is a clear difference between the two leads - Burton prowls restlessly around the stage and occasionally leaps onto chairs and tables. Gielgud always sits, Liz sensibly climbs (a moderator between the two). Gielgud is reverently called "Sir John" throughout and Burton is called "Dick".
However, the meta plot - Mendes directing a play about Gielgud indecisively directing a play about the notoriously indecisive Hamlet (probably the most discussed protagonist in literature) using an overly decisive lead actor in Burton - is involving. There's even more meta to the script than that - Jack Thorne is writing a script set largely in a rehearsal room about a production which is to be set in a rehearsal room. And one of the key plot points is the delivery of the Speak the Lines Trippingly advice to the players (Shakespeare himself going all Meta).
A scene between Taylor and Gielgud drops a huge load of backstory and motivation about Burton into the plot. This info drop leads to Gielgud's suggestion that Burton play Hamlet as a man reluctant to engage because he wasn't au fond a lover of his father's character. Finally, the working concept is born.
I have never seen Gatiss as clever as when playing Gielgud - the fluting voice, the diffident charm, the courtesy to others and love of what he does. I have seen Gielgud on stage three times and this appears a resurrection. The character certainly scores the sympathy vote from the audience.
The harder part to play (not least physically) is Burton: someone from a working-class background, owner of a raspy growly heldentenor voice with vowels as precise as Gielgud's but sharper edged, with deep notes and a positive tendency to shriek or bellow when roused (who else but Flynn?). Mother, Mother, Mother (in full bellow). A plangent voice was Burton's - hence all the voice overs. Flynn is remarkable as Burton, all flashy, drunken surface charm, masking the insecurity underneath. He pulls off the voice, the drive and the sexiness (who knew Burton's penchant for red socks?) and a suggestion of attraction to his Ophelia (not missed by Taylor) as well as the frustration of one creative being forced into another creative's box instead. So, Burton's drunken persona is let out for a gallop on stage.
The other characters fill up space, provide feed lines and backstory and give verisimilitude to an occasionally unconvincing narrative. Gatiss scores the sympathy vote with the Shakespeare lovers in the audience and people of a certain age who've seen Gielgud do his melodious thing from time to time. His preferred standing mode is a backward incline which is very amusing.
Flynn too is right into Burton, all underlying Welsh vowels, emphatic consonants, touchy feely hands and inordinate thirst wrapped up in a strong physical package, the full sixties middle aged male wrapped in apparel of slacks and cardigans, polo necks and jackets. The bombast is properly turned up to the max and Flynn's vocal repertoire is fully engaged. As is his innate physicality and love of clowning.
Would the script work as well without these two resurrectionists?
Mark Gatiss and Johnny Flynn were both nominated for best actor award. Gatiss predictably won. Flynn's, however, is the more difficult part to perform - there's so many layers - playing a tentative and anxious Burton with 98% proof blood assaying a Broadway Hamlet with his delivery of To Be or Not to Be encapsulating all those layers and its "off the cuff" delivery to Gielgud. So subtle. So nuanced.
The meat of this text is an argument between two different periods/styles - the two main protagonists being Gielgud and Burton. It has lots of laughs and much pathos but few big dramatic moments of its own other than those inserted from the Hamlet text. What it definitely does provide are some of Burton's big moments and one of Gielgud's big moments - these all remarkable - but without these it would just reflect the dicking around between Gielgud and Burton. From the opening there is a clear difference between the two leads - Burton prowls restlessly around the stage and occasionally leaps onto chairs and tables. Gielgud always sits, Liz sensibly climbs (a moderator between the two). Gielgud is reverently called "Sir John" throughout and Burton is called "Dick".
However, the meta plot - Mendes directing a play about Gielgud indecisively directing a play about the notoriously indecisive Hamlet (probably the most discussed protagonist in literature) using an overly decisive lead actor in Burton - is involving. There's even more meta to the script than that - Jack Thorne is writing a script set largely in a rehearsal room about a production which is to be set in a rehearsal room. And one of the key plot points is the delivery of the Speak the Lines Trippingly advice to the players (Shakespeare himself going all Meta).
A scene between Taylor and Gielgud drops a huge load of backstory and motivation about Burton into the plot. This info drop leads to Gielgud's suggestion that Burton play Hamlet as a man reluctant to engage because he wasn't au fond a lover of his father's character. Finally, the working concept is born.
I have never seen Gatiss as clever as when playing Gielgud - the fluting voice, the diffident charm, the courtesy to others and love of what he does. I have seen Gielgud on stage three times and this appears a resurrection. The character certainly scores the sympathy vote from the audience.
The harder part to play (not least physically) is Burton: someone from a working-class background, owner of a raspy growly heldentenor voice with vowels as precise as Gielgud's but sharper edged, with deep notes and a positive tendency to shriek or bellow when roused (who else but Flynn?). Mother, Mother, Mother (in full bellow). A plangent voice was Burton's - hence all the voice overs. Flynn is remarkable as Burton, all flashy, drunken surface charm, masking the insecurity underneath. He pulls off the voice, the drive and the sexiness (who knew Burton's penchant for red socks?) and a suggestion of attraction to his Ophelia (not missed by Taylor) as well as the frustration of one creative being forced into another creative's box instead. So, Burton's drunken persona is let out for a gallop on stage.
The other characters fill up space, provide feed lines and backstory and give verisimilitude to an occasionally unconvincing narrative. Gatiss scores the sympathy vote with the Shakespeare lovers in the audience and people of a certain age who've seen Gielgud do his melodious thing from time to time. His preferred standing mode is a backward incline which is very amusing.
Flynn too is right into Burton, all underlying Welsh vowels, emphatic consonants, touchy feely hands and inordinate thirst wrapped up in a strong physical package, the full sixties middle aged male wrapped in apparel of slacks and cardigans, polo necks and jackets. The bombast is properly turned up to the max and Flynn's vocal repertoire is fully engaged. As is his innate physicality and love of clowning.
Would the script work as well without these two resurrectionists?
Mark Gatiss and Johnny Flynn were both nominated for best actor award. Gatiss predictably won. Flynn's, however, is the more difficult part to perform - there's so many layers - playing a tentative and anxious Burton with 98% proof blood assaying a Broadway Hamlet with his delivery of To Be or Not to Be encapsulating all those layers and its "off the cuff" delivery to Gielgud. So subtle. So nuanced.
