Shakespeare In Love Marc Norman And Tom Stoppard

I had the opportunity to view the production of Shakespeare in Love based on the screenplay by Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard, on Sunday February 4th. The production was held at the South Coast Repertory Theater in Costa Mesa. Throughout the production there were two specific characters that I seemed to view as well as enjoy the most. Christopher ‘Kit’ Marlowe, Shakespeare dear friend and poet, and John Webster, the “youngest” and most annoying of the group of characters.
Starting with Christopher Marlowe, in a play that only can incorporate so much on stage without making the stage too overbearing leads the characters to use their imagination to allow the audience to see what is not there. Marlowe in my eyes has succeeded well in doing that

An example of this being the scene where Marlowe was helping and young Shakespeare serenade, there were variety of objects missing from the set: the bush the was hiding behind, the wall of the houses separating Juliet and them. But though they may have been absent, Marlowe was still able to illustrate their presence for the audience enough for us to “see” what he could.
I as touched by Marlowe because he seemed to be one of the most important characters, but probably one of the most underrated. His character was one that was always in the background, but he played a role that influenced the whole plot at a large. Shakespeare confidence in writing as well as his confidence in being with Viola de Lesseps had all been because of Marlowe. He is the vital character of this story, a position

Being a character that is portrayed as younger than the others and who had a height disadvantage, causes the actor to have to take a different approach to his vocals than other characters. Webster had seemed to do this well. The same with carrying himself in the mindset of a child. Webster walked with a slight hunched back, that kids take to growing up. He didn’t hold the same presence as Marlowe when he would walk into the room. Marlowe walked with sophistication, but Webster walked with a hint of mischievousness and ignorance. This was probably Webster’s biggest demand this role placed on him, trying to remain a child who was obviously not in the same class, education and ability as the other actors. Webster’s character was probably the most difficult to play. He had more aspects to himself that he had to take into account than other characters. He was a kid, a villain, a friend, ignorant, but overall, he was played by a grow man who probably wasn’t many of these things; being able to grasp this character correctly was the biggest demand for the actor. I was not touched by Webster’s performance as much as Marlowe’s, but I will admit that his actions and acting shows how much work he has put into perfecting his character to his ability. He fit the dramatic function of the characters by adding to the humor of the play