I’ve been going to the Shakespeare Theatre regularly for several years now, and lately I’ve come to realize that I prefer their non-Shakespeare plays. Although Shakespeare’s work is filled with beautiful language (and sometimes you can even understand it), the purported universality of his stories rarely pertains to my life: I’ve never plotted against the king, nor disguised myself to win a lover’s heart. Despite these challenges, once in a while the Shakespeare Theatre hits a home run with one of Willie’s plays. The current production of “King Lear” is definitely a home run.
The play is written as if set in England during some unidentified era. This production didn’t change that in the dialog, but the costumes and props put the action in some contemporary despotic Slavic country. Usually, when Shakespeare is reset in different eras, the audience is left wondering why. In this production of “King Lear,” it worked beautifully. The violence in the play was presented with imagery familiar to all of us from movies about organized crime and drugs. War’s destruction was depicted by body bags and rubble. Even wealth and poverty were tied to the audience’s life experiences.
Stacy Keach does a convincing job both as a dictatorial king and an unbalanced old man. The rest of the cast is strong enough to keep their parts from being overshadowed. All of their characters are intriguing and well-played.
Several of my normal criticisms of Shakespeare Theater productions were thwarted by this play: 1) The king’s manipulative daughters are not merely passive love interests, but are provided with strong roles that move the plot and the action and 2) There was nudity, but for a change it did not seem like an affected attempt to shock the audience.
The set and the props were on par with everything else about the play. They were visually interesting without being so overblown as to distract. The opening set has you staring at a set of men’s room urinals, complete with rust stains and an old lady collecting tips. (For any of you who have not experienced a public rest room in Eastern Europe, this is what you’ve missed.) There were several subtle things that I particularly enjoyed. In the sound track during an evening scene, there were crickets quietly chirping in the background. Also, the storm was very realistic. I briefly wondered whether it was a real drizzle falling on the stage. The music, not so subtle, was interesting and catchy enough I wanted to hear more.
So what about the weak points? There were a few. There were places where the dialog was hard to follow. I recommend giving yourself a few minutes before the curtain to read the plot synopsis twice. Also, the king’s decent into madness was a little abrupt, and interrupted by a brief dance that seemed to come from and go nowhere. But these are minor flaws when taken as part of the whole experience.
Here is one historical note that helps explains the play’s conflict. During the days of European feudalism, the king would travel from one lord’s house to the next, so that he could inspect his lands and handle local administrative duties. Of course he traveled with an entourage, and whichever lord he was visiting was expected to feed them all in an appropriate manner. Thus, the king’s visits were expensive, burdensome, and not always appreciated.
"King Lear" runs until July 26 at the Sidney Harman Hall, http://www.shakespearetheatre.org.
No comments:
Post a Comment