Let us go to Arden - it is a silly place
Philling Station
Shakespeare; I was in town for research at the Cleveland Public
Library's John G. White Collection, and after three days looking at
microfilm of nineteenth century chess columns, I needed a break. On
Mark's gracious invitation, we spent the evening in the Forest of
Arden, and I found it a very silly place indeed.
The Great Lakes Theatre Festival's "As You Like It" was bizarrely
eclectic; since the play is set in a 'fantasy' Forest of Arden, the
director saw fit to stage the play in a bizarre never-never land
teeming with pop-culture references that sometimes overshadowed the
text. This review likes it slightly better than I did:
http://www.cleveland.com/entertainment/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/entertainment/1128429000149610.xml&coll=2
"The Great Lakes Theater Festival production she has directed of
Shakespeare's "As You Like It," which opened last weekend, caroms from
a prison world of harsh concrete to a watercolor woodland paradise;
from Noel Coward-era sophisticates in silk dressing gowns to hayseeds
straight out of "Hee Haw"; from Edwardian female froufrou and nightclub
chorus boys to cartoon hip-hop."
The opening scenes were stark, with concrete walls, harsh lighting, and
harsher music. The courtiers wore leather vests, boots, and whips, and
for a moment I feared it was an S and M As You Like It. The wrestling
match was held in a cage ala WWF, and staged like one, with a crowd of
jeering, chanting courtiers. Aside from the ridiculus Touchstone,
dressed in a bizarre black and white suit and delivering his lines like
a stand-up comic, there would be little to indicate As You Like It was
a comedy.
The contrast to Arden couldn't be greater. The prison walls folded away
revealing a pastel-painted forest dominated by a pastel-dressed Duke,
and as Rosalind and Orlando spent time in the forest, their clothing
also became tye-dyed - a nice touch, mirroring the way Arden changed
them. The Lords formed a chorus whenever they needed to, and sang in a
variety of styles, ranging from nightlub crooning (Under the greenwood
tree) to rap (It was a lover and his lass) to a Gilbert and Sullivan
parody ("the horn, the lusty horn" sounded a great deal like "Come
friends who plough the sea" from Pirates of Penzance). The rustics were
a bizarre group, with Martext donning a fireman's hat at his extit and
William entering on a pogo-stick. Jacques was aloof to all this,
walking around in a dressing gown with his martini glass and portable
bar. Oh, and all this nonsense was brought into the audience, since
there was no procenium wall and the actors used direct address.
Some of the direction seemed too heavy-handed and obvious; Rosalind and
Orlando fall in love at first site during the first act wrestling
match, and actors can convey love at first site without external aid;
did the director need to freeze all action on stage and bring a pink
spotlight on the lovers to show it happening? Likewise must music
underline every scene change? And some business seemed to be contrived
to allow a pop-culture reference to be snuck in; for instance, Silvius
delivered his lines with a Texas drawl: "Phebe, with awl mah haht.",
etc. Perhaps this was included because Texas accents are funny (at
least in Cleveland), Silvius is supposed to be a rustic (a clown, in
other words), and the director and actor didn't trust Shakespeare to
make the audience laugh.
The acting was excellent, with a wonderfully tomboyish Rosalind and an
athletic Orlando - he turned a somersault at one point when mooning
over Rosalind. The only drawback in the cast was Charles, who swallowed
his words and was largely inaudible. I'll let Mr. Cipra say more about
the actors, since he knows many of them personally.
Thanks, Mark, for bringing me to Arden on Saturday evening. It was
indeed a silly place, right up to the conga-line curtain call.
Mark Cipra
news:1130284878.2...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
It was great to get together with Neil and talk about all of you!
I agree overall that the eclecticism of the production did it no favors. I
like oddball interpretations of Shakespeare, and I think wild eclecticism
could work (especially, say, in Comedy of Errors) but it still has to hang
together and feel like it's creating a whole. (Although perhaps I should
point out to Neil that you don't have to get very far outside Cleveland to
start hearing Appalachian accents; for that matter, you can hear them in a
neighborhood about a mile from the theater). I think this production lacked
that unifying concept. It's as though the director chose what she thought
was the best "concept" for each character (Noel Coward for Jaques, Pat Boone
for Amiens, etc.) without attempting to put them in the same show;
individually they all worked, but not as a whole. It's too bad - she did a
terrific job with a modern but uneclectic Julius Caesar last season.
That said, it's true that there were a large number of excellent
performances, beginning with Rosalind's (Julie Evan Smith). (There were
also some disappointments, which Neil and I didn't get to talk about; I
think he may have come away with the wrong idea about my feelings about
this, as he watched me greet my friends with "Great!", "Wonderful!" after
the show.)
(For what it's worth, Great Lakes Theater Festival has, for the last few
decades, imported most of its actors - I spent half of many productions
wondering "Couldn't they find somebody that bad in Cleveland?"; the very
best thing about this production, from my perspective, was that it was at
least 1/2 homegrown talent, and they acquitted themselves admirably.)
Orlando is a tough role, I think. It's hard to keep him interesting. The
guy in this production (Jeff Cribbs) handled it very well, I thought. He
was sexy enough to be the object of love-at-first-sight, but funny,
personable and engaging.
I also have to say that I loved the concept of the set, but not the
execution. The two huge cement-grey walls representing the repressive court
were swung away (sometimes by the entering actors) to reveal behind them or
on their reverse sides the forest. This summer, Stratford (Ontario) handled
this set change primarily by flying in a couple dozen (pastel, as it
happens) umbrellas representing the treetops, and bringing in a number of
ladders to represent the trees. In context, it worked.
Has anyone seen any interesting approaches to distingsuishing between the
court or the forest, either in AYLI or other plays? (In a production of
Midsummer I saw decades ago, the show opened in Theseus's court with Theseus
and Hippolyta engaged in mock combat; above them, stretching across the
entire proscenium, was a cut-out of horsemen in combat. When the action
moved to the forest, the horsemen were flown partially flown out so that
only the horses' legs were visible, becoming the treetops. I remember it
being a very stunning transformation.)
--
"The pejorative term 'political correctness' was adapted to express
disapproval of the enlargement of etiquette to cover all people, in spite of
this being a principle to which all Americans claim to subscribe." Judith
Martin (Miss Manners)
(Play Indiana Jones! Hide the "ark" in my address to reply by e-mail!)
Philling Station
I thought we only talked about Chess One, err, just one individual.
> I agree overall that the eclecticism of the production did it no favors. I
> like oddball interpretations of Shakespeare, and I think wild eclecticism
> could work (especially, say, in Comedy of Errors) but it still has to hang
> together and feel like it's creating a whole. (Although perhaps I should
> point out to Neil that you don't have to get very far outside Cleveland to
> start hearing Appalachian accents; for that matter, you can hear them in a
> neighborhood about a mile from the theater).
Oh horror!
I think this production lacked
> that unifying concept. It's as though the director chose what she thought
> was the best "concept" for each character (Noel Coward for Jaques, Pat Boone
> for Amiens, etc.) without attempting to put them in the same show;
> individually they all worked, but not as a whole. It's too bad - she did a
> terrific job with a modern but uneclectic Julius Caesar last season.
But did there need to be a unified conception? There's little unity on
the other side of the looking-glass and down the rabbit hole, and we've
accepted the world Alice stumbled into. While I agree with you about
the runaway eclecticism, I don't agree that it didn't work - it would
have worked better if it had been less so, however.
> That said, it's true that there were a large number of excellent
> performances, beginning with Rosalind's (Julie Evan Smith). (There were
> also some disappointments, which Neil and I didn't get to talk about; I
> think he may have come away with the wrong idea about my feelings about
> this, as he watched me greet my friends with "Great!", "Wonderful!" after
> the show.)
Mark, I've been an actor too, and I realize sometimes you compliment a
fellow when a critic wouldn't. I genuinely liked the cast, and aside
from the inaudible Charles found little to fault. Oh, the miking
imparted a ring to the actor's voices when they came forward, but
that's a technical problem. What were the low points in the cast, in
your opinion?
> (For what it's worth, Great Lakes Theater Festival has, for the last few
> decades, imported most of its actors - I spent half of many productions
> wondering "Couldn't they find somebody that bad in Cleveland?"; the very
> best thing about this production, from my perspective, was that it was at
> least 1/2 homegrown talent, and they acquitted themselves admirably.)
>
> Orlando is a tough role, I think. It's hard to keep him interesting. The
> guy in this production (Jeff Cribbs) handled it very well, I thought. He
> was sexy enough to be the object of love-at-first-sight, but funny,
> personable and engaging.
And acrobatic - remember the somersault!
Mark Cipra
>
> Mark Cipra wrote:
[snip]
> >
> > It was great to get together with Neil and talk about all of you!
>
> I thought we only talked about Chess One, err, just one individual.
(Just trying to get a rise out of them. Didn't work. Lynne, your name came
up, of course; in a completely favorable light, of course.)
>
> > I agree overall that the eclecticism of the production did it no favors.
I
> > like oddball interpretations of Shakespeare, and I think wild
eclecticism
> > could work (especially, say, in Comedy of Errors) but it still has to
hang
> > together and feel like it's creating a whole. (Although perhaps I
should
> > point out to Neil that you don't have to get very far outside Cleveland
to
> > start hearing Appalachian accents; for that matter, you can hear them in
a
> > neighborhood about a mile from the theater).
>
> Oh horror!
>
> I think this production lacked
> > that unifying concept. It's as though the director chose what she
thought
> > was the best "concept" for each character (Noel Coward for Jaques, Pat
Boone
> > for Amiens, etc.) without attempting to put them in the same show;
> > individually they all worked, but not as a whole. It's too bad - she
did a
> > terrific job with a modern but uneclectic Julius Caesar last season.
>
> But did there need to be a unified conception? There's little unity on
At some point, even if the concept is "We're eclectic!". I don't think this
one satisfactorily made it "down the rabbit hole"
> the other side of the looking-glass and down the rabbit hole, and we've
> accepted the world Alice stumbled into. While I agree with you about
> the runaway eclecticism, I don't agree that it didn't work - it would
> have worked better if it had been less so, however.
>
I certainly was more comfortable with it after the intermission.
> > That said, it's true that there were a large number of excellent
> > performances, beginning with Rosalind's (Julie Evan Smith). (There were
> > also some disappointments, which Neil and I didn't get to talk about; I
> > think he may have come away with the wrong idea about my feelings about
> > this, as he watched me greet my friends with "Great!", "Wonderful!"
after
> > the show.)
>
> Mark, I've been an actor too, and I realize sometimes you compliment a
> fellow when a critic wouldn't. I genuinely liked the cast, and aside
> from the inaudible Charles found little to fault. Oh, the miking
> imparted a ring to the actor's voices when they came forward, but
> that's a technical problem. What were the low points in the cast, in
> your opinion?
Since some of the actors might be lurkers here, I'll take this one up in
e-mail. It's no excuse, but remember that Charles was an understudy.