Hamlet at Antaeus (review)

 Spoilers ahoy!

Antaeus Theatre Company remains something of a jewel in the Los Angeles Theatre community, a highly (and deservedly) respected group with lots of support and which produced marvelous classic works.  I  have certainly found their shows just lovely, wonderful, touching.

So they have created some mighty strong expectations.  Which means the current production of Hamlet suffers by comparison.  Unfairly.

I want to start with the good, which is very good indeed.  This show has literally one of the best Laertes (Michael Kirby) I have ever seen, especially since that remains one of the most difficult roles in the whole play.  Unlike most Shakespeare productions, I understood almost every single sentence spoken--which to be honest is the norm for Antaeus.  Several "lesser" characters were not only good, but excellent such as the Player King (Joel Swetow), and Guildenstern (Sally Hughes).  Also, and this is no small thing, the sword fight was good.  Cannot tell you how much a bad or poorly rehearsed sword fight has ruined many a Hamlet or other play I've attended over the years.  Plus I was genuinely impressed at how this edit retained so much of the play (like Fortinbras!) so often omitted from what is after a very long play.

This makes it sound like I'm about to damn the rest of the production with faint praise.  No!  Nor will I even praise with faint damnation.  I will simply say--it is not uniformly excellent, while never once stopping anything but a good performance.

In fact the only solid criticism I have is that the costumes were a little bland.  A little.  Not even solidly bland, just kinda/sorta.

On a more subtle point, I did not personally feel or perceive any specific theme or idea in the production, especially in the first half of the first Act.  The director's note in the program identifies Hamlet's dilemma in rather boring terms of plot, rather than emotional life of the character.  In the very best productions of this play, I know for sure whether Hamlet (Ramon de Ocampo) and Ophelia (Jeanne Syquia) have slept together.  In this one, I have a strong suspicion only--which still places this above the vast majority of productions.  Likewise I was very impressed with Gertrude (Veralyn Jones), and I thoroughly approve of casting one actor to play both Uncle and Ghost (Gregg T. Daniel).  Polonius (Peter Van Norden) remains the most difficult role in the whole play, and I have still seen only two performances in the role I totally believed.  One of those was Ian Holm.  But this time at least he was genuinely charming, which is a vast improvement.

All of which boils down to complaints about nuance in a production I think otherwise quite good.  

Hamlet plays Fridays at 8pm, Saturdays at 2pm and 8pm, Sundays at 2pm and Mondays at 8pm at the Kiki & David Gindler Performing Arts Center, 110 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91205

Shakespeare's Rose Queen (review)

Spoilers ahoy!

The Ensemble Shakespeare Theatre recently completed a run of what strikes me as a very exciting project.  Writer/director Brian Elerding looked at the four plays that comprise Shakespeare's cycle about the so-called Wars of the Roses (actually at the time they were simply called The Cousins War, but never mind--this isn't about literal history)--Henry VI Parts 1, 2 and 3, and Richard III--and decided to focus upon the one character they have in common.  Margaret of Anjou, the "she wolf of France."  Like several other French brides to weak English Kings, she earned a reputation for arrogance and cruelty that had quite a lot to do with her being a woman.

What Elerding did was to radically edit all four plays to create in effect a new work--Shakespeare's Rose Queen.  It charts a young princess who finds love and comfort amid a faction-ridden foreign court, learning eventually to defend herself, becoming the leader in one side of a long Civil War.  In the end, she loses.  The tides of battle and human betrayal turn, her ever-rising rage and pride crashing against the rocks of history.  She loses everything.  Yet lives long enough to see the cycle start anew for her successor as Queen.

Now I want to make a point here.  Of late the most exciting Shakespeare productions I've seen tend to perform the plays with some kind of twist, a stepping sideways in some way that somehow brings the whole thing into sharper relief.  Be it Romeo and Juliet, The Tempest, Othello--when it works we see them anew, more vividly and true to themselves.

In other words, exactly waht Elerding is trying to pull off here.  Does he succeed?  Almost.  He has certainly created a fascinating piece of theatre, melding not only Shakespeare's language but also a sense of dance/movement very modern yet also timeless.  The battles in particular--enacted as beautiful but grotesque dance far upstage, two lines of performers struggling with one another without really touching--grabbed my attention and stirred my reactions.  So too did many performances, acting out scenes those of us who love Shakespeare rarely get to see.  Natalie Fryman for example as the young Richard, who will one day be the terrible tyrant.  John McCormick as Richard of York, perhaps the only person who ever loved Richard, the royal duke who gambled for the throne and just barely lost.  Sonny Calvano as Warwick, the Kingmaker, in this production an almost spider-like figure with the manner of a fussy monk.  Jay Blair as Henry VI, son of the brilliant war leader who came to the throne before his first birthday and clearly felt the burden of the crown with none of its pleasures.

Along the way, let me also praise Megan Rippey as the title character, who correspondingly shows us the arc of hopes dashed, victories stolen, frustrations stirred, revenges coming to nothing, until all she has turns to ashes.  The whole cast really did a very fine job indeed.

So why do I say "almost"?

Nuance mostly.  Shakespeare's Rose Queen works on very many levels, but the pace ultimately becomes too frantic in the second act.  Small wonder, given the source material (and presents a major challenge for anyone producing the Henry VI plays).  But that frantic pace interfered with character after a time.

At this point, as a playwright myself, I'm sorely tempted to start offering specific suggestions--which is not my place.  This is Brian Elerding's vision, and my job here is only to point out what seems the weakest part of his work--while noting I believe he can fix this, not least because of the extraordinary results already achieved.  As he himself notes in the program "There are battles ignored here, plot twists forgotten and entire subplots omitted."  Of necessity!  The result dazzled me in many ways.

I'd like to do a call out to the rest of the cast as well, including JR Davidson, Katie Peabody, Daniel Rivera and Brian White.  The original score by John Guth also melded very well with Hilary Thomas' choreography.  This particular show's run has ended.  I saw the last performance.  But I very much hope more productions follow.

Tempest Redux (review)

Spoilers ahoy!

Tempest Redux is a re-imagining of one of Shakespeare's last plays (many believe Prospero is a stand-in for the Bard himself). For the most part, this re-imagining consists of a careful edit, streamlining the show with considerable skill.  At least that takes up the most time in terms of changes.

But so much more awaits those who see this production.

Allow me to admit (as before) that as an audience member I'm very stingy when it comes to standing ovations.  Many the time, after a very good performance, my applause has been sincere and long, yet my seat remained occupied while others rose.  Just quality alone does not deserve a standing ovation.  My standard for such is when I feel genuinely changed by a performance, when my world is rocked in a way and on so many levels the world itself seems a different place.  Easily can I name really fantastic, wonderful, even trascendent works of theatre for which I did not rise.  Yeah, I'm tough that way.

Photo by Enci Box

For Tempest Redux, I could not help but rise to my feet.  In awe and gratitude, at the same time needing some time to recover from the power of this show.

I'll get to final revelation that felt like a slice into my soul in a little bit, but first -- the production overall.  Shakespeare's plays have the fantastic power of allowing all kinds of styles and methods to tell their tale.  This one, arising from the Odyssey Theatre Ensemble and the New American Theatre, startles in many ways.  One is its physicality, including having no less than three actors (Shea Donovan, Briana Price, Emily Yetter) simultaneously portray Ariel, lipsyncing recorded words in a kind of dance with sound and movement and even lights.  Likewise two actor together (Dash Pepin, William Long) were together Caliban, often entwined, sometimes hand-in-hand, or moving in complete unison.  The effect proved dazzling, even magical, and appropriate for the non-human characters.

Photo by Jeannine Wisnosky Stehlin

Kudos to the entire cast, actually, up to and including Mimi Davila as a feisty, kind, obedient and unafraid Miranda (just think about trying to convey all of those qualities at the same time).  Charles Hunter Paul likewise proved a refreshingly believable young prince, one capable of seeing in this strange girl all his heart might desire. Arguably these are the two most difficult roles in the play (much like Hero and Claudio in Much Ado About Nothing).  Dennis Gersten likewise did wonders as Antonio, faithless brother to Prospero, as well as the cook Trinculo.  Gildart Jackson shone in his double role as well--a grieving and sincere King Alonso, and as the delightfully supercillious Stephano, drunken butler to His Majesty (and would-be God King to the simple-minded Caliban).

But the star of any Tempest needs must be Prospero (Jack Stehlin), the aging father, exiled Duke, and powerful sorcerer.  Here lies the most startling and vivid performance of all, which frankly took some doing!  But then, this is the part to do it with.  We halfway expect to see Prospero as a version of Gandalf from Lord of the Rings or maybe Dumbledore from Harry Potter.  No.  Here we meet a dying old man, one distracted by his musings and full of sorrows, but also capable of the most tender emotions imaginable.  Indeed, at times he seems overwhelmed by his own heart, while increasingly surprised by events.

Photo by Enci Box

And here we get to the gut-wrenching spoiler.  Outline the next paragraph is you want to learn it.  You might prefer to wait and see the show.

Nothing we see is real, or very nearly nothing.  Prospero's loneliness and tragedy have driven him mad, until at last waking dreams of a sublimely happy ending take form.  I myself suspect Ariel is real, and has faithfully created these illusions for her Master all these years, and as he sets her free at last, harsh reality closes in.  Prospero is wise, and good.  We long for that happy ending this man deserves so very very much -- and in the end he has nothing but his wandering wits, and a tiny skeleton of the daughter who of course did not survive.  "Now all our revels are ended..."

I had the great good fortune to speak with the director/adaptor of this play, John Famanesh-Bocca, and can only say I will eagerly attend any show of his in the future.  Just as I felt honored to meet the cast and tell them individually this was indeed the best version of The Tempest I have ever seen.

Tempest Redux plays at the Odyssey Theatre at 2055 South Sepulveda Boulevard Los Angeles, CA. 90025 until April 10, 2016 Fridays and Saturdays at 8pm, Sundays at 2pm. NOTE: THIS SHOW HAD BEEN EXTENDED.