The challenge inherant in seeing all of Shakespeare's plays is that some of them are not done very often for a variety of reasons. Not every play can be a hit, as any author will tell you. Coriolanus is just such a play. However, it seems to be the latest "discovered" play that is suddenly everywhere. It's a movie, it's a stage show.
We saw the stage version produced by the same people who did last summer's superviolent MacBeth in Seattle. This show was, thankfully, indoors at the charming Children's Theater housed in the Seattle Center.
There is a reason this show doesn't get produced very often. It's kinda boring, and set in a period of ancient Rome that has been lost to the mists of history. We suspect the coming presidential election has a hand in this play's current popularity, as Coriolanus spends much of his time objecting to running for office and the necessary hoop jumping that was as necessary to gain a majority then as now.
The story, in a large nutshell, revolves around a guy who has been crafted by his overbearing, helicopter mother to be the picture of a ruthless military leader, which leads to his inevitable rise to fame and power. The mother is inexplicitly bloodthirsty, the son is completely in her thrall to a creepy pathetic degree and by the end of the first act, Amanda simply didn't care. Coriolanus is no Julius Ceasar.
The acting was uniformly well spoken and articulate but tended to shout (unnecessary in such a small venue) and Coriolanus started at such a high pitch, there was nowhere for him to go. If he'd had any hair, it would have been pulled out early on. The mother, a physically tiny woman, towered over the other actors in strength, determination and power. She reminded Amanda's mother of the legendary Dame Judy Dench.
The venue, as mentioned, is small with audience uncomfortably close to the well-used voms. There were many entrances by soldiers in armor that nearly stepped on the feet of the woman sitting next to Amanda. The stage was set up in greys, reds and blacks, apparently trying to invoke the look and feel of an Occupy emcampment. For each scene shift, the actors moved various screens around to indicate different spaces while the lighting gave clues of where to look by turning dark areas into merely dim ones.
The many, many battlescenes throughout the show were well choreographed and visually interesting. There was a wide variety of weapons used and yet the most violent image was of a soldier sewing up his own bicep near the end of the show.
All in all, we can see why this show hasn't been done frequently in the past but anticipate that with the advent of "300" type CGI, the movie will be all kinds of slow motion, gory, bloody violence. No thanks. Amanda would rate the venue 5 quills for a boring set and cumbersome yet constant set movements, and boring dim lighting. Wendy would give it 8 quills because even though the seats were comfortable in the house, there was too little leg room. She also disliked the location of the theater generally.
Amanda rated the production a 7 mostly for willingness to try to mount one of the more obscure plays. But she thinks there is a lot of good reasons for not doing this show that outweighs doing it. Wendy rates it a 7 also as it was okay but she is in no hurry to go back or see another staging.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Richard III, Ninth Play of the 2011 Season
As the nights get longer in Portland, and winter sets in, free Shakespeare in the park disappears. So it was good to see that The Portland Actors Ensemble was doing a production of Richard III inside an actual theater. With outdoor theater, there are certain expectations that the transitions of the production will not be as smooth, lighting and scene changes seem to talk longer outside. However, expectations for an inside show are higher. With that in mind PAE's production of Richard III seemed to need another week to perfect these transitions that are needed in an indoor theater.
Overall, the lighting cues were late or non existent. Actors couldn't, or wouldn't find their light and were often standing in shadows. And even thought there were obvious tape marks on the stage, actors rarely put their set pieces where they were supposed to go. This led to many awkward blockages of the stage. In addition to the lighting cues, the sound cues were also sub par and often distracting rather than enhancing the action.
The venue was the Concordia University Theater Auditorium and Amanda would rate it to be a 8. The seats in this building were relatively comfortable considering the length of the play, and the sight lines were unobstructed. The acoustics were good and we were able to hear all the lines though some actors mumbling meant that we were not always able to understand what was being said.
Amanda would rate the production to be a 3.5, with the .5 simply as an acknowledgement of the fact that it is free community theater. Nathan Dunkin, as Richard, was strong, sly, cynical, and sarcastic. The problem was, he was too strong and too good-looking for the part. Throughout the play, Richard himself and nearly every other character comments on his '"gross physique". Other than a slight limp that seemed to cause him no pain, and carelessly holding his left hand to his chest, Richard was no more deformed than any other character. The actor seemed unable to embrace the physical manifestations that should match his inner evil, and they didn't. This reduced Richard to a mean guy with a barely noticable limp. The role of Margret, was very ably played by Linda Goertz. Often misportrayed as a cackling witch, Ms. Goertz instead took a more sinister tone with her dialogue filled with Shakespeare's most inventive cursing. (Cursing not swearing--she really cursed people). Other standouts include, long time company favorite Margret Darling as Elizabeth; and Chris Porter as Buckingham. Unfortunately the rest of the actors fell far short, not seeming to understand their role's complexities or reciting their lines in a monotone. Director Jeremy Lillie took a four hour play and pared it down to three hours and fifteen minutes of nearly pure tedium. There was debate within our group about whether a second intermission would have helped, but Amanda was dismayed that one of her favorite plays was so flat and lifeless that she wanted to leave after intermission.
Wendy would rate the venue to be a 7. She likes the Concordia Auditorium and the seats were comfortable to sit in, but she did not like how many old people were in the audience. She also thought that it was distracting that people who had clearly had come to see people in the play on opening night were sitting in the front row and twittered with excitement whenever those actors came onstage.
The production was very much a disappointment to Wendy. She would rate it to be a 3. Even though it is free theater, she expects more from this company and has seen many a great production by this company and this production just didn't cut it for her. She felt that director Jeremy Lillie could have easily cut another 45 minutes off this tediously long show. If he had done that, then she feels like she wouldn't have perked up at the end of every scene only to be deeply disappointed when more people came onstage. Wendy would also like to comment on the costumes, they were very historically inaccurate, to the point that it was distracting. It was very clear that the men's costumes had been rented from Tuxedo Warehouse, there were so many men in tails. She appreciates that they tried to have good costumes, and individually there were all very nice to look at, but she wishes that someone had taken the time to do their homework and research the time peroid in which Richard III is set, or at least have all the costumes match the same time period. She would also like to add a note about hair. Normally, hair is not a big issue for boys but every once in a while there will be a show where a man has long hair. It is important to have your hair up and out of your face when you're acting, so that people can see your eyes and face; clearly someone neglected to mention this fact to a member of the cast and as a result much of the feeling was lost in this person's performance because their face was hidden. Another note that Wendy would like to make is about acting in profile. All the actors in this production needed to "cheat out" just a little bit so that the audience could see their faces. When in the audience, if the actor is only giving you half their face, they are giving you half their performance, the other half is completely lost. This was a great disappointment that these experienced actors were making these mistakes that one is supposed to learn on the first day of Acting 101.
Overall Wendy aand Amanda are deeply disappointed. We have seen amazing productions from this company in the past. This was not one of those shows by a long shot. And by long we mean the show was looooooooooong and tiresome. The actors came across as smug and if one more of them had said "murther" instead of "murder", Amanda would have have left simply on principal. This kind of preciousness is cute in a comedy, not so for a tragedy. Amanda is planning on going to see the show again next weekend and hopes that time will season the show. She is only going because she told a friend that she was going to though. Wendy chooses to abstain from another viewing, for reasons listed above.
Overall, the lighting cues were late or non existent. Actors couldn't, or wouldn't find their light and were often standing in shadows. And even thought there were obvious tape marks on the stage, actors rarely put their set pieces where they were supposed to go. This led to many awkward blockages of the stage. In addition to the lighting cues, the sound cues were also sub par and often distracting rather than enhancing the action.
The venue was the Concordia University Theater Auditorium and Amanda would rate it to be a 8. The seats in this building were relatively comfortable considering the length of the play, and the sight lines were unobstructed. The acoustics were good and we were able to hear all the lines though some actors mumbling meant that we were not always able to understand what was being said.
Amanda would rate the production to be a 3.5, with the .5 simply as an acknowledgement of the fact that it is free community theater. Nathan Dunkin, as Richard, was strong, sly, cynical, and sarcastic. The problem was, he was too strong and too good-looking for the part. Throughout the play, Richard himself and nearly every other character comments on his '"gross physique". Other than a slight limp that seemed to cause him no pain, and carelessly holding his left hand to his chest, Richard was no more deformed than any other character. The actor seemed unable to embrace the physical manifestations that should match his inner evil, and they didn't. This reduced Richard to a mean guy with a barely noticable limp. The role of Margret, was very ably played by Linda Goertz. Often misportrayed as a cackling witch, Ms. Goertz instead took a more sinister tone with her dialogue filled with Shakespeare's most inventive cursing. (Cursing not swearing--she really cursed people). Other standouts include, long time company favorite Margret Darling as Elizabeth; and Chris Porter as Buckingham. Unfortunately the rest of the actors fell far short, not seeming to understand their role's complexities or reciting their lines in a monotone. Director Jeremy Lillie took a four hour play and pared it down to three hours and fifteen minutes of nearly pure tedium. There was debate within our group about whether a second intermission would have helped, but Amanda was dismayed that one of her favorite plays was so flat and lifeless that she wanted to leave after intermission.
Wendy would rate the venue to be a 7. She likes the Concordia Auditorium and the seats were comfortable to sit in, but she did not like how many old people were in the audience. She also thought that it was distracting that people who had clearly had come to see people in the play on opening night were sitting in the front row and twittered with excitement whenever those actors came onstage.
The production was very much a disappointment to Wendy. She would rate it to be a 3. Even though it is free theater, she expects more from this company and has seen many a great production by this company and this production just didn't cut it for her. She felt that director Jeremy Lillie could have easily cut another 45 minutes off this tediously long show. If he had done that, then she feels like she wouldn't have perked up at the end of every scene only to be deeply disappointed when more people came onstage. Wendy would also like to comment on the costumes, they were very historically inaccurate, to the point that it was distracting. It was very clear that the men's costumes had been rented from Tuxedo Warehouse, there were so many men in tails. She appreciates that they tried to have good costumes, and individually there were all very nice to look at, but she wishes that someone had taken the time to do their homework and research the time peroid in which Richard III is set, or at least have all the costumes match the same time period. She would also like to add a note about hair. Normally, hair is not a big issue for boys but every once in a while there will be a show where a man has long hair. It is important to have your hair up and out of your face when you're acting, so that people can see your eyes and face; clearly someone neglected to mention this fact to a member of the cast and as a result much of the feeling was lost in this person's performance because their face was hidden. Another note that Wendy would like to make is about acting in profile. All the actors in this production needed to "cheat out" just a little bit so that the audience could see their faces. When in the audience, if the actor is only giving you half their face, they are giving you half their performance, the other half is completely lost. This was a great disappointment that these experienced actors were making these mistakes that one is supposed to learn on the first day of Acting 101.
Overall Wendy aand Amanda are deeply disappointed. We have seen amazing productions from this company in the past. This was not one of those shows by a long shot. And by long we mean the show was looooooooooong and tiresome. The actors came across as smug and if one more of them had said "murther" instead of "murder", Amanda would have have left simply on principal. This kind of preciousness is cute in a comedy, not so for a tragedy. Amanda is planning on going to see the show again next weekend and hopes that time will season the show. She is only going because she told a friend that she was going to though. Wendy chooses to abstain from another viewing, for reasons listed above.
Monday, August 29, 2011
Julius Caesar: 5th Ashland play, Eighth of Summer Season 2011
 |
| Last show of the year! |
 |
| Wendy with some of the Julius Caesar banners. |
Wendy rated the venue a 10 because she really likes the shows in the New Theater. The seats are really comfy. She really liked the banner idea because it set the tone for the show. She also liked seeing Mr. Linnington before the show started.
Wendy had trouble rating the production because she really wanted to rate it higher than a 10 but had to settle for a 10+. She thinks Mr. Linnington is an amazing actor and that aspiring actors can learn a lot from him just watching his shows. She also liked the verging on excessive use of blood; any more would have been too much but any less would have been not enough. She also really liked the audience reaction, especially when they killed Caesar. Wendy also liked that after Caesar was dead, she kept walking around but was unseen by the characters that were still alive. The audience could see her but the actors couldn't.
 |
| Woe to the hands that shed this costly blood! |
As for the production, Amanda agrees with Wendy's rating of a 10+. She is convinced that this show is one of the best she has ever seen in her many years of going to theater. She especially liked the performances by Ms. Silva and Danforth Comins as Marc Antony. Ms. Silva is a little bitty thing, 5'4" at best, but she strutted around, ordering everyone about with complete control an
d authority. Mr. Comins's Antony was heartfelt and intense, giving the famous "Friends, Romans, countrymen" speech new life and depth of meaning. Amanda doesn't know whose idea it was for him to stalk the small stage counterclockwise during the speech but it was a brilliant idea. The murder of Caesar was bloody, violent and awe inspiring. Many in the audience openly wept. Kudos to the costume department for creating Caesar's coat that literally dripped copious amounts of blood. This show is not for the faint of heart. We heard at the matinee actor talk with the fight director for the show, U. Jonathan Toppo, that they go through about $100 in blood every night. The murders (Caesar, Cassius, Brutus, Cinna, Casca, really everybody but Antony gets killed) serve the plot but are bloody and immediate. In most productions, once Caesar is killed we see him again one more time in Brutus's hallucination and that's it until the curtain call. Not so here, where dead Caesar roams the stage, sitting for a time in the audience, spending some time onstage watching the action, and always marking the newly slain with a handful of grey clay to great effect. This show will linger in Amanda's mind for years to come.
 |
| Next year's plays! |
Henry IV, Pt 2: Fourth Ashland play, Seventh Summer Season 2011
Let's begin with a few words about the History plays. Some are better than others, and in general, Wendy hates them all. Last summer we saw Henry IV, Part 1 but she and her companion Chey slept through the second half, all cuddled up in their snuggles looking as cute as little angels.
Henry IV, Part 2 picks up right where Part 1 left off, but it's pretty obvious from the get go that this play is really just a vehicle for more scenes with Falstaff. One of the great joys of going to the Oregon Shakespeare Festival is that when they do sequential plays, they have the same actors play the same roles year after year. So this year's Falstaff was last year's Falstaff, Prince Hal is the same and so on. This continuity is wonderful, as the actors have literally years to hone their characterizations.
Wendy and Amanda both rate the venue a 10 but this time because, taking advantage of the shockingly empty house, they moved to the side box seats at the intermission. These seats have the advantage of being some of the best of the 1200 offered with unobstructed sight lines, room to stretch out, overhead views of the stage and best of all, padded seats!
Wendy would rate the production a 7 because she had been led to believe that there would be more fight scenes, and was greatly disappointed. Much of the fault for this lies in Amanda's inadequate knowledge of this play, having only seen it once or twice before. There are actually no fight scenes at all. The use of costumes was nice, they really set the tone for the different scenes. She really liked Falstaff's pageboy, a lad of about nine years. She felt he was a really good actor. It wasn't as boring as she expected it to be; all the parts with Prince Henry were interesting and she looked forward to them.
Amanda would rate the production an 8. The play itself simply isn't as good as Part 1, but mostly a formula rehash of what happened in the first play without the fight scenes. The scenes with Prince Henry and his father The King were touching and sincere as Hal tries to grow up but is reluctant to do so, knowing that to be king means his father must die. Falstaff, played by Michael Winters was wonderful, played for great comic relief in the joy of being fat and thinking himself above the law thanks to his friendship with Hal. The scene where Henry, now King Henry V, resplendent in his white and gold coronation suit, has to turn his old friend and partner in crime and tell him to go away and leave him alone is tragic and sad. Poor Falstaff. He was fooling himself all along but still.
Henry IV, Part 2 picks up right where Part 1 left off, but it's pretty obvious from the get go that this play is really just a vehicle for more scenes with Falstaff. One of the great joys of going to the Oregon Shakespeare Festival is that when they do sequential plays, they have the same actors play the same roles year after year. So this year's Falstaff was last year's Falstaff, Prince Hal is the same and so on. This continuity is wonderful, as the actors have literally years to hone their characterizations.
 |
| Mmmmm, padded! |
Wendy would rate the production a 7 because she had been led to believe that there would be more fight scenes, and was greatly disappointed. Much of the fault for this lies in Amanda's inadequate knowledge of this play, having only seen it once or twice before. There are actually no fight scenes at all. The use of costumes was nice, they really set the tone for the different scenes. She really liked Falstaff's pageboy, a lad of about nine years. She felt he was a really good actor. It wasn't as boring as she expected it to be; all the parts with Prince Henry were interesting and she looked forward to them.
Amanda would rate the production an 8. The play itself simply isn't as good as Part 1, but mostly a formula rehash of what happened in the first play without the fight scenes. The scenes with Prince Henry and his father The King were touching and sincere as Hal tries to grow up but is reluctant to do so, knowing that to be king means his father must die. Falstaff, played by Michael Winters was wonderful, played for great comic relief in the joy of being fat and thinking himself above the law thanks to his friendship with Hal. The scene where Henry, now King Henry V, resplendent in his white and gold coronation suit, has to turn his old friend and partner in crime and tell him to go away and leave him alone is tragic and sad. Poor Falstaff. He was fooling himself all along but still.
 |
| Not Amanda's foot. |
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Ashland Show 3: The African Company Presents Richard III (Seventh Show of the 2011 Season)
This afternoon's show represents a departure from the traditional Shakespearean Canon, but it had enough Shakespeare in it that Amanda and Wendy felt that it should be included in this blog. The African Company Presents Richard III by Carlyle Brown (originally produced in 1987) recounts the real life story of an 1820 all black theater company in New York City whose production of Shakespeare's Richard III so threatened that of the white theater company, who was producing the same play, the white company felt compelled to have the African company shut down. The black actors were arrested simply for having the audacity to want to put on this classic play.
Amanda would rate the venue to be a 10 because today the configuration of the stage in the Bowmer was considerably different than 24 hours ago. Yesterday, the stage was a standard proscenium arch staging whereas today the stage had been converted into a thrust staging which brought an incredible immediacy of the actors to the audience. Amanda liked that they were "right there". In our seats, house right three rows back, we could literally see actor Michael Elich spray the stage with spit as he talked, and we could see the wig tape on actor Peter Macon's temples.
On the other hand, Amanda was deeply moved by the show and felt extremely uncomfortable with the burden of "white man's guilt" as she sat next to an African American couple. "I just wanted to lean over and tell them that my people never had slaves," she says. For her part, Amanda thinks that Michael Elich's portrayal of an 1820's theater owner was "spot on" and that his character would have really been that condescending and awful.
Amanda would rate the venue to be a 10 because today the configuration of the stage in the Bowmer was considerably different than 24 hours ago. Yesterday, the stage was a standard proscenium arch staging whereas today the stage had been converted into a thrust staging which brought an incredible immediacy of the actors to the audience. Amanda liked that they were "right there". In our seats, house right three rows back, we could literally see actor Michael Elich spray the stage with spit as he talked, and we could see the wig tape on actor Peter Macon's temples.
Amanda would rate the production to be an 8 because although the performances were uniformly strong by all seven actors, the play's structure itself was fairly formulaic. Each actor had his or her moment in the spotlight, to wax poetic about their slave background or their journey toward becoming an actor. The sections showing the actors either performing or rehearsing their production of Richard, were greatly enjoyed by Amanda and made her want to go and see Richard III as it was intended by Shakespeare. It was also funny to see them using the broad, over-the-top gesticulations common for that era.
 |
| Matching To Be or Not To Be rings! |
Wendy would rate the venue to be a 10 as well, because of the wonderful acoustics and comfy chairs. She also loved the little old lady that was in the lobby selling individually wrapped truffles to benefit the Tutor Guild (the huge gift shop in Ashland where you can get everything from Shakespearean hats to posters to rings with quotes engraved in them).
Wendy would rate the production to be a 6 because even though the show was interesting, she did not enjoy the long monologues. She also did not like the white theater owner, played by Michael Elich, because she felt that he was overly sarcastic and mean to the African company. Wendy understands that he was just trying to play his part, but she felt that he could have toned it down on the insulting manner in which he talked to the African company. Wendy was also disappointed because usually after a show, she feels something and it makes her want to go out and change the world, or do a dance number on the street, or even randomly confess her love for a stranger on the street, but with this show it was not the case. Even after seeing the actor talk with Gina Daniels, Wendy wasn't moved as much by this show as she would have liked.
On the other hand, Amanda was deeply moved by the show and felt extremely uncomfortable with the burden of "white man's guilt" as she sat next to an African American couple. "I just wanted to lean over and tell them that my people never had slaves," she says. For her part, Amanda thinks that Michael Elich's portrayal of an 1820's theater owner was "spot on" and that his character would have really been that condescending and awful.
Ashland play 2: Love's Labors Lost, Sixth play of Summer 2011 Season
For our first outdoor play, in the Elizabethan Theater, we were perched high up in the back in seats the furthest possible from the stage. Much to Wendy's consternation, there were large swaths of open seats at curtain. Since Amanda and Wendy have only ever been to the festival in June or July (okay, one quickie Spring Break trip last year in March too for Amanda), they don't know if attendence really slows down as summer starts to wane and people's thoughts return to school. But it was shocking in both plays to see that it was not full.
The play, Love's Labors Lost is a lighthearted froth of romance and courtly love. And jests, battles of wits and friendly one upsmanship. It is also a wordy nightmare. Bard didn't leave any out it seems and even coined a few, such as the longest word in use at the time (which we will add here when we get home and consult The Asimov). Two stories run parallel: the lovers and then long scenes of The Pedant and The Clergyman giving Shakespeare a chance to play with language, Latin, and the pomposity of the loquatious learned.
Wendy would rate the venue as a 9.75 because she really loves the Elizabethan. She loves the design and that if you get bored you can just look at the stage, 'cuz it looks like a house. She also loves that it was designed acoustically so that the actors do not need to be micced, and even though they're a hundred feet away, you can hear them as if they were sitting next to you. The .25 was taken off because she really hates the seats themselves; hard plastic that are very uncomfortable after sitting for three and a half hours, it's like being at a football game. And she understands that it occasionally rains, so the seats have to be waterproof but couldn't they be comfortable also?
Wendy would rate the production as a 9.5 because it's a cute play but all the scenes with the Latin and the Clergyman and Pedant were unnecessary and confusing. She did really like the dance numbers, and the use of mood lighting, especially the hot purple lights. She also really liked that this is a "super rhyme-y play" and that there are so many sonnets. She thought it was really interesting to see so many old people in the audience, since so many of the younger people have gone back to school.
Amanda rates the venue a 10. In her first years coming to the festival in the mid-1980's, the Elizabethan stage was the same, a replica of The Globe Theater in London, but seating was much different, a bowl-style amphitheater all open to the sky. Which was great on nice nights, but a horror if it rained as there was no protection. The remodel, completed sometime in the 1990's, basically lifted up the last third of the audience and repositioned them in a balcony forward and overhanging the forward two thirds. This remodel benefitted both the acoustics and the restroom situation which greatly increased in number, though audience seats only went up by less than ten. There are no blocked seats in the house and though you may be high up, you can really see the action on all parts of the stage. For this production, Amanda liked the set very much; astroturf covered the stage, dotted with bright purple flowers. All sets are copywrighted so we cannot include any pictures of them but if you go to the OSF website (http://www.osf.org/) you can see official photos.
Amanda would rate the production a 9. The first third is sort of slow going as characters are established and the ridiculous plot is laid forth: the king is insisting his three besties give up wine, woman and song for three years? Amanda is all about education but all things in moderation, my good Sir. She liked seeing Stephanie Beatriz again in a totally different role from the tightly wound Isabell of "Measure for Measure", the free-spirited witty Rosaline. The part of Berowne is a wordy cornacopia of sonnets, soliloquies and extrapolations on love. Here it was ably played by Gregory Linnington who made the convoluted language sound modern and up-to-date. One thing that made this version stand out for Amanda was the incredible use of song, lighting and dance to liven up some of the more tedious scenes. There is a long scene (possibly the longest Shakespeare wrote) during which each of the Lovers goes on and on about his lady love. By the time you get to the final guy you just don't care. The festival solved this problem by turning Dumaine's sonnet into a hot, Backstreet Boy tribute complete with gyrations and pony kicks! Wonderful. Later music and dance added to the play in the bittersweet finale as the Lovers pledge their troth but agree not to see each other for a year. Amanda admits it, it was so heartfelt and sweet that she teared up a little, and would've devolved into a full blown cry if she hadn't assured Wendy she would not do that this year.
The play, Love's Labors Lost is a lighthearted froth of romance and courtly love. And jests, battles of wits and friendly one upsmanship. It is also a wordy nightmare. Bard didn't leave any out it seems and even coined a few, such as the longest word in use at the time (which we will add here when we get home and consult The Asimov). Two stories run parallel: the lovers and then long scenes of The Pedant and The Clergyman giving Shakespeare a chance to play with language, Latin, and the pomposity of the loquatious learned.
Wendy would rate the venue as a 9.75 because she really loves the Elizabethan. She loves the design and that if you get bored you can just look at the stage, 'cuz it looks like a house. She also loves that it was designed acoustically so that the actors do not need to be micced, and even though they're a hundred feet away, you can hear them as if they were sitting next to you. The .25 was taken off because she really hates the seats themselves; hard plastic that are very uncomfortable after sitting for three and a half hours, it's like being at a football game. And she understands that it occasionally rains, so the seats have to be waterproof but couldn't they be comfortable also?
Wendy would rate the production as a 9.5 because it's a cute play but all the scenes with the Latin and the Clergyman and Pedant were unnecessary and confusing. She did really like the dance numbers, and the use of mood lighting, especially the hot purple lights. She also really liked that this is a "super rhyme-y play" and that there are so many sonnets. She thought it was really interesting to see so many old people in the audience, since so many of the younger people have gone back to school.
Amanda rates the venue a 10. In her first years coming to the festival in the mid-1980's, the Elizabethan stage was the same, a replica of The Globe Theater in London, but seating was much different, a bowl-style amphitheater all open to the sky. Which was great on nice nights, but a horror if it rained as there was no protection. The remodel, completed sometime in the 1990's, basically lifted up the last third of the audience and repositioned them in a balcony forward and overhanging the forward two thirds. This remodel benefitted both the acoustics and the restroom situation which greatly increased in number, though audience seats only went up by less than ten. There are no blocked seats in the house and though you may be high up, you can really see the action on all parts of the stage. For this production, Amanda liked the set very much; astroturf covered the stage, dotted with bright purple flowers. All sets are copywrighted so we cannot include any pictures of them but if you go to the OSF website (http://www.osf.org/) you can see official photos.
Amanda would rate the production a 9. The first third is sort of slow going as characters are established and the ridiculous plot is laid forth: the king is insisting his three besties give up wine, woman and song for three years? Amanda is all about education but all things in moderation, my good Sir. She liked seeing Stephanie Beatriz again in a totally different role from the tightly wound Isabell of "Measure for Measure", the free-spirited witty Rosaline. The part of Berowne is a wordy cornacopia of sonnets, soliloquies and extrapolations on love. Here it was ably played by Gregory Linnington who made the convoluted language sound modern and up-to-date. One thing that made this version stand out for Amanda was the incredible use of song, lighting and dance to liven up some of the more tedious scenes. There is a long scene (possibly the longest Shakespeare wrote) during which each of the Lovers goes on and on about his lady love. By the time you get to the final guy you just don't care. The festival solved this problem by turning Dumaine's sonnet into a hot, Backstreet Boy tribute complete with gyrations and pony kicks! Wonderful. Later music and dance added to the play in the bittersweet finale as the Lovers pledge their troth but agree not to see each other for a year. Amanda admits it, it was so heartfelt and sweet that she teared up a little, and would've devolved into a full blown cry if she hadn't assured Wendy she would not do that this year.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
Ashland Trip! First Show: Measure For Measure (Fifth Show of the 2011 Season)
Trust the Oregon Shakespeare Festival to set the bar high. Our first play of this tour in Ashland, Oregon; Measure For Measure. This play is commonly referred to as a "Problem Play", meaning that it is not really a comedy, tragedy, or a history. This show can sometimes be very dark, although it was first preformed for a light-hearted occasion, the very first Christmas pageant of King James I. However, Amanda and Wendy found no problems with this play, at all. The festival decided to set the show in 1970's America, instead of in medieval Vienna with happenin' swingers, and flamboyant transvestites in leopard-skin jumpsuits.
After spending five hours in the car, Measure For Measure was just the thing to keep Amanda and Wendy from getting even more punchy than they had already become. We made our annual trip to the Lithia water fountains and rediscovered the horrible taste that the water has. Honestly, the water tastes like liquid fart. But it keeps you young and healthy. With a taste like that, it better!
One of the most amazing parts of Measure For Measure, was the minimalist set. It converted from chapel, to night club, to jail, to office with ease. (It's conference room table! It's a desk! It's a different desk!). The rear set projections were a wonder of technology. Honestly amazing. Shifting from portraits of staid old white men to the interior of a prison to a beautiful field where it actually rained real water down the windows. It was truly extraordinary.
Before our ratings, we would like to say a word about the venue. The Bowmer Theater has been home to many productions over the years, but all the shows that it housed for the 2011 season to be halted when the main support beam that holds the theater up had a huge crack in it in June. The theater was closed for six weeks so that the beam could be fixed (so it would not fall and kill people) and during these renovations all the productions had to be housed in different locations. Shows took place at the Southern Oregon University campus, the Ashland Armory, and even a huge tent that was put up in Lithia Park (later to be nicknamed "Bowmer in the Park" or BIP). The Bowmer Theater was re-opened on August 2, and 2.4 million dollars later you can't even tell that that there was anything wrong.
Amanda would rate the venue to be a 10. She love love loves it! She says, "Sure the color scheme is outdated and faded, but the sight lines can't be beat, no matter where you sit. And the technical wizardry that they do there is state of the art and makes me wish that I had stayed a technician." She loves that there is a Tony Award in the lobby and takes a picture with it every trip. Wendy also loves the Bowmer because of the acoustics. She loves that no matter where you sit you can hear the actors, even without microphones.
Amanda would rate the production to be a 10 as well. This is because it was "just a pure delight to watch". She likes that the characters were fully realized and was impressed that it took looking in the program to realize that Stephanie Beatriz, who played the lead of Isabella, also played Maggie The Cat in Cat On A Hot Tin Roof last season. Also impressive was Anthony Heald, veteran screen and stage actor, as the Duke. Amanda thinks his portrayal really "captured the complexities of this conniving manipulator." Finally, Amanda liked that the actor playing Lucio, Kenajuan Bentley, really embodied the spirit of an R. Crumb character "hangin' loose" as comic relief. She also loved the attention to detail of the costumes, having been alive in the 70's. Particularly funny was the bad guy judge wearing Supreme Court Justice robes with the gold fringed sleeves like the old Chief Justice William Reinquist used to wear. Pretentious much?
Wendy would rate the production to be a 10 also. She really loved the sets and how universal the stage becomes in Ashland. Year after year she had been impressed with the stage design at these shows (her favorite would be for Hamlet last season). She loves that a desk can be used in almost every scene, but also converted to a table and used for other purposes. Wendy liked the Spanish influences that were peppered throughout this production. Spanish songs and language were very apparent and nice to listen to. She really liked the music in this production as well, played by a Mariachi trio consisting of a violin, a twelve string guitar and a Mariachi acoustic bass, a guitarron. The actors really knew how to blend with each other and create music that was very soothing to the ear. A very nice change of pace from Much Ado a couple days ago. Wendy also loves the fact that even though it is toward the end of the season for these actors, they still seem as excited for every show as if it were opening night. They clearly love their jobs.
We both agree that it is a sign of a good show when, after a five hour car drive, sitting in a theater for another three hours is not a chore. As evidenced by the fact that they stayed for the post-show discussion with actor Jonathan Dyrud.
 |
| Keeping young with Lithia Water. |
One of the most amazing parts of Measure For Measure, was the minimalist set. It converted from chapel, to night club, to jail, to office with ease. (It's conference room table! It's a desk! It's a different desk!). The rear set projections were a wonder of technology. Honestly amazing. Shifting from portraits of staid old white men to the interior of a prison to a beautiful field where it actually rained real water down the windows. It was truly extraordinary.
Before our ratings, we would like to say a word about the venue. The Bowmer Theater has been home to many productions over the years, but all the shows that it housed for the 2011 season to be halted when the main support beam that holds the theater up had a huge crack in it in June. The theater was closed for six weeks so that the beam could be fixed (so it would not fall and kill people) and during these renovations all the productions had to be housed in different locations. Shows took place at the Southern Oregon University campus, the Ashland Armory, and even a huge tent that was put up in Lithia Park (later to be nicknamed "Bowmer in the Park" or BIP). The Bowmer Theater was re-opened on August 2, and 2.4 million dollars later you can't even tell that that there was anything wrong.
 |
| Until Amanda gets her own, she'll visit this Tony Award. |
Amanda would rate the production to be a 10 as well. This is because it was "just a pure delight to watch". She likes that the characters were fully realized and was impressed that it took looking in the program to realize that Stephanie Beatriz, who played the lead of Isabella, also played Maggie The Cat in Cat On A Hot Tin Roof last season. Also impressive was Anthony Heald, veteran screen and stage actor, as the Duke. Amanda thinks his portrayal really "captured the complexities of this conniving manipulator." Finally, Amanda liked that the actor playing Lucio, Kenajuan Bentley, really embodied the spirit of an R. Crumb character "hangin' loose" as comic relief. She also loved the attention to detail of the costumes, having been alive in the 70's. Particularly funny was the bad guy judge wearing Supreme Court Justice robes with the gold fringed sleeves like the old Chief Justice William Reinquist used to wear. Pretentious much?
Wendy would rate the production to be a 10 also. She really loved the sets and how universal the stage becomes in Ashland. Year after year she had been impressed with the stage design at these shows (her favorite would be for Hamlet last season). She loves that a desk can be used in almost every scene, but also converted to a table and used for other purposes. Wendy liked the Spanish influences that were peppered throughout this production. Spanish songs and language were very apparent and nice to listen to. She really liked the music in this production as well, played by a Mariachi trio consisting of a violin, a twelve string guitar and a Mariachi acoustic bass, a guitarron. The actors really knew how to blend with each other and create music that was very soothing to the ear. A very nice change of pace from Much Ado a couple days ago. Wendy also loves the fact that even though it is toward the end of the season for these actors, they still seem as excited for every show as if it were opening night. They clearly love their jobs.
 |
| Wendy with Jonathan Dyrud |
We both agree that it is a sign of a good show when, after a five hour car drive, sitting in a theater for another three hours is not a chore. As evidenced by the fact that they stayed for the post-show discussion with actor Jonathan Dyrud.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)