This was my first visit to the Keegan Theatre. It's in the middle of a quiet residential street and is housed in a small brick building that was originally the gymnasium of a private school. Although it is purely a work of fiction, "Elizabeth Rex" is based on a historical incident. On the night before the scheduled execution of her lover, the Earl of Essex, Queen Elizabeth I of England engaged William Shakespeare and his band of players to distract her from her grief over having had to sentence the Earl to death for his part in a conspiracy against the crown.

"Elizabeth Rex" takes place in the barn of the Queen's estate just outside London. Due to a curfew imposed until after the execution in order to prevent a civil disturbance, Shakespeare and several members of his company are forced to spend the night after their command performance in the barn. Unable to sleep, the Queen joins the players in the barn and has them keep her company to further distract her from her sorrows. The discourse between the Queen and the actors hits on the play's core themes of love and loss, gender roles, and the dichotomy between the people we are in private and the parts we play in public.

It's a excellent piece, well-written and powerfully performed. The set design and costumes are quite good and the cast is admirable, with the exception of the actors portraying Shakespeare and the Queen's counselor. In the case of the latter, given the minor nature of the role the casting of a weak actor is insignificant. However, placing a poor performer in the part of Shakespeare, one of the central characters, is another matter. The producers did strike gold though with the casting of the actors portraying the Queen and the dying actor Ned, who square off against each other in several scenes. Both performers invest their parts with a great degree of power and pathos without being hammy or overwrought. It's almost enough to make up for the miscast Shakespeare.

Report as inappropriate

• 0 Good To Know
• 1 I Like Your Writing
• 1 I Went And I Agree

An excellent performance of a fascinating play. It draws our attention to the dynamics of Shakespeare's acting troupe. It also dramatizes Queen Elizabeth's relationship with Shakespeare; with the Earl of Essex; and the tension between her personal feelings and her responsibilities as monarch. One quibble-- research I am conducting at the Folger Shakespeare Library makes it increasingly likely that "Oxfordians" have been correct since first asserting in 1920 that Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, used "Shakespeare" as a pseudonym, front man, and stage name. Scholars now agree "Shakespeare" stopped acting by 1604, the year de Vere died. For more, see http://www.princeton.edu/paw/web_exclusives/plus/plus_031908wegeman.html

Report as inappropriate

• 1 Good To Know
• 0 I Like Your Writing
• 0 I Went And I Agree

Superb rendition of an outstanding play. Our entire group of 10 loved it. The 18 member cast put on a coherent production, with distinguised performances by the lead players of Elizabeth (Kerry Waters Lucas), Ned (Eric Lucas) and Will (Robert Leembrugen). Although staged in a comedic format, this Shakespearan parody is a substantial drama for audiences who are serious about good theater. And like most good theater, it raises interesting questions for the audience to answer after the show. For more details about the play and its' history go to http://www.curtainup.com/elizabethrexstratford.html

Report as inappropriate

• 0 Good To Know
• 2 I Like Your Writing
• 3 I Went And I Agree

I thought the play was interesting and the acting universally good to excellent. I highly recommend this production

Report as inappropriate

• 0 Good To Know
• 0 I Like Your Writing
• 2 I Went And I Agree