With an opening that caused me to fear for my general well-being I was apprehensive about what the next two hours would bring. In a modest space, inches from my face, a sword and axe fight burst into the room, looking a little bit too rough around the edges. It was at this point I began to feel that maybe this story was better suited to a different format.
In a tale just shy of 2 hours we follow King Arthur through his childhood, witness his betrayals and his adult life unfold. Around him hang the stories of Lancelot, Merlin and the other cast of characters we expect to see in any Arthurian tale.
The writing was strong and the characters faultlessly thought out but the non-linear structure, minute long scenes and over-ambitious set pieces would have been far better suited to radio, screen or novel. The result was long scene changes, confusing character swapping and poorly choreographed stage fighting. For all its lack of pace with direction the actors themselves were more than adept in animating the script which peaked my interest and moved me to smile more than once. Most notable were the actors playing King Arthur (both old and young) whose performances held the play together.
The play was ultimately far too long and the production seemed to lack a constant tone, shifting from serious drama to bad student improvised comedy about half way through. The worst example of this was improvisation shamelessly purloined from Monty Python. This was so incongruous with the rest of the action it felt like the actors had forgotten where the story was going - a shame seeing as the strength lay so heavily with the writing. The writer and director should consider moving into film or fantasy novels or at least stay out of small black box spaces with no backstage area.
