Informal Commentary on Theatre and Films - July, 1968 - No. 1

Sep 21, 2026

Uploaded by Violet

Informal theatre and film review commentary from July 1968, No. 1, focusing on Joseph Papp’s New York Shakespeare Festival repertory production of Henry IV I & II in tandem. The notes praise the disciplined ensemble performances, direction, and script structure, while discussing emotional impact, characterization opportunities, and staging elements such as lighting, music, and stage space. A separate review addresses Rosemary’s Baby, evaluating its thematic choices, suspense, performances, and key production qualities.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryLiterature

FormatPDF

Pages2

Reading Time3 min

AccessFree to download

Informal Commentary on Theatre and Films

Henry IV I & II (Repertory) - July 1968, No. 1

"ROSEMARY'S BABY" (Paramount) - Roman Polanski

□AUDIENCE□ # INFORMAL COMMENTARY ON THEATRE AND FILMS □JULY,1968No。1 "HENRY IVI&Ⅱ(in repertory);New York Shakespeare Festival;Joseph Papp,producer Production and acting elements blend sosuperbly in this tour-de-force of repertorypresentation that the cumulative emotional effectdefies analysis;this must be a landmark inShakespearean production. Gerald Freedman,director of the plays,has asked that they be considered together inorder to appreciate the structure of the scriptsand his own design,and he is quite right.Thefascinating tapestry of uniformly fine perform-ances gradually unfolds over the course of twoevenings;for example,Stacey Keach's controland discipline in the role of Falstaff can fullyfunction,to the actor's gratification and theaudience's enjoyment,when they have,as theydo here,enough time to be developed.In thetitle role,James Ray also uses the extendedopportunity for characterization to good advan-tage. This is not tolimply that Part Iis un-satisfactory in itself;Sam Waterston(PrinceHal)and Barry Primus(Hotspur)have awak-ened our interest and even affection for eachof these antagonistic royal youths,and theirconflict is excitingly concluded in the climac-tic battle fought amid cannon,bagpipes,fireand smoke.Yet there is an emotional need,created by Mr.Freedman,for a continuationof the story that once can sense in the audiencethe following night,when Part II begins.Andwhen it ends,you know you have participatedin a memorable theatrical design. It is impossible to be fair to all in-volved in this tandem production;easy as it isto single out the larger roles,one feels guiltyat slighting the ensemble playing(that rarething)of the entire cast,down to the lowliestmessenger bringing ope-line|news of|battle.No one over-reacts,but everyone on stage.obviously cares about the other characters ateach moment.Falstaff is observantly patientwith Robert Stattel's Justive Silence,almostintoxicated with his own senility;real affec-tion for Sir John peeps through Rae Allen'energetic performance as Doll Tearsheet;Charlotte Rae shows us a Hostess Quicklywho,againat every wish,adds to(ratherthan controls)the confusion in her tavern;Stephen Elliott,as the Lord Chief Justice inPart II,contributes an interesting fresh focus onhis scenes through pure,sincere belief.in whathe is doing. Sam Waterston's Hal and Herb Davia'Archbishop of York may not solve all of theproblema presented by these difficult char- acters,and John Morrie!musical introduc-tions to the tavern acenes may grow slightlyrepetitious,but each of these gentlemenmade an artistic decision and stuck to it,totheir credit.To quarrel with minor facets ofperformance in the face of the disciplinedsincerity displayed in every scene would bepetty.Praise is,simply,due |everyone,e-pecially those who,like Joseph R.Sicari,double and triple in roles in the two evenings.And a special salute to Mr.Primus,whoreappears in Part II as a suicidally hyper-thyroid Pistol;his comedy approaches sur-realism without once slipping out of keywith the setting or other performances. Mr.Papp's free Central Park pro-ductions have brought an American vitalityand freshness of approach to Shakespearein the past decade,but reviews usually failto mention the contributions of his technicalstaff.This double production is an excellentexample of Ming Cho Lee's sense of scalein matching his settings to the theatre(Lin-coln Center has much to learn in designingand using stage space,and Mr.Lee ia theman to teach them).Anyone who saw "TinyAlice"on Broadway knows,Martin Aronsteinto be a master of creating mood throughlighting,but his work for the ShakespeareFestival is frequently taken for granted oroverlooked;well,many more lessons canbe learned from observing his side-lightingand color contrast for "Henry IV."Themood he set,in association with Mr.Morris'music,in transporting us(in Part II)fromFalstaff's farewell to Hostess Quickly intothe opening of ActⅢ in the king's chamberswas so well managed that w

FAQs

What plays are reviewed in the Henry IV repertory section?

The review covers Henry IV I & II as a repertory presentation in New York, directed within Joseph Papp’s Shakespeare Festival framework.

What aspects does the Henry IV review highlight most?

It emphasizes the ensemble’s disciplined performances, the director Gerald Freedman’s approach to considering both parts together, and production craftsmanship such as lighting, music, and stage staging.

How is "ROSEMARY'S BABY" assessed in the film review?

The review describes it as entertaining but criticizes a thematic flaw that avoids fully addressing the plot consequences of its premise, while praising mood, color work, makeup, and certain performances.

Sep 21, 2026

Uploaded by Violet