Auckland Theatre Company — Local services in Albert-Eden

King Lear was a sentimental fool who, lacking a male heir, divided up his kingdom between his daughters before he’d passed away. What he should’ve done was name the eldest, Goneril, as heir, marry off the youngest to France as an ally, and give Kent the power of regency to cover his impending senility. Goneril may have been wicked, but things couldn’t have turned out worse than they did, and her husband the Duke of Albany (Scotland) may have moderated her worst inclinations. Instead, his situation quickly descends from high formality to humiliation to madness and chaos. Those most loyal to Lear all suffer for it, notably his daughter Cordelia, whom he rejects in Act I and who dies in his arms at the end. The political lesson is clear: only a fool divides his sovereignty voluntarily. First performed in 1606, not long after the succession of James VI of Scotland to the English throne as James I, the audience were well aware of dynastic politics and the importance of avoiding a war of succession. The fact that James's mother, Mary Queen of Scots, had been scandalously executed under Queen Elizabeth's reign was still in living memory. What do we see in it now? In the course of watching Lear’s self-inflicted disgrace, we learn how hypocrisy and unbridled ambitions destroy us. Truth is folly and the mad lead the blind. On the way to his madness, Lear becomes little more than a bitter, twisted and impotent old man, and yet somehow, through the devilish pace of events, he lays bare the inner self, the absolute importance of loyalty, and the impossibility of true justice. Somehow this idiotic and humiliated character must reveal the nobility that underlies our most unworthy motives and feelings. One of the most derided figures of our times is the narcissistic, pathetic and lecherous old man, especially when he thinks he can rule. There are crowds on social media just itching for opportunities to ridicule, dethrone and emasculate him. How does one act this pathetic old fool and yet display his true pathos to reveal a timeless meaning? This takes an actor of true maturity and sustained skill, and Micheal Hurst carries it off masterfully. ‘Doing Lear’ is a crowning achievement for his distinguished career. There’s a fine line between pathos and pathetic, and the play relies almost entirely on the quality of its lead to ensure that the audience can see the pathetic side and yet still feel the pathos. Lear is a play that demands all of our mental powers to comprehend the worst and the best that may emerge from the decisions that we make. On his journey into idiocy, isolation and loss, Lear leads us back into ourselves. The ATC production brought that out...

I went to see Murder on the Orient Express, the best-selling production in ACT history. The set design, crafted by Shane Bosher, cleverly compensated for the limitations of the ATC Theatre’s smaller space—his expertise really shone through. The set was stunning and completely drew me in during the first half of the show.

However, the problem lay with the actors. The lead, Cameron, leaned too heavily into humor, which made it hard to take his performance seriously. Most of the other actors seemed to be reciting lines without emotion, making it difficult to feel any connection to the characters. The only standout performance came from Jen Ludlam, who delivered a convincing and grounded portrayal.

The second half was particularly underwhelming. By the time we got to the reveal of the culprit, I honestly wasn’t sure what the production was trying to convey. It was surprising—and telling—that there was hardly any standing ovation, which is rare for a show directed by Shane. Although the cast was made up of seasoned performers, many of them overacted, and the serious tone of the original story was unfortunately lost in a comedic approach. It was a disappointing departure from what I...

I was eagerly looking forward to the performance because of the reviews which talked about hearing audiences laugh alot and I was bitterly disappointed. The language was offensive and the story line weak. The lightening and set changes were first rate but I don't think it was worth the money we spent to come and would not recommend this show to anyone. The performance of the robots was excellent and the leading lady a strong performer. Unfortunately her role was tarnished by offensive language which made her and the show look cheap. It was very poor directorship that thought the use of such language was acceptable to the general public. The front of the house people were excellent but wouldn't recommend this show as value for money nor would I recommend anyone attend. I am left very...