First off, started going to the NY Fringe Festival this week--my beloved volunteers, so we go for free. The first show I saw--and the only so far, was As the Boat Approaches, which was well done and entertaining...until it was deeply depressing. But the performers threw themselves into it admirably.
Aside from that, not much is going on but poking at my dissertation and planning my wedding. However, I have been musing on where I want to go now that I have seen Paris. Next year is taken care of. It's our honeymoon, and we're going to the London Olympics and the Edinburgh Fringe. Crazy, right? I've been to England, but not Scotland, and I am excited about both.We may stop off for a quieter few days in the Lake District in between
But now that I have seen Paris, I can think beyond my obsession with finally getting to France and consider other places. I have always had a yen for Western Europe, and right now it takes the form of wanting to see some Alps. And we may go visit my uncle in Alaska in a few years. But I also want to see:
The south of France
Ireland
Wales
The Cinque Terre
Milan and Lake Como
Naples
Bologna and environs (I have a dream of parking myself in the Bologna area for a month just to eat)
More of Tuscany
Lisbon and southern Portugal (I am Portuguese)
Majorca
Belgium
Bavaria
Switzerland
Vienna
Croatia
Prague
Egypt
Turkey
Morocco
Buenos Aires
More of the American and Canadian West--seen very little but Seattle and a bit of SoCal
More of the Caribbean--only been to Puerto Rico
Hawaii
Australia
Is that enough to be going on with, or what?! I have not even thought much about Asia, except maybe India, or Scandinavia. Which is not to say I wouldn't go to these places. Sheesh. I'd better start saving my pennies!
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Monday, August 8, 2011
La France Fatiguante
Bonjour, mes amis! It's been a while, but I've been very busy traveling, and then recovering from traveling.
Before I delve a bit into my thoughts on France, I want to note that I wanted to review the Broadway production of Anything Goes, but it was a month ago that we went and the moment seems to have passed. Short version: so wonderful that I want to see it again. And I never want to pay to see a Broadway show twice. If you love classic musicals, Cole Porter, or dance, you must go. Otherwise, there has not been much theater on my plate, but I don't want to leave the blog completely dead between shows, so here I am again.
And now, France. We were there from 7/16 until 7/24. I had wanted to go since I was eight--I started taking French in Catholic school in the fourth grade, a holdover from the time when the area I grew up in was heavily Canadian French. Thus, I've always been something of a Francophile, but just hadn't gone to France yet, mostly for monitary reasons. In contrast, my fiancé spent a year there when HE was about eight, and has been back numerous times. He only agreed to go again because it was so necessary to me. Thanks to his connections, we scored a free place to stay in Paris. However, for his sake, we also got out of Paris for a couple of days to a part of France he'd never seen: Saint-Malo, Bretagne and nearby Mont Saint-Michel.
As the title of my post hints at, my approach to Paris was all wrong. My fiancé says he once saw a guidebook for your second time in Paris, once you got through the checklist of big sights, and I now know why that exists. I tried to do the checklist of everything I'd wanted to see since I was eight. In short, I exhausted myself, although he managed okay, being stronger than me. Part of the problem was the wet weather, which always slows me down due to allergies. But I needed to stop and plop myself into a cafe chair a bit more than I did.
By the time we got to Bretagne, I learned my lesson and took it slower. The lesson carried over in our brief return to Paris, as well. I took it easy and accepted that I wouldn't get to everything, and that I will go back someday. As a result, my enjoyment quotient went way up, just thanks to an increase in energy and comfort. Also, Paris is a great place just to be in; I didn't get to do enough just being.
Yet I couldn't tell you what I should have left off. You gotta go to Notre Dame, the Eiffel Tower, the Louvre.... though with the, I knew I couldn't see everything and at least managed not to overdo it there. The Musée d'Orsay was a must (and well worth it), as were the other smaller museums that house significant Monet works. Oh, and I had to see Montmartre! And Versailles! And check out the Marais. You see my problem? (We stayed in the Latin Quarter, by the way, so we got to see a lot of that. There are fewer huge sights there, but it has a cool energy and medieval-ness.)
Heading to the small seaside town of Saint-Malo, the pace changed. There were things to see, but nothing I'd had my heart set on since childhood. If we missed something, it was okay. The sea always relaxes me, and it was great just seeing that fortified town, a former pirate haven. The next day,w e took a leisurely drive down the coast of Bretagne, stopping off at various beautiful places, until we got to Mont Saint-Michel. Which, by the way, is a see-if-before-you-die kind of place. We were out on the mud flats at sunset, and it was truly stunning.
Anyway, aside form seeing Paris and doing the checklist--and having tons of wonderful food and drink--I learned a lot about myself by trying to overdo it. I learned what my limits are, which, as a somewhat novice world traveler, is good info to have. I learned that I do tend to want to do too much, and to project my feelings of disappointment on my beloved (assuming he must be disappointed with me because I am with myself, which was not at all true). I need to pace myself to have the best experiences.
Also, I learned that when in Paris... assume you'll go back to Paris someday. As I had to tell myself the last day, Sainte-Chapelle will still be there next time. It's okay. Just get some cheese, wine, and a baguette, and walk by the Seine, and you'll be happy.
Before I delve a bit into my thoughts on France, I want to note that I wanted to review the Broadway production of Anything Goes, but it was a month ago that we went and the moment seems to have passed. Short version: so wonderful that I want to see it again. And I never want to pay to see a Broadway show twice. If you love classic musicals, Cole Porter, or dance, you must go. Otherwise, there has not been much theater on my plate, but I don't want to leave the blog completely dead between shows, so here I am again.
And now, France. We were there from 7/16 until 7/24. I had wanted to go since I was eight--I started taking French in Catholic school in the fourth grade, a holdover from the time when the area I grew up in was heavily Canadian French. Thus, I've always been something of a Francophile, but just hadn't gone to France yet, mostly for monitary reasons. In contrast, my fiancé spent a year there when HE was about eight, and has been back numerous times. He only agreed to go again because it was so necessary to me. Thanks to his connections, we scored a free place to stay in Paris. However, for his sake, we also got out of Paris for a couple of days to a part of France he'd never seen: Saint-Malo, Bretagne and nearby Mont Saint-Michel.
As the title of my post hints at, my approach to Paris was all wrong. My fiancé says he once saw a guidebook for your second time in Paris, once you got through the checklist of big sights, and I now know why that exists. I tried to do the checklist of everything I'd wanted to see since I was eight. In short, I exhausted myself, although he managed okay, being stronger than me. Part of the problem was the wet weather, which always slows me down due to allergies. But I needed to stop and plop myself into a cafe chair a bit more than I did.
By the time we got to Bretagne, I learned my lesson and took it slower. The lesson carried over in our brief return to Paris, as well. I took it easy and accepted that I wouldn't get to everything, and that I will go back someday. As a result, my enjoyment quotient went way up, just thanks to an increase in energy and comfort. Also, Paris is a great place just to be in; I didn't get to do enough just being.
Yet I couldn't tell you what I should have left off. You gotta go to Notre Dame, the Eiffel Tower, the Louvre.... though with the, I knew I couldn't see everything and at least managed not to overdo it there. The Musée d'Orsay was a must (and well worth it), as were the other smaller museums that house significant Monet works. Oh, and I had to see Montmartre! And Versailles! And check out the Marais. You see my problem? (We stayed in the Latin Quarter, by the way, so we got to see a lot of that. There are fewer huge sights there, but it has a cool energy and medieval-ness.)
Heading to the small seaside town of Saint-Malo, the pace changed. There were things to see, but nothing I'd had my heart set on since childhood. If we missed something, it was okay. The sea always relaxes me, and it was great just seeing that fortified town, a former pirate haven. The next day,w e took a leisurely drive down the coast of Bretagne, stopping off at various beautiful places, until we got to Mont Saint-Michel. Which, by the way, is a see-if-before-you-die kind of place. We were out on the mud flats at sunset, and it was truly stunning.
Anyway, aside form seeing Paris and doing the checklist--and having tons of wonderful food and drink--I learned a lot about myself by trying to overdo it. I learned what my limits are, which, as a somewhat novice world traveler, is good info to have. I learned that I do tend to want to do too much, and to project my feelings of disappointment on my beloved (assuming he must be disappointed with me because I am with myself, which was not at all true). I need to pace myself to have the best experiences.
Also, I learned that when in Paris... assume you'll go back to Paris someday. As I had to tell myself the last day, Sainte-Chapelle will still be there next time. It's okay. Just get some cheese, wine, and a baguette, and walk by the Seine, and you'll be happy.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
The School for Bachelors
New York Classical Theatre's School for Husbands, 6/25
Company on Screen, 6/26
On the last weekend of June, my fiance and spent some time seeing some free/cheap performances in the city. The first was Moliere's School for Husbands, by New York Classical Theatre. If you're not familiar with them, they do performances in Central Park in which the audience must follow the actors around from scene to scene. They also perform in other places, but we like their Central Park performances because they occur basically across the street from us!
We enjoyed their performances of Shakespeare last year, but their performance of Moliere may have been even better. It was short--I think, but I am not sure, that the play was cut to focus on the plot with one of the sisters over the other. The shortness really helped, and Moliere probably lends itself to cuts more than Shakespeare. One can only take so much running from scene to scene, and an hour and quarter was the perfect length of time.
The actors acquitted themselves well, and the translation by Richard Wilbur effectively rendered Renaissance French into modern-sounding rhyming couplets in English. The delightful rhymes really added to the effect of the play. We also picnicked with a friend of ours before the play, which made the evening delightful overall. (We got cheese from the new NYC branch of Beechers Cheese, which was fabulous.) I recommend that everyone see their current production, Henry V performed in Battery Park and Governors Island... when the play travels to France, you see.
The next day, the fiance and I headed to see Company at the movie theater, starring Neil Patrick Harris, Stephen Colbert, and others. I am a big Sondheim fan, and I really enjoyed this production, but I at least couldn't help comparing it to the John Doyle production with Raul Esparza. I don't think it compared unfavorably, but the two were very different. I think the Doyle production is the only one that ever solved the problem of the cipher Bobby's epiphany seeming real, thanks to Esparza's performance and the conceit of his not playing an instrument until "Being Alive." NPH, on the other hand, slightly better captured the charm of Bobby that makes everyone like him so much. This version, filmed at Carnegie Hall, also did well with the show's humor, especially in the interaction of Stephen Colbert and Martha Plimpton as Harry and Sarah. Also worth mentioning was Anika Noni Rose as Marta, who blew the roof off singing "Another Hundred People." And, of course, it was a treat to see Patti LuPone take on "The Ladies Who Lunch."
As a future married couple, the fiance and I were given some food for thought--though, unlike Bobby, we didn't need convincing that it's better to be married than not. Although this version of the show is set when it was written, c. 1970, the theme of marriage as a kind of safeguard against the alienation of the big city is still fresh. We can still relate to the main idea behind "Another Hundred People," even if some of the references are dated.
The show, written by two gay men and in this case starring a gay man, seems to bring up the question of whether Bobby is actually gay--something a few lines here and there flirt with but drop. I don't quite agree that he is, but I think this review by James Jorden (aka La Cieca of the opera blog parterre.com), which addresses that issue, gets at some of the problems with the structure of the show. On the other hand, maybe the characters are meant to be types because people are meant to identify with them. Anyway, I think the Doyle production tackled some of the problems with the show, but the Carnegie Hall production just presented it straightforwardly. Which is just fine, for a one-night-only concert version. On that level, it succeeded in spades, and we enjoyed it a great deal.
Company on Screen, 6/26
On the last weekend of June, my fiance and spent some time seeing some free/cheap performances in the city. The first was Moliere's School for Husbands, by New York Classical Theatre. If you're not familiar with them, they do performances in Central Park in which the audience must follow the actors around from scene to scene. They also perform in other places, but we like their Central Park performances because they occur basically across the street from us!
We enjoyed their performances of Shakespeare last year, but their performance of Moliere may have been even better. It was short--I think, but I am not sure, that the play was cut to focus on the plot with one of the sisters over the other. The shortness really helped, and Moliere probably lends itself to cuts more than Shakespeare. One can only take so much running from scene to scene, and an hour and quarter was the perfect length of time.
The actors acquitted themselves well, and the translation by Richard Wilbur effectively rendered Renaissance French into modern-sounding rhyming couplets in English. The delightful rhymes really added to the effect of the play. We also picnicked with a friend of ours before the play, which made the evening delightful overall. (We got cheese from the new NYC branch of Beechers Cheese, which was fabulous.) I recommend that everyone see their current production, Henry V performed in Battery Park and Governors Island... when the play travels to France, you see.
The next day, the fiance and I headed to see Company at the movie theater, starring Neil Patrick Harris, Stephen Colbert, and others. I am a big Sondheim fan, and I really enjoyed this production, but I at least couldn't help comparing it to the John Doyle production with Raul Esparza. I don't think it compared unfavorably, but the two were very different. I think the Doyle production is the only one that ever solved the problem of the cipher Bobby's epiphany seeming real, thanks to Esparza's performance and the conceit of his not playing an instrument until "Being Alive." NPH, on the other hand, slightly better captured the charm of Bobby that makes everyone like him so much. This version, filmed at Carnegie Hall, also did well with the show's humor, especially in the interaction of Stephen Colbert and Martha Plimpton as Harry and Sarah. Also worth mentioning was Anika Noni Rose as Marta, who blew the roof off singing "Another Hundred People." And, of course, it was a treat to see Patti LuPone take on "The Ladies Who Lunch."
As a future married couple, the fiance and I were given some food for thought--though, unlike Bobby, we didn't need convincing that it's better to be married than not. Although this version of the show is set when it was written, c. 1970, the theme of marriage as a kind of safeguard against the alienation of the big city is still fresh. We can still relate to the main idea behind "Another Hundred People," even if some of the references are dated.
The show, written by two gay men and in this case starring a gay man, seems to bring up the question of whether Bobby is actually gay--something a few lines here and there flirt with but drop. I don't quite agree that he is, but I think this review by James Jorden (aka La Cieca of the opera blog parterre.com), which addresses that issue, gets at some of the problems with the structure of the show. On the other hand, maybe the characters are meant to be types because people are meant to identify with them. Anyway, I think the Doyle production tackled some of the problems with the show, but the Carnegie Hall production just presented it straightforwardly. Which is just fine, for a one-night-only concert version. On that level, it succeeded in spades, and we enjoyed it a great deal.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Pretentious on a Budget
My fiance and I often discuss starting a blog together that we would call Pretentious on a Budget. We're a bit pretentious, but since living in NYC is expensive, we try to be sensible with our finances. This may be Pretentious on a Budget Week on this blog because I will be posting soon about a free performance of Moliere and Sondheim's Company on screen... cheaper than seeing it live at Carnegie Hall would have been.
In the meantime, I wanted to tide my tens of readers over with some pictures of a PoaB event from last month, the Veuve Clicuot Polo Classic. This event is about as PoaB as it gets. We went for free, of course--the rich people could pay, but not us! We also brought some munchies, such as scones made fresh by my fiance (yes, ladies, he bakes--hands off). Nothing is more pretentious than polo, a sport by rich people and for rich people. Too bad Prince Harry didn't make it this year, as he did last year, which was our first time going to the event. The game was fun, the horses were beautiful, and I can now say I know what a chukka is.
Until I can blog about The School for Husbands and Company, here are some pictures from my PoaB polo outing. I am not a sports photographer, and our seats weren't great, but I got some decent pics of the action:
In the meantime, I wanted to tide my tens of readers over with some pictures of a PoaB event from last month, the Veuve Clicuot Polo Classic. This event is about as PoaB as it gets. We went for free, of course--the rich people could pay, but not us! We also brought some munchies, such as scones made fresh by my fiance (yes, ladies, he bakes--hands off). Nothing is more pretentious than polo, a sport by rich people and for rich people. Too bad Prince Harry didn't make it this year, as he did last year, which was our first time going to the event. The game was fun, the horses were beautiful, and I can now say I know what a chukka is.
Until I can blog about The School for Husbands and Company, here are some pictures from my PoaB polo outing. I am not a sports photographer, and our seats weren't great, but I got some decent pics of the action:
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
He's Just Not That Into Her
All's Well that Ends Well, Shakespeare in the Park, 6/16/11
First, a word about my approach to these reviews. Though I am (putatively at least) a Shakespeare scholar, I don't want to approach these pieces in too scholarly a manner. I am sure that my familiarity with scholarship will inform my writing, but, like Shakespeare's, my writing is really for the masses. Also, I am sure I will often veer between performance review and musing about the play. Since this is not a professional review, I think that's okay. That being said....
I was nervous going into the Public Theater's new production of All's Well that Ends Well in Central Park because this is the one Shakespeare play I hated upon reading, and it's thanks to Bertram's character. However, the production is free, and my family motto is, "If it's free, it's for me," so I had to give it a go.
The good news is that this production of the play is well done and entertaining. The actors even manage to inject some welcome humor in to one of Shakespeare's less comedic comedies. The bad news is that the production could not, for me, overcome Betram's horribleness, but I don't think any production ever really could, at least not for a contemporary audience. Perhaps more disappointing is that I can't see that this production even really tried to do it. In some ways, his character crystallizes the disconnect between early modern mores and our own that directors must struggle with.
Bertram is so problematic because he, by our standards, is a complete tool. He rejects Helena in a humiliating way, even after the King offers to ennoble her to make her his social equal. He then runs off to war, where he tries to seduce a virtuous young woman, Diana. He later lies about this seduction when his antics come to light back home at the French court; he then finds out that due to a "bed trick," he'd slept with Helena, not Diana. He then acquiesces to staying with Helena, hence the "good" ending the title alludes to.
The title of the play suggests that Shakespeare was aware of how vexing the happy ending union between Helena and Bertam is. I believe that early modern audiences would have considered Bertram a tool ("an arrant knave," perhaps), but less because of his treatment of women and more because in rejecting Helena, he is rejecting his King's command to marry her. Since the French King is is liege lord, Bertram is bound to obey him by marrying Helena. His rejection of Helena is posited by the play not just as a rejection of a worthy woman, but as a rejection of duty and honor.
Though Bertram tries to argue with the King (also problematic behavior), he does marry Helena, but then he disobeys the King in another way by abandoning her and running off to the war in Italy, which he has already been deemed too young to serve in. His subsequent misadventures in Italy and rejection of his cowardly friend Parolles, whom the play implies is a bad influence on the young Bertram, are perhaps meant to show that he grows up enough to become worthy of Helena's love. Except nothing Bertram does or says at the end of the play demonstrates any growth; by the time Helena is revealed as his true partner from the bed trick, he seems agreeable to staying with her, but doesn't have much to say about it. Perhaps this is for the best. At least Helena is married and pregnant, and how many marriages in the French court were for love, anyway? Right? RIGHT??? The play's title betrays anxiety about this ending, or maybe it is simply Shakespeare's way of shrugging it off. In any event, he never seemed interested in portraying healthy marriages in his plays.
The structural and ideological problems of the play aside, Daniel Sullivan staging does a nice job in presenting the play in a clean, understandable manner. The staging is set in the 1920's, which allows for pretty costumes, though I couldn't see that it added much else to the audience's understanding of the play. The stage consisted of a open-air balcony built in the middle, which allowed the military action in Italy to take the form of a camp at the back of the stage while many of the scenes were played closer to the audience. (Note: I suck at describing staging--forgive me.) This neatly solved the issue of having two distinct settings without adding a lot of scenery. I left having enjoyed the play, and the beautiful night in the Park, but with no new insights into the play. For a Shakespeare in the Park production, entertainment comes first, so Sullivan likely achieved what he set out for in directing the play, but I wish more thought could have been put into how to decrese Bertraim's tool quotient.
The actors (who are performing this in repertory with Measure for Measure) acquitted themselves well. The female characters in this play are especially strong. Tonya Pinkins, who played the Countess, did an excellent job of playing a warm mother figure for Helena; the audience wants to cheer when she takes Helena's side over that of her son, Bertram. Diane Davis is memorable in the small role of the virtuous-yet-feisty Diana, who agrees to the bed trick and helps Helena to pull it off. Also good in a small role is Dakin Matthews as LeFew. Reg Rogers, as Parolles, the most broadly comedic character in the play, seems to have wandered in from a different production. He made me laugh, but his vocal mannerisms grated after a while--especially since the other performances were more naturalistic.
Andre Holland, a charming young actor, does the best he can with the material. His Bertram does come across as callow enough to reject the love of Helena in order to be a swaggering soldier and ladies man, but the play never gives him enough of a chance to show an evolution from that boy into a man worthy of his wife's love; his lying about his dalliance with Diana in the final scene of the play destroys any chance of that. The play is almost over at that point, and there is no time to fall in love with Helena--whom he never shares much stage time with.
Helena's journey is that of a poor orphan shaping her own destiny, and it is really the story of the play, making her love of Bertram almost incidental. She could have loved anyone--a fact that I think few actors playing him could overcome. The play never tells us why she loves him in particular, even when the King offers her the pick of France's eligible bachelors, and though Holland is attractive and charming, his performance doesn't overcome this problem. Annie Parisse fares better with the role of Helena. She is humble, witty, angry, and even haughty when the play calls for it. She comes across as believably wily enough to come up with the means of getting the King to allow her her choice of husband as well as with the bed trick.
She is the driving force of the play, taking her own destiny into her hands as much as any Shakespeare heroine ever does. In fact, she manipulates Bertram, who she knows has no feelings for her, into the position of having to reject her at all. This either makes her an awesome proto-feminist who shapes of her own destiny or a pathetic fool in unrequited love with a man who is not nearly worthy enough of her. I am inclined to see her as the latter, though I appreciate that she is not a passive character. In fact, her unrequited love is, finally, what makes this story relatable to a contemporary audience. We all know women who have loved men who aren't good enough for them--we may even have been those women. So while I find Helena's love of Bertram deplorable, I don't find it unbelievable, in part thanks to Parisse's down-to-earth approach to the role, which allows her to show anger towards Bertram even while scheming to win him.
Perhaps Shakespeare's plays really do hold a mirror up to nature, even for today's audiences. Maybe we should not expect a feminist agenda from this or any other Shakespeare play, but rather to be shown how people in love really act. Therefore, all the women who swore by He's Just Not That Into You a few years ago ought to stop by Central Park this summer for a refresher course because I don't think any viewer can respond with unqualified happiness to Bertram's staying with Helena.
First, a word about my approach to these reviews. Though I am (putatively at least) a Shakespeare scholar, I don't want to approach these pieces in too scholarly a manner. I am sure that my familiarity with scholarship will inform my writing, but, like Shakespeare's, my writing is really for the masses. Also, I am sure I will often veer between performance review and musing about the play. Since this is not a professional review, I think that's okay. That being said....
I was nervous going into the Public Theater's new production of All's Well that Ends Well in Central Park because this is the one Shakespeare play I hated upon reading, and it's thanks to Bertram's character. However, the production is free, and my family motto is, "If it's free, it's for me," so I had to give it a go.
The good news is that this production of the play is well done and entertaining. The actors even manage to inject some welcome humor in to one of Shakespeare's less comedic comedies. The bad news is that the production could not, for me, overcome Betram's horribleness, but I don't think any production ever really could, at least not for a contemporary audience. Perhaps more disappointing is that I can't see that this production even really tried to do it. In some ways, his character crystallizes the disconnect between early modern mores and our own that directors must struggle with.
Bertram is so problematic because he, by our standards, is a complete tool. He rejects Helena in a humiliating way, even after the King offers to ennoble her to make her his social equal. He then runs off to war, where he tries to seduce a virtuous young woman, Diana. He later lies about this seduction when his antics come to light back home at the French court; he then finds out that due to a "bed trick," he'd slept with Helena, not Diana. He then acquiesces to staying with Helena, hence the "good" ending the title alludes to.
The title of the play suggests that Shakespeare was aware of how vexing the happy ending union between Helena and Bertam is. I believe that early modern audiences would have considered Bertram a tool ("an arrant knave," perhaps), but less because of his treatment of women and more because in rejecting Helena, he is rejecting his King's command to marry her. Since the French King is is liege lord, Bertram is bound to obey him by marrying Helena. His rejection of Helena is posited by the play not just as a rejection of a worthy woman, but as a rejection of duty and honor.
Though Bertram tries to argue with the King (also problematic behavior), he does marry Helena, but then he disobeys the King in another way by abandoning her and running off to the war in Italy, which he has already been deemed too young to serve in. His subsequent misadventures in Italy and rejection of his cowardly friend Parolles, whom the play implies is a bad influence on the young Bertram, are perhaps meant to show that he grows up enough to become worthy of Helena's love. Except nothing Bertram does or says at the end of the play demonstrates any growth; by the time Helena is revealed as his true partner from the bed trick, he seems agreeable to staying with her, but doesn't have much to say about it. Perhaps this is for the best. At least Helena is married and pregnant, and how many marriages in the French court were for love, anyway? Right? RIGHT??? The play's title betrays anxiety about this ending, or maybe it is simply Shakespeare's way of shrugging it off. In any event, he never seemed interested in portraying healthy marriages in his plays.
The structural and ideological problems of the play aside, Daniel Sullivan staging does a nice job in presenting the play in a clean, understandable manner. The staging is set in the 1920's, which allows for pretty costumes, though I couldn't see that it added much else to the audience's understanding of the play. The stage consisted of a open-air balcony built in the middle, which allowed the military action in Italy to take the form of a camp at the back of the stage while many of the scenes were played closer to the audience. (Note: I suck at describing staging--forgive me.) This neatly solved the issue of having two distinct settings without adding a lot of scenery. I left having enjoyed the play, and the beautiful night in the Park, but with no new insights into the play. For a Shakespeare in the Park production, entertainment comes first, so Sullivan likely achieved what he set out for in directing the play, but I wish more thought could have been put into how to decrese Bertraim's tool quotient.
The actors (who are performing this in repertory with Measure for Measure) acquitted themselves well. The female characters in this play are especially strong. Tonya Pinkins, who played the Countess, did an excellent job of playing a warm mother figure for Helena; the audience wants to cheer when she takes Helena's side over that of her son, Bertram. Diane Davis is memorable in the small role of the virtuous-yet-feisty Diana, who agrees to the bed trick and helps Helena to pull it off. Also good in a small role is Dakin Matthews as LeFew. Reg Rogers, as Parolles, the most broadly comedic character in the play, seems to have wandered in from a different production. He made me laugh, but his vocal mannerisms grated after a while--especially since the other performances were more naturalistic.
Andre Holland, a charming young actor, does the best he can with the material. His Bertram does come across as callow enough to reject the love of Helena in order to be a swaggering soldier and ladies man, but the play never gives him enough of a chance to show an evolution from that boy into a man worthy of his wife's love; his lying about his dalliance with Diana in the final scene of the play destroys any chance of that. The play is almost over at that point, and there is no time to fall in love with Helena--whom he never shares much stage time with.
Helena's journey is that of a poor orphan shaping her own destiny, and it is really the story of the play, making her love of Bertram almost incidental. She could have loved anyone--a fact that I think few actors playing him could overcome. The play never tells us why she loves him in particular, even when the King offers her the pick of France's eligible bachelors, and though Holland is attractive and charming, his performance doesn't overcome this problem. Annie Parisse fares better with the role of Helena. She is humble, witty, angry, and even haughty when the play calls for it. She comes across as believably wily enough to come up with the means of getting the King to allow her her choice of husband as well as with the bed trick.
She is the driving force of the play, taking her own destiny into her hands as much as any Shakespeare heroine ever does. In fact, she manipulates Bertram, who she knows has no feelings for her, into the position of having to reject her at all. This either makes her an awesome proto-feminist who shapes of her own destiny or a pathetic fool in unrequited love with a man who is not nearly worthy enough of her. I am inclined to see her as the latter, though I appreciate that she is not a passive character. In fact, her unrequited love is, finally, what makes this story relatable to a contemporary audience. We all know women who have loved men who aren't good enough for them--we may even have been those women. So while I find Helena's love of Bertram deplorable, I don't find it unbelievable, in part thanks to Parisse's down-to-earth approach to the role, which allows her to show anger towards Bertram even while scheming to win him.
Perhaps Shakespeare's plays really do hold a mirror up to nature, even for today's audiences. Maybe we should not expect a feminist agenda from this or any other Shakespeare play, but rather to be shown how people in love really act. Therefore, all the women who swore by He's Just Not That Into You a few years ago ought to stop by Central Park this summer for a refresher course because I don't think any viewer can respond with unqualified happiness to Bertram's staying with Helena.
Welcome!
Hello readers, if you are out there...
I have been thinking about starting this blog for a little while now. I want it to be a place for performance reviews of the works of Shakespeare and his contemporaries in NYC or wherever else I happen to be. I am sure I will also post about different stuff, too, since I may not end up seeing enough Shakespeare to keep this blog going. I may also use this as a place to blog about my travels, including an upcoming trip to France. We shall see! Look for a review of the Central Park All's Well that Ends Well within the next few days!
I have been thinking about starting this blog for a little while now. I want it to be a place for performance reviews of the works of Shakespeare and his contemporaries in NYC or wherever else I happen to be. I am sure I will also post about different stuff, too, since I may not end up seeing enough Shakespeare to keep this blog going. I may also use this as a place to blog about my travels, including an upcoming trip to France. We shall see! Look for a review of the Central Park All's Well that Ends Well within the next few days!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)