At this point, it's fair to post a review by Jesse, not an official reviewer at All That Chat. Jesse has been posting reviews for years, always on his own. He provides a different point of view. I paid close attention to his comments about Act 2, and decided to skip the play.
My review of FARINELLI AND THE KING: Mark Rylance returns to Broadway after a four-year absence
Posted by: jesse21 01:12 pm EST 12/17/17
-
Mark Rylance is talking to his pet goldfish as Farinelli and the King begins. You see, he is playing the bipolar 18th-century Spanish King Philippe V which allows him to turn his emotional state on a dime from infant to sage, from stutter to eloquence, from ebullience to paranoia, from whimsy to fury.
This role is tailor-made for Mr. Rylance’s talents, literally that is, because it was written for him by his wife, composer Claire van Kampen. And, yes, he pulls out all the stops which might be pleasure enough if all you are looking for is to see a great actor exercise his muscles. In that respect, Mr. Rylance certainly does not disappoint.
Then there’s the play itself. I think a great many theatergoers have been eagerly awaiting Farinelli and the King, which opens tonight on Broadway, because of the memorable productions of Twelfth Night and Richard III that Mr. Rylance and Shakespeare’s Globe Theatre in London also brought to the same Belasco Theatre in late 2013. Like those, Farinelli is lit by candlelight, has no sound amplification, features richly-textured period costumes and is performed on a simply decorated stage with a gallery for musicians playing on baroque instruments and with on-stage seating for some of the audience.
But, like Hamlet says, “The play’s the thing.” There is an enormous gulf between Shakespeare’s plays in the Globe’s last Broadway visit and Ms. van Kampen’s first-time effort at playwriting.
She has penned a story which is grounded in historical accuracy. The queen, Philippe’s second wife, Isabella Farnese (an excellent Melody Grove), travels to London in 1737 to engage Farinelli, the celebrated castrato, to sing exclusively for her husband, believing that his beautiful voice would restore Philippe’s health. In fact, the therapeutic power of music has been scientifically proven and is used today in treatments such as autism. Farinelli, by the way, stayed at the Spanish court until 1759 and never sang in public again.
The play has two interesting aspects. One is a premise in the writing. Philippe and Farinelli form a kinship because both were robbed of their youth. The Italian singer, born as Carlo Broschi, was castrated by his brother at age 10 to preserve his beautiful voice. The French-born Philippe, who ruled for almost 46 years, was the grandson of King Louis XIV and was placed on the Spanish somewhat unhappily at age 17. Another conceit of commonality, which is forced, is that Farinelli and Mr. Rylance, the actor not the character, share similarly rich vocal powers: the former in singing and the latter in speech.
The other, and more interesting aspect, is the casting of two people, dressed and wigged identically, to portray Farinelli. Sam Crane acts the character while the countertenor Iestyn Davies sings Farinelli. He sings well enough, the highlight being Handel's moving “Lascia ch'io pianga” from Rinaldo at the end. Yet, I felt the balance was off because Mr. Rylance is a superstar-calibre actor and Mr. Davies is merely very good (or perhaps only just that on the night I heard him). You’d need a Luciano Pavarotti to balance Mark Rylance.
So the merits of Farinelli and the King are in the notion of bifurcating the role of Farinelli; the efficient staging by director John Dove; the design (set and costumes by Jonathan Fensom; lighting by Paul Russell); the live music played by seven musicians; and the generally good acting. The villain, by the way, is played well by Edward Peel as the King’s chief minister who plots for an abdication.
The downside is that Ms. van Kampen has little to say about music’s ability to heal other than allowing Mr. Davies to repeatedly attempt to illustrate the point. The plot is interesting in the first act. After intermission, the scene shifts to the countryside where Philippe brings Isabella and Farinelli to live the simple close-to-nature country life. That half of the play is not very interesting, a let-down akin to a musical with second-act troubles. The playwright peppers her script with contemporary anachronisms, most often for comic relief, and some Shakespearean quotations. With few ideas beyond the basic premise, these seem like gimmicks.
One could make the case that buying a ticket to watch Mark Rylance offers satisfaction enough. But sitting through Act II soured me on even that thought.
★ ★ ★ ☆ ☆
