Elizabeth Ashley brings Mrs. Warren to town

A guest review from Eric H.—
The Shakespeare Theater Company’s current play, Mrs. Warren's Profession, is well worth seeing. The acting is good, but that’s usually the case with the STC. The set is better than average, in an understated way. And George Bernard Shaw’s dialog is fun and witty. But what really stands out is the story’s moral.

In short, the play asks the audience to look at the source of its blessings before blindly accepting them. Is it sufficient that you have not done something immoral, if you are benefiting from the immoral acts of others? Despite the heavy themes, the play is funny and enjoyable. It alternates smoothly between humorous and serious dialog, likeable and despicable characters, large social issues and intimate family relationships.

The story is about mother who raised her daughter as best she could, resulting in a daughter who might not approve of her mother. Most of the play is set on the grounds of a diminutive English country cottage. The bucolic illusion is made complete by the changing colors in the sky. A careful eye will notice distant lightning, leading to a down pour in the final scene.

The characters enter one by one, each displaying his or her own peculiarities as if to give the audience time to make their acquaintance. The somewhat predictable humor surrounding the social inconvenience of Mrs. Warren’s profession is made fresh by good acting and entertaining characters. The potentially ponderous moral theme insinuates itself subtly in the play before taking the forefront of the action toward the play's conclusion.

It seems like an obvious set up for grade-B Hollywood comedy, but I couldn’t think of any films that arose to the challenge. You’ll have to go to the theater to enjoy this one. 

As You Like It (or Not)

Last Wednesday I saw the Shakespeare Theatre Company production of As You Like It. I didn’t. The acting is good, the writing is Shakespeare, and the sets are appealing. The problem is with the director’s “madcap” concept.

The play starts with a clever and well-executed live recreation of a silent movie clip, setting the scene for the beginning of the action. The scene then shifts to a conventional theater stage, with décor and costumes implying puritan England. Things work well like this until the main characters all flee tyranny and end up in the forest of Arden, which has somehow been relocated to the East Coast of North America. The same stage magic that merged two continents also transformed time, placing the continuing action just prior to the American Revolution.

That transition was jarring and a little disorienting. But the tie in with a search for freedom made it somewhat palatable. Unfortunately it didn’t stop there. Suddenly years and sets began to change at a dizzying pace. The play skipped merrily through almost 200 years in two hours which seemed like an eternity.

But wait, there’s more: the movie theme resurfaced. With each scene change various camera crews, gaffers, etc., swarmed the stage, then faded into the wings.

I kept waiting for the director to tie it all together, but when the spectacle was over, I was merely confused and disappointed.

NOTE: Today's review was written by the man in the good seats, Eric H.

A Look at Lear

Today guest writer Eric has sent in his review of the current production of "King Lear" at the Shakespeare Theater:

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.