Once again, the subject is Ashland theatre, specifically the question of letting Shakespeare be Shakespeare. When I watched Othello, I thought they had decided to do it; then saw Midsummer Night's Dream and changed my mind. Now I've seen Coriolanus and I've changed my mind again. Takeaway point: this is one of the best, most fully formed, most convincing presentations of Ashland Shakespeare that I've ever seen--if ever a production speaks with its own voice, this is the kind that does it. Which is not to say it was reverential or pedantic: in was plenty innovative, in a conventional sort of way, what with the flashing lights and holes in the floor, all presented on a cozy in-the-roiund stage. But it was clearly put together by people who understood and respected the text, and who were determined to let it have its own way. Indeed, a presentation like this lets slip a remarkable secret about Shakespearean acting: a lot of Shakespearean actors--even those who have some sense of character--simply don't understand a lot of what they are saying, and wind up talking Shakespeare as if they were talking scat. For i\whatever reason, in this prouction of Coriolanus, every actor seemed to be able to convey meaning out of every sentence.
This is surely partly a credit to the actors, particularly Danforth Comins in the lead (and who would have guessed we'd a good Coriolanus from an actor who was also such a fine Cassio?) and Robynn Rodriguez as his mother (she's matured over the years, all for the good). But consistency like this must be the work of the whole cast. Coriolanus here reminded me of nothing so much as the splendid King John we saw here a couple of years back. Robynn Rodriguez turned in a fine performance in that one too. I'm intrigued to discover that John Sipes, who was fights director this time, was the director of King John (Laird Williamson directed Coriolanus). But perhaps most interesting, I see that Alan Armstrong served as dramaturge for both plays. I admit it; I've never been quite clear what a "dramaturge" does, but if Armstrong doesn't deserve some of the credit for the success (and similarity) of this pairing, then I'd say at least that he has astounding luck.
Another surely non-accidental parallel. No matter what T.S. Eliot thought, Coriolanus is not a wonderful way. The text is polished and proficient but the ending is almost perfunctory, and for the plotting--let's just say that in this play, more than any other, you suspect that Shakespeare is pushing an agenda rather than just putting on a show. So also King John: a different play than Coriolanus, but likewise not a great play, however worthy an effort. Anyway, the point here is twofold: one, Shakespeare never wrote a dull play, a play not worth watching. Even when he is off the top of his game, he has a lot to arrest one's attention and engage the mind. And two, cheers to the team that can take him seriously on those terms, and help him to display whatever it is he may have to say.
This is surely partly a credit to the actors, particularly Danforth Comins in the lead (and who would have guessed we'd a good Coriolanus from an actor who was also such a fine Cassio?) and Robynn Rodriguez as his mother (she's matured over the years, all for the good). But consistency like this must be the work of the whole cast. Coriolanus here reminded me of nothing so much as the splendid King John we saw here a couple of years back. Robynn Rodriguez turned in a fine performance in that one too. I'm intrigued to discover that John Sipes, who was fights director this time, was the director of King John (Laird Williamson directed Coriolanus). But perhaps most interesting, I see that Alan Armstrong served as dramaturge for both plays. I admit it; I've never been quite clear what a "dramaturge" does, but if Armstrong doesn't deserve some of the credit for the success (and similarity) of this pairing, then I'd say at least that he has astounding luck.
Another surely non-accidental parallel. No matter what T.S. Eliot thought, Coriolanus is not a wonderful way. The text is polished and proficient but the ending is almost perfunctory, and for the plotting--let's just say that in this play, more than any other, you suspect that Shakespeare is pushing an agenda rather than just putting on a show. So also King John: a different play than Coriolanus, but likewise not a great play, however worthy an effort. Anyway, the point here is twofold: one, Shakespeare never wrote a dull play, a play not worth watching. Even when he is off the top of his game, he has a lot to arrest one's attention and engage the mind. And two, cheers to the team that can take him seriously on those terms, and help him to display whatever it is he may have to say.
No comments:
Post a Comment