By the Pricking of my Thumbs...

Macbeth and Lady M have blood on their hands

Review of Macbeth - EDITED 24 July

Portland Actors Ensemble
July 2, 16 and 23, 2015

Disclaimer: I have thought about this play and even this production for a long, long time. That’s one of the perks of being the graphic designer, not to mention being able to sit down and talk to the director about what direction he’s going with the show. While I’ve enjoyed the “inside scoop,” I feel like I’m not able to write the review I should, because I am really not seeing it from the audience’s perspective. Let me just say up front, I really, really enjoyed this production and went to see it as often as I could.

Macbeth has long been my favorite Shakespeare play. I saw it in Ashland when I was about 13, and the atmosphere of that night has never left me. It was in the outdoor theatre at night, and there was real fire, and real bats flying around. I don’t know if they imported the bats or if that was just a happy coincidence. But the mood it created left an indelible mark.

Banquo and Macbeth encounter the Weird Sisters

Macbeth is primarily about atmosphere, if you ask me. It is a short, fast-paced, action-packed, bloody, violent, dark play. It has big themes and important lessons and lots to think about, but it doesn’t really give you time to actually think. And that’s OK, too. Not every play can (or should!) be Hamlet.

Portland Actors Ensemble’s Macbeth has all the basics – macabre setting (in a cemetery!) complete with bats at dusk, intense action, fast pace, elaborate costumes with a gorgeous Celtic flair to remind you this is the Scottish Play – and for anyone who hasn’t thought about Macbeth and studied it and overanalyzed it to death, it’s a great way to experience the play. It’s easy to follow even for those who don’t know the plot beforehand, never drags, and is an entertaining two hours.

Lady M has an idea and asks for the nerve to carry it out

Cecily Overman is the quintessential Lady Macbeth – intense, dark, and very much a driving force in the play. She also played an amazingly wicked Hecate – which gave me goosebumps. This doubling is spot on, and almost makes me rethink my aversion to the Hecate bits of the script. (Most scholars agree that Hecate is an interpolation and that Shakespeare didn't put her in there. Plus, she speaks in rhyming couplets, which is really hard to make sound evil, and gets annoying after a while.)

Michael Godsey’s Macbeth is appropriately ambitious, troubled and slightly psychotic. He's a great warrior who has stepped from his concrete, martial world of honor and heroism into something he can't explain, full of mysterious figures who speak in riddles and don't obey physical laws. He's out of his depth, but does his best. Michael does a great job making Macbeth complicated – he's a horrible person and does horrible things, but he's at least human.

The rest of the cast also have an intensity and forcefulness that is, in part, born of necessity when you’re playing outdoors without amplification to several hundred people a night. From that perspective, they all are to be commended. The words may go by quickly (possibly a little too quickly at times?) but you can hear all of them. On the other hand, in focusing so much on projecting so people on the other side of the cemetery can hear you, you sacrifice subtlety and nuance in the performance. It’s a calculated trade-off. Extra props to Tom Mounsey who gave MacDuff some depth without sacrificing projection.

King and Queen at last!

Director Matt Pavik’s vision for the production is that Macbeth is first and foremost a Tragedy in the classic sense (a sympathetic main character going inexorably towards destruction). There’s something to be said for this approach. Shakespeare himself calls it a tragedy. The problem is in order for it to fit the classic definition, the main character must be sympathetic – the audience must like him. And that’s a tall order for Macbeth. I applaud Matt and the cast for attempting it, and some performances they succeeded better than others. But there’s a lot to overcome. You have to give Macbeth some positive and compelling motivation to act the way he does. They do this by emphasizing the relationship between Macbeth and his wife, which works brilliantly as long as the two of them are together… but which gets a little lost when Lady Macbeth isn’t on the stage. As magnificent and larger-than-life as Overman’s Lady Macbeth was, a lot goes on without her.

MacDuff announces Macbeth's death

You also have to make sure that characters opposing Macbeth are less likeable than he is. Usually I find myself really liking the character of Malcolm. But this time I couldn't really connect with him. Andy Haftkowycz played Malcolm with a lot of energy and bombast, but very little depth (also a byproduct of the venue and volume?), and I didn't find him as compelling as I often see that character portrayed, but perhaps this is also to throw a better light on Macbeth. And then there was MacDuff, who I could never quite decide if I liked or not. Mounsey did a great job playing him; I just think the text doesn't really come down on one side or the other. Also, by cutting the scene at MacDuff’s castle where his family is slaughtered, it takes the sympathy for MacDuff down a notch. (I did find myself missing that scene later when MacDuff is being informed of what happened. I feel like the audience should have known, and that the later scene was missing some tension without it.)

In order to make Macbeth more sympathetic, you also have to somehow deal with the other characters’ responses to him, and I don’t know how to get around this. The Weird Sisters call him “wicked” as in “something wicked this way comes,” and the audience goes right along with it. MacDuff calls him "thou bloodier villain than terms can give thee out" and Malcolm refers to him as a "butcher." And the audience can't help but agree. Lady Macbeth is possibly the only character that actually likes Macbeth… and she’s pure evil herself, so that’s not a great commendation.

All this to say that I understand where Matt is coming from and his vision for the show, but I’m not quite convinced that it’s even completely feasible. And I blame that on Shakespeare more than anything else. Try as you might, it’s nearly impossible to really connect to a regicide and tyrant. And Shakespeare just doesn’t give us the space to get comfortable with him.

There were a few other nit-picky things….

Oddly enough, for a play that reeks of atmosphere and in a graveyard of all places, the production could have used a little more atmospheric help. The tents / changing rooms made an effective backdrop – a little too effective because they blocked out the view of most of the headstones while you were watching the play, so you lost a sense of perspective and feeling.

Three Weird Sisters meet Macbeth

For me, the Weird Sisters just weren’t all that creepy. I get that there were practical constraints (they doubled the murderers, so they couldn’t have dramatic hair or make-up, and that’s just something that you get used to when doubling characters), but the only thing that made me think, “Oh, these people aren’t just people!” was Macbeth and Banquo’s reaction to them and the way the "use the force" on Macbeth and Banquo... and yet, that got a laugh every single time, so it didn't really help the creepy feeling. I never did figure out their complex (and beautiful) costumes... and wonder if perhaps they wouldn't have been a little more foreboding and mysterious if they, too, were simply shrouded as Hecate was.

The audience had to supply much of the “witchcraft” from their imaginations – even the iconic cauldron was just four chairs. I totally understand the highly minimalistic approach and the practicality of it in this setting, but perhaps this was a little too minimalistic? And logistically, how hard would it have been to hook a fog machine up to a battery and have it peeking out at the bottom of one of the tents to give the Weird Sisters a little atmospheric help? Honestly, the only thing that gave me shivers was Hecate... and I kind of feel like Macbeth in a cemetery should have a little more atmosphere.

Also, for a play that’s steeped in blood, the audience also had to use their imaginations to supply the gore. OK. I get not going overboard. But even a little would have been nice. I’m not even thinking too much about Banquo’s murder or during the violent bits… but when Macbeth comes out after having just killed Duncan, his hands should be bloody. And when the murderer interrupts the banquet and Macbeth says, “There’s blood on your face,” I think blood would be appropriate.

I’m being SUPER picky here. Again… I’ve thought about this too much. I did enjoy it… very much. I think Matt Pavik put together a great team, and they all did a superb job within the constraints unique to outdoor theatre. I feel very privileged to have had the opportunity to watch parts of the process from a distance and to see what all goes into bringing such an amazing story to life. Well done, everyone!

A Midsummer Night's Shtick

Wow! It's been a while since I've been on here. For one thing, I haven't seen a lot of Shakespeare lately. And the shows that I have seen, I've been too busy to review. Not good. I'd say I'm going to try to change that... but there's a surprising dearth of Shakespeare on the horizon -- strange, when the goal is to have productions of all 37 of Shakespeare's plays done in the next 2 years in Portland. Hmmm... Anyway... on to a review!

 

A Midsummer Night’s Dream

Portland Actors Ensemble

24 August 2014

PAE has a lot of practice doing outdoor summer Shakespeare, and it showed in their production of A Midsummer Night’s Dream. They did many things right – the actors poured themselves heart and soul into the production, and their enthusiasm spreads to the audience; they know how to handle the language so that it’s not awkward, even with all the rhyming couplets in Dream; and they are experts at doing theatre in an outdoor venue, projecting both their voices and their actions for large crowds and not depending on artificial amplification (I hadn’t realized till recently how unique this is!).

However, I have to say, I was disappointed in two major areas of this production.

First, there wasn’t any continuity in the fairy world.

There were adorable little fairies, played (very well!) by children, in fluffy tulle over white clothes and lush flower headpieces. Then there were three bizarre adult fairies in all black with bad attitudes and black bandanas. I really couldn’t see any reason for the adult fairies except to carry Titania’s bower on and off stage and to provide “music.” More on that anon. It would have made more sense if the adult fairies belonged to Oberon’s company and the children to Titania’s… but they all seem to be Titania’s… so I was left extremely confused about what they were there for and why they were so different from the others. Honestly, they were distracting.

Then there was Oberon – a grumpy satyr – which works, don’t get me wrong! But it doesn’t seem to fit in with the other fairies. He’s the only “mythical creature” fairy of the lot… and honestly, as great as his satyr costume was, it was left completely in the dust by Titania’s gorgeous purple and green dress… so much so that it was kind of hard to believe that he was the king of the fairy world with him as king.

And then, it saddens me to say, but Puck was all wrong. Not the acting – Kate Belden was marvelous, with just the right blend of mischievous and skeptical, and a brilliant physicality that really sold the part – but her costume was incomprehensible. A beige body suit that looked like a bored child had taken a sharpie to it – no real continuity or design or comprehensible reason for what was there – a corset and black tutu, face paint – again, in an incomprehensible design that looked like it was just there to fill space – and a bowler. OK… so some of the doodling on her body suit was supposed to look like Oberon’s tattoos and therefore show that she was his minion. But it looked more like sharpie doodling seriously. None of the other fairies had face paint or even heavy make-up. She didn’t look like she fit anywhere.

To me, this is a vision and continuity problem. There were a few too many ideas about what the fairies should be like, and the costumer and director tried to incorporate them all – sweet children flower fairies, almost Goth-ish (but they didn’t even go far enough to really be called Goth) dark fairies, semi-Steampunk Puck, mythical Oberon, and glitzy Titania. And with three other “worlds” in the play (the court, the lovers and the mechanicals), a highly diverse fairy world is just confusing and makes no sense.

My second disappointment in this production is a little harder to put into words because it’s a balance thing. I like physicality and energy and fun in a production… especially when the play calls for it. But I also feel that, as with everything, gags, physical humor, slapstick, etc. must enhance the text, not distract from it. And that’s where I feel this production fell down. At times the physical humor was so broad and all-encompassing that it detracted from the text. There were several times when I felt like the lines were just something they were getting through while they did their shtick.

Now, if you know anything about me or have read any of my other reviews, you know that the text is paramount in my opinion. When other aspects of the performance get in the way, when a concept or idea upstages the text instead of helping and enhancing it, I have problems. A Midsummer Night’s Dream just pushed the bounds too many times for me. From the introduction “rap” – and I hate to be quite so blunt here, but if you’re going to work a rap into something, first have a reason for it other than you’ve always wanted to do a rap, and second, please don’t have it done by a group of middle-aged white people; it was painful – to the strip-tease fight scene where the young lovers all lost their clothes; from the very strange “music” the dark fairies were “singing” to lull Titania to sleep, to a few too many pratfalls (especially when one of your main characters is wearing a short-ish skirt that just won’t stay down)…. It was too much. I lost the hilarity of Shakespeare in the shtick, and that’s just not fair to A Midsummer Night’s Dream, which is a wonderful play in its own right, funny and accessible and delightful even on the page. There’s no need to add the extras to “engage the audience” on this one. That shows that you don’t have a very high opinion of your audience and that you don’t trust the text to do what it’s been doing for 400+ years.

As Shakespeare pointed out in Hamlet's advice to the players, "And let those that play your clowns
speak no more than is set down for them. For there be of them that will themselves laugh, to set on some quantity of barren spectators to laugh too, though in the mean time some necessary question of the play be then to be considered. That's villanous and shows a most pitiful ambition in the fool that uses it" (Hamlet 3.2.1914-1919).

And that's amusing when you note that the one place the shtick and silliness didn’t feel out of place was with the Mechanicals… and that’s because basically everything they’re doing is ridiculous in the extreme already. As usual, they may have been my favorite part of the production. I kind of missed how I usually tear up at the end of Pyramus and Thisbe… but Bottom (Michael Godsey) tacked on a couple extra death scenes, and I got my tears after all from laughing so hard at him reenacting Romeo’s, Ophelia’s and Cleopatra’s last moments.

I do want to add that the acting was quite good. Patrick Cox is always fun to watch, no matter what part he has, and he did Oberon proud. The four lovers (Mariel Sierra, Tara Herschberger, Matthew Sunderland and David Bellis-Squires) were delightfully smitten with… whomever. And massive kudos again to Kate Belden who made me love Puck despite the train wreck of a costume.

Dream runs one more weekend – Aug. 30 – Sept. 1 – at Reed College. Performances start at 3.

Of Rings, Rats, Ducats and Cell Phones -- PAE's Merchant of Venice

Review of Portland Actors Ensemble's Merchant of Venice (6, 12 July 2013)

 

Oh, Merchant of Venice. It’s a great play, full of ups and downs, drama and humor, love and revenge… and open to so many misinterpretations and pitfalls. How are we supposed to deal with the anti-Semitism? Was Shakespeare anti-Semitic to have written something like this? Was that just the culture of Shakespeare’s age? What about the bromance between Antonio and Bassanio? Is it anything more? And suddenly you’re mired in a bog of politically correct ways to play it, with the sensibilities of today taking center stage instead of the plot and story itself.

Don’t get me wrong – I love the Merchant of Venice. But I always approach productions of it with trepidation and concern that Shakespeare’s story will somehow get lost amidst the clamor of what people think it should be.

I shouldn’t have worried about Portland Actors Ensemble’s production. (I should never worry about their productions, since I’ve been going regularly for more than 10 years and have yet to see one I didn’t like!) Director Bruce Hostetler and his stellar cast have woven the many seemingly conflicting elements of the plot together into a beautiful, seamless story that doesn’t jar where it’s not supposed to, that makes you walk away thinking about deeper things than social prejudice.

One key to understanding this play is recognizing that Shylock is a villain. He is also a Jew, but I believe that was more of a necessary plot device for Shakespeare than any statement about race. In order for his plot to work, Shakespeare needed a money lender to be the baddie. In today’s world, we have many options for that kind of role – loan sharks, banks, the Mafia – but in Shakespeare’s day if you wanted to borrow money, you went to a Jew. Simple as that. James Peck does a masterful job at reminding us that Shylock is not a nice guy. He gloats. He grumbles. He laughs at Antonio’s need. He cares more about his money than he does about his daughter, Jessica (as brilliantly shown when he kisses Jessica goodbye… and then comes back to kiss the briefcase of money goodbye). Even in some of the more “sincere” speeches about how Jews are people, too, Peck’s delivery reminded us where it’s all going – Jews are people, too, and therefore can be vindictive and vengeful and evil.

Another reminder that Shakespeare doesn’t have it in for all Jews is the character of Tubal – Shylock’s associate. Tubal is actually the first one to bring up the idea of mercy in the trial scene. And when Shylock pays no attention to him, Tubal (Enrique Andrade) refused to have anything more to do with him. Though he didn’t say anything, Andrade made it perfectly clear that Tubal does not condone his fellow Jew’s actions and that not all Jews are cut out of the same cloth. Jews are people, too, which means they don’t fit into boxes and won’t be tidily categorized… even in a Shakespeare play that leans fairly heavily on stereotypes.

For a play that we tend to think of as being all about justice and law, there’s an awful lot of romance going on almost constantly. Lorenzo (Benjamin Newman) and Jessica (Megan Chambers) win the Most Adorkably Sweet Couple Award for long, awkward silences and many blushingly sweet looks. Gratiano (Benjamin Sheppard) and Nerissa (Elizabeth Gibbs) win the Most Likely to Argue Award for bringing together two characters with plenty of spice and spunk. But the Most Unusual Couple Award has to go to Salanio (Clinton Clark) and his cell phone – a delightfully modern device that rendered many an info dump and long monologue advancing the plot actually entertaining and fun to watch.

Let’s not forget Bassanio (Sam Burns) and Portia (Jenny Newbry) though. Burns’s Bassanio is earnest and a good friend and slightly more mature than his sidekicks Gratiano and Salanio, but is still impulsive and has absolutely no business sense whatsoever. When things go skew-whiff, Bassanio is a loyal if somewhat ineffectual helper. He’s also delightfully naïve and totally smitten with Portia.  Newbry’s Portia provides a good counter to this. She’s 100 percent girl and very much in love with Bassanio, but you can tell she’s the brains behind most of what goes on. She bats her eyelashes and turns on the charms to get her unwelcome suitors the Prince of Morocco (Alistair Morley Jaques) and the Prince of Aragon (Enrique Andrade) to pick the wrong boxes. And she makes plans to help Antonio when all Bassanio can think of is being there with him. Together they are lovely.

I could wax eloquent about so many things… but time and space prevent me. I’ll only mention Launcelot Gobbo (Michael Kutner) and Old Gobbo (Alastair Morley Jaques) as wonderful examples of Shakespeare’s Clowns. Kutner’s version of Launcelot’s shoulder angel and shoulder devil had me in stitches… and his Brando impersonation was great! And to whoever thought up the Rats-on-a-Stick… disgustingly brilliant. ;-)

Through all this I discovered a theme that I hadn’t seen before, one that I need to think about more and unpack later – the letter of the law vs. the spirit. It’s there in the courtroom scene… it’s there in the lottery for Portia’s hand in marriage… it’s there in the dispute about what really happened to the rings… and it’s a good reminder of what’s really important in life. But that’s a discussion for another time.

For now… Merchant runs until July 20^th. It’s definitely worth the watch, if you can make it. Details at portlandactors.org.

Whirligig of Time -- Perception and Reality in Twelfth Night

Review of Portland Actors Ensemble’s Twelfth Night (11 August 2012)

I had a hard time starting this review of Portland Actors Ensemble’s Twelfth Night. On the one hand, I absolutely adored the production. “Beautiful” was the word I used the most when describing it to friends. But I find that I run out of adjectives very quickly with a play like this: It’s brilliant: the costumes are stunning, the music sensational, the sets lovely, the timing perfect, all the characters amazing, and every performance inspired. I loved it, and can think of very little that could be improved. So I feel like I don’t have a whole lot to say.

On the other hand, the play has produced deep thoughts in me… and I’ve been tempted to wax philosophical. But that opens up a Pandora’s Box of ideas that have less to do with this particular production. So I have too much to say… and that too much is not quite to the point.

But… this is theatre. And the purpose of theatre is communication. And communication is worthless if it doesn’t communicate Ideas. Shakespeare’s plays – even the comedies – are not just plots and characters and settings, but vehicles for Ideas. And if a particular production (this one, for instance) can spark these big Ideas in a viewer, then it has done its job and done it well. So, really, the philosophy isn’t so much off topic after all.

A friend overheard another audience member say, “Isn’t it amazing how they make it feel so contemporary and modern?” I laugh, not because whoever said this was off base, but because they were so spot-on. But here’s the thing: It’s not this production. Sure, director Avital Shira had her stellar (ooh! There’s another superlative adjective!) cast deliver the lines with a fresh, modern feel. But the reason it works so well is that the characters that Shakespeare created are as much at home in the 21^st century as they were in the 17^th. People haven’t changed. Guys were melodramatic, lovelorn idiots then (Orsino), and they are now. Girls were apt to fall quick and hard for someone at the least provocation (Olivia), and they are now. There will always be self-important, pig-headed jerks in positions of authority (Malvolio), and we will always rejoice when they get their comeuppance.

Twelfth Night works so well because we all know the characters from our own lives. How many long conversations have I had with my Orsino guy friends, so blinded by what they want that they can’t see what they could have? How many times have I, myself, been Olivia – wanting the unattainable and acting like a complete idiot in an effort to attain it?

No one escapes censure in Twelfth Night. And that’s what makes it work so well. It’s a play about contrasts – wisdom and folly, men and women, perception and reality – but mostly perception and reality. We all have a preferred version of reality… the way we’d like things to be. And it’s this perception that blinds us to the way things actually are.

In true Shakespearean tradition, the only person who really knows what’s what in the play is Feste, the fool, played charmingly in this production by Carson Cook. Cook made it obvious that he knew exactly what was going on – that “Cesario” is really a girl; that Orsino’s love for Olivia isn’t going to last; that Olivia’s mourning for her brother is more of an excuse (though perhaps not a conscious one) to be moody than true, deep-seated grief.

Of course, Shakespeare’s device (making the “fool” the wise one) brings up the contrast between wisdom and folly, and reminds us that when we think we are wise, that’s when we’re the most foolish. This comes out in practically every character in Twelfth Night to some extent or another, but most in Malvolio (played by Arthur Delaney). Malvolio’s perception is that everyone loves him (despite much evidence to the contrary), and this makes him particularly susceptible to the practical jokes played on him by Maria (Jennifer Elkington), Sir Toby Belch (Will Steele), Sir Andrew Ague-Cheek (Max Maller) and Feste. Once again, in true Shakespearean tradition, the villain is hoist by his own petard, and when the whirligig of time brings in his revenges, we may feel a little sorry for the “madly-used Malvolio,” but we recognize that he brought it upon himself. Delaney did a particularly good job throughout of making Malvolio so obnoxious that I, like Maria, could “hardly forbear hurling things at him,” and that made the ending more palatable.

I could go on in this philosophical bent, but I don’t want to try your patience. So I’ll end with a few notes about this production.

Zach Virden made an awesome Orsino. And Britt Harris did a lovely job as Viola / Cesario. The two of them have some delightfully awkward moments as the relationship between master and confidant threatens to turn into something else. In fact, the entire play is filled with wonderful awkwardness – which is, I suppose, one of the chief reasons a girl dressed as a guy worked so well in so many Shakespeare plays.

I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the beautiful music written by Amir Shirazi and very well performed by the entire cast. Bravo.

For those of you who are wondering about appropriateness and such, just know that at one point Olivia comes out wrapped in a sheet (a very long, very opaque sheet… but still… it implies… you know). I understand how they came to that interpretation, though I don’t think it’s strictly necessary. Also the “intermission music” is a slightly risqué drinking song. Those are my only real concerns… and by comparison to the rest of the show, they are very small.

Bravo to the entire cast and crew for an outstanding job and one of my favorite productions all year! And thanks for making me think! 


This production runs through Labor Day weekend. Visit www.portlandactors.org for dates and locations.