Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Quick Bright Things: Shakespeare's "Dream" Is Lush But Loud in Germantown
Posted by Chris Davis on Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 12:05 PM
TSC's Dream, directed by company founder Dan McCleary, is in many ways the most complete production of a Shakespeare play I've seen in ages. From the songs to the dances to the intricate Greek-inspired costumes that could have been lifted from the set of a ’50s-era Sinbad flick, every detail has been considered. Susanna Perry Gilmore's original, serpentine compositions perfectly complement the material and having all her gorgeous music played live by musicians as gifted as the incomparable Dr. Roy Brewer is a real boon. But I'd exchange every perfect note and swath of purple fabric for actors with shorter resumes that actually talk and listen to each other.
Shakespeare's language only seems daunting. The greatest interpreters of his work know this and understand that the genius of his text lies not in its poetic grandeur but in its human scale. In Hamlet's speech to the players, Shakespeare's greatest acting coach advises against wild gesticulation saying, “Do not saw the air too much with your hand, thus.” He compares those who merely pronounce their words to the town crier and makes a powerful case for intelligence and discretion. “Suit the action to the word, the word to the action,” he says. “With this special observance, that you o'erstep not the modesty of nature... to hold, as 'twere, the mirror up to nature.”
When it comes to overstepping the modesty of nature, sawing the air, and mere pronunciation Johnny Lee Davenport (Oberon/Theseus) and Charlotte Schioler (Titania/Hypolita) are among the worst offenders. Davenport, a veteran of stage and screen whose Shakespearian performances have previously earned good to glowing reviews, shouts so monotonously it's tempting to compare his dreadlocked fairy king to a Samuel L. Jackson impersonator. Schioler's Danish accent and proclivity for indicative gesture makes for a Titania that's more exotic than intelligible.
Among the four lovers only Vanessa Morosco's Helena manages to be anything more than an excuse for clever fight choreography. While those around her recite (or proclaim in the case of Brittany Morgan's Hermia), Morosco takes a less mannered approach and finds awkward humor and unexpected depth in Shakespeare's gangly heroine. What's more remarkable is that Morosco, easily the most engaging performer in the company, manages all this in spite of being saddled with some humiliating slapstick.
Although it's not accurate, it's common to play up the naughty entendres in Helena's begging of Demetrius “to be used as you use your dog?” But this is A Midsummer Night's Dream not an Iggy Pop song and it's hard to watch Morosco's bottom fly up in the air and chase Demetrius about the stage like the needle on a compass without wondering if the man she loves has rump sex with his spaniel. It's an unfortunate bit that's more degrading than it is funny.
The “rude mechanicals” — a collection of Shakespeare's silliest and most sympathetic clowns — are so casual and understated compared to the rest of the TSC cast they almost seem to be in a different play, and Tony Molina's interpretation of Nick Bottom is a simple joy. Well, at least until his expressive face is covered by a massive stuffed donkey's head. Only Darius Wallace, one of Memphis' most consistently impressive actors, seems out of place here as Snug the Joiner. His feigned and badly executed stammer makes a potentially sympathetic acting choice seem like he's milking a speech impediment for laughs.
In a play hinging on love and sex, only Caley Milliken's Peasblossom and Slade Kyle's Puck manage to generate any heat and that's mostly the residual effect of beautiful, well-trained bodies working together in tandem. Kyle's Puck — taking his cues directly from the text — is a convincing shape-shifter who can bay like Spartan hounds and fly without ever leaving the stage.
Dan McCleary doesn't wear his influences lightly. Before the lights come up on his Dream — the first show of his fledgling company's second season — he informs the audiences that this production has been influenced and inspired by the writings of psychologist Carl Jung, the music of composer Bela Bartok, and the dreamy pre-surrealist paintings of Marc Chagall. The speech should come with a spoiler alert because sure enough, the play's psycho-sexual themes are made overt (if seldom sexy), the wonderful music echos Bartok's Hungarian folk dances (without ever losing sight of Michalis Patrino's “Misirlou”), and the set's saturated jewel tones seem to have been plucked directly from one of Chagall's circus paintings. So little is left to wonder at.
There's virtue in McCleary's slavishly literal staging of a text that's too often turned into a proving ground for a director's personal interpretive vision. Nevertheless, the shortage of credible relationships in a play that's all about relationships makes everything else appear excessive.
For a complete schedule and ticket information click here.
Comments (15)
Showing 1-15 of 15
What am I not understanding? I thought having a personal interpretive vision was the point.
like
dislikeNo, serving the text is the point. If your concept does that, great. But there's nothing wrong with a literal interpretation if it's well done. And frankly, having seen so many failed concepts it was refreshing to see such a straightforward approach.
I like it when people take risks. But smart work is smart work regardless. It doesn't have to be visionary.
Chris must have seen a different show than I. I saw it and was mesmerized...it's the best production of a Shakespearean play that I have ever seen in this area, and I've seen many.
I am no fan of Shakespeare in no way or form, So when i read Chris comments i find it quite awkward for me to accept as valid. As stated by mayfield its a fresh take on a play about relationships from a time before ours. I viewed it opening night performance and truly enjoyed it. Shakespeare embarked on many elements of life. Love Greed, and Envy to name a few. So to hear this from a person that chartered waters others haven't is puzzling at the least. Critics are just that! Not performers! Pardon me you are a performer, A performer of your own self interest, scrutinizer of a craft that many have tried and failed. So to have a powerful cast of artist take time and energy to share shakespeare in a fashion contrary to the norm was great. In a town like Germantown that is devoid of true culture its sad that when some do come to the town you have the gall to ridicule and deduct from the energy it takes to put together any play, but more so any shakespeare rendition
No Packy, Gordon is right. I'm a sad, lonely little man and writing mixed reviews about good shows with real problems is the only thing in the world that makes me feel like a man.
Hahaha!! oh Chris, your reviews are always so interesting...I'll tell ya- it was hard me to focus on the complete picture when Puck was onstage. That boy was just so captivating...ahhh...
If anyone's still reading these comments and still haven't seen this production, get out to G'town and see it...don't think you'll be disappointed.
Jazzy... I didn't have that problem, but know what you're saying. Together they were fantastic. I find the parochial take on fairies faintly ridiculous, but that is what Shakespeare gives us and I thought he did it about as well as it can be done. Possibly my second favorite puck, and I've seen many.
Saw it. Some good actors. But OMG what an ostentatious interpretation. Bastardized the poor Bard...So Pretentious. Superego, supersedes....maybe the director should have gone with Freud, Richard Strauss and Degas.... I mean who cares?...really! Just put the actors in a black box and let them say the words. Shakespeare works= if you don't get in the way.
Ostentatious? Bastardized? I think not...a black box and just saying the words will not cut it.
A black box and just saying the words certainly can cut it. Shakespeare himself didn't have much more (if as much) and there are many celebrated productions that will prove your wrong on this one Mayfield. That said, I agree that Bastardized is way off the mark.
I've seen bastardized
http://tinyurl.com/yh6xt96
This wasn't it. Ostentation is often in the eye of the beholder but the pre-show introduction could most assuredly pass for pretension (as could the silly dream improvs). But the awesome thing about Shakespeare is that there's no one correct way to do the plays. They can be simple & spare like Hattiloo's recent Macbeth (or Rhodes' FANTASTIC Hamlet from earlier this Century) or they can be lush like TSC's Dream.
So let me play Ref here and say you're both out of bounds. Mayfield, get thyself a copy of Peter Brook's "The Empty Space." Emmy, check out the RSC's "Love's Labour's Lost."
http://tinyurl.com/3lbsbr
Don't make me separate you two.
One can even look at Franco Zeffirelli's unarguably near-flawless cinematic adaptation of Romeo and Juliet and a more recent take, though comparatively less perfect (in the eye of this beholder) adaptation by Baz Luhrmann. Though diametrically opposed in their styles, both Zeffirelli's and Luhrmann's choices worked well, and for completely different reasons.
The choices made by the director of this production seemed imposed. They did not serve the text...But perhaps did serve what seemed to be a pseudo- intellectual ego. The music was certainly beautiful, as were the sets. The acting was also good; Nonetheless the production could have been more dreamlike if it were not weighted down by superfluous...stuff. As you say in your review, there is no cohesion.
OK, I get it "dreams"...why not choose Salvador Dali...It really does not matter who or what the influences are. In this case though, they were force fed. "The play...The play is the thing!" or at lease it should have been.
Emmy, although I did have issues w/the acting and can't really see the misfit I can find no fault with your reasoning or your examples (even if they are cinematic rather than theatrical). Right on.
THIS WEEK'S ISSUE
SPECIAL ISSUES
