Yesterday I tried to understand the scripts Stratford was using for its blockbuster 400th birthday celebration of Shakespeare, acknowledging my incompetence at judging the huge amount of work and thought that Graham Abbey, the adaptor, writer, actor, (associate) director, put into them, but nevertheless admitting my disappointment in them. I just want to say that when I or anyone attempts to criticize Stratford , you have to realize we are sitting at the feet of a giant. It's world-class theatre, never forget that. If we are going to criticize or offer any comments at all, we have to remember that we start on a level above that of most of the theatres in the world. We have been spoiled. We take for granted the richness we have been given: set design, costumes, talent, skill, on and on. We assume that actors, all the actors, will not simply recite Shakespeare's poetry, but get inside the hearts and heads of the characters they portray. So we try to understand their interpretation of the characters and their spin on the play in question.

So, though I'm not sure of the spin, I applaud heartily the work the cast of R'n'R has put into it. Geraint Wyn Davies did an outstanding portrayal of Falstaff, although I was sorry to see his lack of pathos at the end. His choice, I guess. I also thought Tom Rooney was excellent as Richard II. I didn't particularly like the casting of several women in men's roles, my bias not theirs. Maybe Stratford ran out of men. (Steven Russell should have taken 3 or 4 curtain calls for all the roles he played.)

The new stage, by the way, at the Tom Patterson Theatre, is a marvel, an almost elliptical theatre in the round surrounding the cast with audience and not a bad angle in the house. It works equally well, if not better, for All My Sons, Arthur Miller's first major play, that introduces another casting approach that underscores the story. Joe Keller's partner, Steve Deever, whom we never see, but who used to live next door, is black. It makes Keller's behaviour even worse. I can't say more for fear of spoilers, even years after the first production. In addition to the overall excellence of the cast, the direction by Martha Henry subtly leads us into pain and compassion.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Graham Abbey has been a member of the Stratford Festival acting company for 18 years. He also directs. He is the founder and a.d. of the Groundling Theatre Company in Toronto and directed its opening production of The Winter's Tale this past season. He is also a writer, and has developed two television series with CBC. In his present incumbency in Stratford, he is not billed as a writer but rather as "conceiver, adaptor" (and associate director). He has adapted Shakespeare's four history plays into a new, cohesive two-play presentation titled "Breath of Kings", just opened at the Festival for the coming summer (and after, I'm sure) season, and much heralded. However, the wise planners have set the plays in the Tom Patterson Theatre, knowing that not everyone will want to go to a history play in the big Festival Theatre, no matter how much respected.

In his introductory essay in the program(s) - one for each separate play, the one called Rebellion, the other Redemption - Mr. Abbey describes the provenance of his idea, beginning 15 years ago when the events of 9/11 shook us all. It seemed that one turned to God or Shakespeare, not necessarily in that order. He has been working on it ever since, both written and orally: he plays King Henry IV in Part I Rebellion) and Part II (Redemption). So who am I, having seen this new concept only once, to attempt to assess what I have seen? I love the history plays; I've read them all, several times, and seen them several times each, as well. But I haven't lived with them for 15 years or absorbed them into my brain and tongue. I was looking forward to seeing the new staging, adaptation, version, whatever. The last one I saw (In England) was

The Wars of the Roses, a 1963 theatrical adaptation of William Shakespeare's first historical tetralogy, which deals with the conflict between the House of Lancaster and the House of York over the throne of England, a conflict known as the Wars of the Roses. The plays were adapted by John Barton, and directed by Barton himself and Peter Hall at the Royal Shakespeare Theatre. (Wikipedia)

And then there was a TV series, The Hollow Crown, featuring the histories (2012) and stars from British stage and screen. It's all been respectable, given reverential treatment, deservedly.

So?

I have to say, I was disappointed with this latest mash-up of the history plays. What was the point of squeezing them into two productions? Where was the arc? Did I learn anything new?

In all fairness - I'll try again. Maybe if I read Mr. Abbey's scripts?