Last year with The Merchant of Venice, and The Winters Tale a tradition was reborn at The Public Theaters annual Shakespeare in the Park. That tradition was repertory theater. With a few notable exceptions, last summer, one company of actors performed two of Shakespeare's plays in repertory at The Delacorte Theater in Central Park.
This new again tradition lived on this summer with The Public Theaters productions of Measure for Measure and All's Well That Ends Well. Like Merchant and Winters. These two plays were paired together because the offer an audience an enhanced experience being performed together, and so I've chosen to right about them together so that the intent of each is not lost.
Measure for Measure concerns a politician who is combating the moral corruption of his constituents while simultaneously being embroiled in his own sexual scandal. Given recent headlines this theme seems quite timely. There are subplots and minor characters, but that is the main storyline.
Director David Esbjornson has kept the action of the play in the Renaissance period which is when it was originally set. This staging begins with The Duke having what appears to be a horrid nightmare complete with black devils and dismembered bodies. The devils were very effective in giving The Duke reason to abdicate his throne to Antonio, and suggesting a slight mental imbalance from which he must recover. The devils continue to be seen throughout the first act and then disappear in the second act altogether. This makes their use confusing because once they are divorced from the The Dukes mind their practical application is lost.
Measure presents plot problems early on that Modern audiences will not except, and Mr. Esbjornson has attempted to rectify those problems through clarity of action, and imposing silent staging upon the text. This works quite well for the most part. There are still problems, but you forgive them. This is as wonderful a production of Measure as you are like to find. The performances from all are wonderful.
All's Well That Ends Well is a tale of love unrequited, a woman scorned, and a wanton youth reigned in. I found this text to be a bit more problematic because neither of the main characters is written to be particularly likable. Annie Parisse fixed this quite well in making her portrayal of Helena extremely likable. Andre Holland as Bertram, unfortunately, does not make you feel an ounce of Sympathy for the character, and perhaps with was a joint decision with director Daniel Sullivan to throw all of the sympathy in Helena's court.
What you end up with though, is an unbalanced production. What you have is a play that asks you not to take sides, and a production that demands it. This juxtaposition is interesting and effective. Helena traps Bertram into a marriage in which he does not want to be in. Up to this point Bertram has done absolutely nothing to gain the audiences derision, so we do feel bad. We feel bad for both parties though, we feel sorry for Helena being in love with a man who does not return her affections, and also for the fact that she must force him to marry her. We feel sorry for Bertram to be forced into a marriage with a woman he does not love, this sorrow is quickly usurped, however, by Bertram's subsequent actions.
I find this all to be very interesting, because if the genders were reversed, and it was a woman forced into a marriage with a man she did not love, and she behaved similarly (to a point) would our feelings be the same? Would we feel as badly for the man who lost his wife as we do for the woman who lost her husband? It's an interesting question. There are many wonderful performances in this play as well. The aforementioned Annie Parisse as well as Tonya Pinkins as the countess.
Now for the true examination, these plays couples together achieve an interesting study of Shakespeare's work. You have two plays that are considered by many to be two if his worst plays. Each has their own set of problems, but they are similar in their structure. Neither is easily classified as either a comedy or a tragedy. They don't quite "fit" into any category. They both end in weddings and contain no deaths, so technically that categorized them as "comedies" in the cannon. However, all of the weddings are unhappy, or at the very least bittersweet. And the action that leads up to these marriages are certainly tinged with unfunny drama.
Not only are they similar in structure, but they both operate the same device of a "bed trick". That is, a man believes he is going to bed with one woman, but that woman has reached an agreement with another to slip out of bed so that the other woman can trick said man into sleeping with her. These are two of the most interesting, and problematic of each play. It's difficult for modern audiences to believe (as I'm sure it has always been), that even in the throws of passion a man would not be able to tell the difference between two women. I would also gather that this is also seen as being a bit demeaning to women, that they are viewed as sex objects and one is just as good as the next.
Shakespeare in the Park ends on Sunday. If you live in or around NYC and have the chance to get to the park to see one or either production I highly recommend it. You will witness two of Shakespeare's masterpieces and be treated to something that will surely entertain you, and may perhaps, as it did for me, leave you with much to think about!
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Jerusalem
Two time Tony award winner Mark Rylance is shaking the foundation of The Music Box theater with his powerful performance in Jez Butterworths brilliant play Jerusalem. An iconic performance is being delivered on those boards folks, the likes of which people will talk about for years to come. Mr. Rylance place Johnny "Rooster" Byron, and these two names will be come as synonymous with each other as Ethyl Merman and Mama Rose, Carol Channing and Dolly Levi, and Patti Lupone and Evita.
On it's surface the play is about a hollow shell of man who deals drugs, drinks to much and lives in a trailer in the woods being evicted from his property, and the self destruction that leads up to and follows that point. Beneath that surface Jerusalem is about so much more that I doubt one can understand it fully in only one viewing of the play.
Jerusalem is a play that takes place in the present, but calls for the days of yore. Characters in the play are very often waxing nostalgic over the way things used to be. While the play takes place in Britain and is very much about the decline of English society, it's underlying themes are universal and can be applied to any nation rich in history, culture, and nature.
The set design reinforces this longing for days gone by. The show curtain is St. Georges cross, which was the flag of medieval England. Johnny's trailer is adorned with a sign that reads "Waterloo". Johnny himself is like a modern day Robin Hood, protecting his "Sherwood forest".
There is very little time left for New York audiences to take in this true masterpiece. The show closes it's (extended) limited engagement on August 21st. There are many ways to get tickets without forking over an arm and a leg. If you arrive at the box office an hour before it opens they give out tickets for $36.50 to the first 15 or so people in line. There are also discounts available on www.broadwaybox.com make a point to see this play, you will not be disappointed.
On it's surface the play is about a hollow shell of man who deals drugs, drinks to much and lives in a trailer in the woods being evicted from his property, and the self destruction that leads up to and follows that point. Beneath that surface Jerusalem is about so much more that I doubt one can understand it fully in only one viewing of the play.
Jerusalem is a play that takes place in the present, but calls for the days of yore. Characters in the play are very often waxing nostalgic over the way things used to be. While the play takes place in Britain and is very much about the decline of English society, it's underlying themes are universal and can be applied to any nation rich in history, culture, and nature.
The set design reinforces this longing for days gone by. The show curtain is St. Georges cross, which was the flag of medieval England. Johnny's trailer is adorned with a sign that reads "Waterloo". Johnny himself is like a modern day Robin Hood, protecting his "Sherwood forest".
There is very little time left for New York audiences to take in this true masterpiece. The show closes it's (extended) limited engagement on August 21st. There are many ways to get tickets without forking over an arm and a leg. If you arrive at the box office an hour before it opens they give out tickets for $36.50 to the first 15 or so people in line. There are also discounts available on www.broadwaybox.com make a point to see this play, you will not be disappointed.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Les Miserables
It has been called "The World's Most Popular Musical", by some, including it's advertisers. The original production has closed on Broadway, and a short lived Broadway revival has already come and gone, but the original staging is still going strong over on London's West End, and that is where I took the play in.
My husband, Matthew has never really been a fan of Les Miserables, or Les Miz, as the common folk call it, or Miz as we lazy theater folk call it. He had never seen the show and had only heard the cast recordings. I say "recordings" because I've forced him to listen to The Original London Cast recording, The Original Broadway Cast recording, The complete Symphonic Recording, and the 10th anniversary cast recording. He would always remark "I prefer Miss Saigon".
When we first realized that we'd be going to London, and seeing a show, I asked him what he'd like to see, and strangely enough he said that he'd very much like to see Les Miz, because he never had, and he feels like it's one of those things one ought to see. I agreed and we set out to get tickets. You would think a show that been playing on the West End, or anyplace for that matter, for over 25 years wouldn't be too difficult to secure a seat for, but you would be mistaken. The entire show was sold out for over a week. This was apparently due to the return of a favorite UK star, Alfie Boe (sp?)
Matt and I decided, against my better judgement, that we would take two standing room tickets. In the US standing room is usually at the back of the Orchestra (they call the Orchestra level The Stalls in the UK, makes me feel a bit like a horse, but I digress) These tickets, however, were for the very back of the upper level. So up we trudged to the rear of The Balcony, which really wasn't terribly far away, but it was far enough, and there we stood. For THREE (3) hours!
25 years later the original staging of Les Miserables is still very powerful. The last time I saw Les miserables I saw it from the Front Row of The colonial Theater in Boston, and I was 12 years old. As a 26 year old viewing it from the last possible row of The Queens Theater in London I had come full circle. It was well worth the stand.
It is difficult to keep this show fresh after so many years, but most of the cast does remarkably well. The famed and Favorite UK star that had packed in the crowds was ironically out at the performance we took in, but his Understudy was unfathomably good, in fact I didn't realize it was the understudy until intermission. Javert, Thenadier (both Messrs, and Mdm) were superb, as was Fantine if just a little bit "stagey". Cossette (both small and tall) were also quite good as was the rest of the cast.
The only week link in the production was the young woman who played Eponine. Her voice was breathy and shrill. It was not pleasant to listen to. Also, the character of Eponine is underwritten in the script. The actress really isn't given much to work with as far as text is concerned. This makes it imperative for the actress playing the role to be able to deliver MORE than what is on the page. Otherwise we wont feel for her as we ought to feel for her. This young woman was not able to do that. Nor did she possess a voice that made you wish she had more to sing.
Other than that minor disappointment (which to me was a bit more than just minor, but once again I digress) it was an excellent night out and well worth standing for three hours. For those of you who have only ever seen Les Miserables on tour before, you may be surprised to see that there are some subtle differences. There is a little bit more music, a little bit more dialogue, and the staging is just the slightest bit altered.
The only other thing that was lacking in this production was The Orchestration. It was reported on a number of years ago when the production moved from The Palace Theater to the Queens Theater that the orchestra would be diminished. This has hurt the music tremendously in my opinion. So much more of the music is done on an electronic synthesizer, and it hurts the sound in my opinion. Especially since every recording in existence has done away with the synth almost entirely in favor of a richer orchestral sound.
In February of 2012 Tom Hooper will begin production a film version of this now classic Musical starring Hugh Jackman as Jean Valjean. No other casting has been announced at this time, but so far, so good. It will be interesting to see how this incredibly theatrical (and 80's pop infused) score translates to modern film.
My husband, Matthew has never really been a fan of Les Miserables, or Les Miz, as the common folk call it, or Miz as we lazy theater folk call it. He had never seen the show and had only heard the cast recordings. I say "recordings" because I've forced him to listen to The Original London Cast recording, The Original Broadway Cast recording, The complete Symphonic Recording, and the 10th anniversary cast recording. He would always remark "I prefer Miss Saigon".
When we first realized that we'd be going to London, and seeing a show, I asked him what he'd like to see, and strangely enough he said that he'd very much like to see Les Miz, because he never had, and he feels like it's one of those things one ought to see. I agreed and we set out to get tickets. You would think a show that been playing on the West End, or anyplace for that matter, for over 25 years wouldn't be too difficult to secure a seat for, but you would be mistaken. The entire show was sold out for over a week. This was apparently due to the return of a favorite UK star, Alfie Boe (sp?)
Matt and I decided, against my better judgement, that we would take two standing room tickets. In the US standing room is usually at the back of the Orchestra (they call the Orchestra level The Stalls in the UK, makes me feel a bit like a horse, but I digress) These tickets, however, were for the very back of the upper level. So up we trudged to the rear of The Balcony, which really wasn't terribly far away, but it was far enough, and there we stood. For THREE (3) hours!
25 years later the original staging of Les Miserables is still very powerful. The last time I saw Les miserables I saw it from the Front Row of The colonial Theater in Boston, and I was 12 years old. As a 26 year old viewing it from the last possible row of The Queens Theater in London I had come full circle. It was well worth the stand.
It is difficult to keep this show fresh after so many years, but most of the cast does remarkably well. The famed and Favorite UK star that had packed in the crowds was ironically out at the performance we took in, but his Understudy was unfathomably good, in fact I didn't realize it was the understudy until intermission. Javert, Thenadier (both Messrs, and Mdm) were superb, as was Fantine if just a little bit "stagey". Cossette (both small and tall) were also quite good as was the rest of the cast.
The only week link in the production was the young woman who played Eponine. Her voice was breathy and shrill. It was not pleasant to listen to. Also, the character of Eponine is underwritten in the script. The actress really isn't given much to work with as far as text is concerned. This makes it imperative for the actress playing the role to be able to deliver MORE than what is on the page. Otherwise we wont feel for her as we ought to feel for her. This young woman was not able to do that. Nor did she possess a voice that made you wish she had more to sing.
Other than that minor disappointment (which to me was a bit more than just minor, but once again I digress) it was an excellent night out and well worth standing for three hours. For those of you who have only ever seen Les Miserables on tour before, you may be surprised to see that there are some subtle differences. There is a little bit more music, a little bit more dialogue, and the staging is just the slightest bit altered.
The only other thing that was lacking in this production was The Orchestration. It was reported on a number of years ago when the production moved from The Palace Theater to the Queens Theater that the orchestra would be diminished. This has hurt the music tremendously in my opinion. So much more of the music is done on an electronic synthesizer, and it hurts the sound in my opinion. Especially since every recording in existence has done away with the synth almost entirely in favor of a richer orchestral sound.
In February of 2012 Tom Hooper will begin production a film version of this now classic Musical starring Hugh Jackman as Jean Valjean. No other casting has been announced at this time, but so far, so good. It will be interesting to see how this incredibly theatrical (and 80's pop infused) score translates to modern film.
Friday, July 22, 2011
Love Never Dies
Well loyal readers it has been a very long time since my last update. You must forgive me because I got married :-). June 26th was the big day, and the week before the wedding I did not see any shows. Nor did I take anything in the week following. It was not until my honeymoon when we visited London's West End that I was able to take in another show.
The show is question is a sequel to the largest commercial theatrical success of all time, The Phantom of The Opera. For decades now, people have wondered what became of the Phantom after that last moment. Where did he go? What did he do? The film version gave a small bit of closure to this point, but largely there were still questions unanswered. Those questions, along with a whole bunch that nobody even cared to ask, are answered in this new production.
Last year a cast recording was released that reflected the score at that time. It should be noted that that recording has been rendered obsolete. Many changes have been made to the score since that time. What is track 7 on that recording, is now the first song in the show. That song "Till I hear you sing" is the absolute most thrilling song in the production. In fact, the first 20-30 minutes are actually very entertaining. The dialogue through out could be improved, and I'm sure it will be by the time the next production in Australia opens (that production, it should also be noted, has a new director, choreographer, set, lighting, and costume designer).
After the first half an hour unfortunately, things start to unravel. It becomes "Phantom of the soap opera". The story becomes convoluted to the point of silliness. Also, the score reverts back to 80's pop synths and electric guitar riffs. There is very little to remember of about the score from that point on.
The biggest fault, in my opinion, is that the character of The Phantom loses everything that made him appealing in the first musical. All of his talent and mystery is stripped away, and he becomes just a man in a mask. There is nothing even the least bit haunting about him. He is humanized in a way that he should not be. However, in all this humanization, nobody refers to him by his real name. They instead call him "The Master" or refer to him with pronouns. For those who have read the original novel, you will know that "The Opera Ghost" as he is called, does in fact have a birth name.
My hope is that the new creative team will steer this show in the right direction. There is actually great potential for a substantial musical. There needs to be some serious editing, and in my opinion some songs need to be cut and some songs need to be added to heighten the drama. If things things happen, and it's possible that they could, than this could be a highly entertaining and artistically successful show.
The show is question is a sequel to the largest commercial theatrical success of all time, The Phantom of The Opera. For decades now, people have wondered what became of the Phantom after that last moment. Where did he go? What did he do? The film version gave a small bit of closure to this point, but largely there were still questions unanswered. Those questions, along with a whole bunch that nobody even cared to ask, are answered in this new production.
Last year a cast recording was released that reflected the score at that time. It should be noted that that recording has been rendered obsolete. Many changes have been made to the score since that time. What is track 7 on that recording, is now the first song in the show. That song "Till I hear you sing" is the absolute most thrilling song in the production. In fact, the first 20-30 minutes are actually very entertaining. The dialogue through out could be improved, and I'm sure it will be by the time the next production in Australia opens (that production, it should also be noted, has a new director, choreographer, set, lighting, and costume designer).
After the first half an hour unfortunately, things start to unravel. It becomes "Phantom of the soap opera". The story becomes convoluted to the point of silliness. Also, the score reverts back to 80's pop synths and electric guitar riffs. There is very little to remember of about the score from that point on.
The biggest fault, in my opinion, is that the character of The Phantom loses everything that made him appealing in the first musical. All of his talent and mystery is stripped away, and he becomes just a man in a mask. There is nothing even the least bit haunting about him. He is humanized in a way that he should not be. However, in all this humanization, nobody refers to him by his real name. They instead call him "The Master" or refer to him with pronouns. For those who have read the original novel, you will know that "The Opera Ghost" as he is called, does in fact have a birth name.
My hope is that the new creative team will steer this show in the right direction. There is actually great potential for a substantial musical. There needs to be some serious editing, and in my opinion some songs need to be cut and some songs need to be added to heighten the drama. If things things happen, and it's possible that they could, than this could be a highly entertaining and artistically successful show.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)