That could be a good thing of course, but unfortunately it seemed that's all we had to say on the matter. Interestingly both began their comment of the first part the same, then paused and said the same one more time, 'But I'm beginning to get into it now.'
I thought the all women cast was pointless and didn't work. No additional understanding of Shakespeare's themes or of the role of women under that social context was gained.
When Shakespeare wrote this play his actors would have all been male and that is reflected in the comedy of the language - references to 'swords' and 'standing upright' are abundant while two men chase each other around the stage. So what's wrong with the comedy of an all women cast chasing each other around the stage to the same effect? Quite a lot it seems. It doesn't work to have women dressed up as men but wearing 2" heels, trying to intensify Shakespeare's themes when they don't really need help. He's the best of all at saying that men can think and behave quite poorly at times. I think of Portia [The Merchant of Venice] as someone who shows up the true virtue of men. And none of the men in The Taming of the Shrew are in anyway endearing!
So why didn't it work?
I thought the acting was poor: The programme, which was by far the best I've seen actually, described it as, '...raucous.' I thought it was stagey and showy: it consisted of movement that was awkward in front of audience . The characters addressed the audience most of the time and often appealed to them with open arms - reminiscent of a cockney bard, '...with a hey nonny nonny.' Lucentio danced and tapped her heals throughout which became a very clear 'actor's tell' - I could see that and nothing else in her character.
'It wasn't what we expected,'
I think my friends and I coughed up the cash because of the expectations we hold behind the words, 'Globe Theatre!.'
If you did see it and don't agree with me - here's a tester - did you laugh?