“Taming of the Shrew”
in DC and “Tug of War: Foreign Fire” in Chicago
In between attending the Ring
Cycle I had the opportunity to attend a performance of “Taming of the Shrew” in
DC performed by the Shakespeare Theater Company. Now, I will confess that if I
had had another Shakespearean option I would have skipped Taming and gladly
attended another play. For while I think
the play is beautifully written, as all of the plays are, it is not a play I
really like very much. Yes, I know it is a farce. Shakespeare is taking on an
attitude about women, a male fantasy if you will, and making fun of it. But in the 21st century it doesn’t
really come across, even in this really excellent production. The scene where Petruchio breaks Kate feels
like abuse and the final scene, especially Kate’s final speech, is simply offensive. “Let’s see which woman will obey” – yuck!
I have read some who argue that
this was the attitude in Elizabethan England and we should just accept it on
its own terms. Except, it is not. Women
did not willingly obey any more in Elizabethan England than at any other time,
including our own. True, it was a
patriarchal society and women were forced into various roles, but at the same
time there was a woman on the throne who was arguably the most powerful woman
in the world at that time. No, the attitudes in the play represent male
fantasy, not reality.
The director of this production,
Ed Sylvanus Iskandar, opening acknowledged the problem in his thoughtful
program article. And one way he attempted to deal with it was that he
determined that all the roles – male and female - would be played by men. This, he suggested mitigated the distasteful
elements of the play. He also noted that
there is a production currently playing in Central Park in New York that will
use an all female cast. He saw the two
productions as a pair. And I am sorry I
cannot see the Central Park production as it would be interesting to compare.
He also added some very interesting elements to further muddy the waters as it
were. But at the end of the day, the
character’s genders have not changed.
The women are still supposed to be women, even if they are played by
men. The violence of the breaking scene and the final scene are ultimately not
mitigated by using male actors, at least not for me. Ultimately I came away
from the performance slightly embarrassed that I had enjoyed it so much, for
the play is really rather offensive. I
even mentioned this to a cast member in the lobby after the performance and he
agreed with me.
So would I want to see the play
not performed – no, absolutely not. I want to see this play done exactly the
way this director did it. With eyes
open, and a desire to struggle with the difficult dimensions of the play. For that I commend this director and the
company for their work. I sensed no excuse making, but rather a clear and
honest attempt to struggle with the rather difficult relationships in the play,
and then to add even more difficult dimensions to them.
As the play is still running in
DC I should say – SPOILER ALERT. There was an openness to this production
which I found unique and refreshing. The
cast mingled with the audience in the lobby and even performed songs before the
play. During the intermission refreshments were served on stage and the
audience was invited up on stage. In a
variety of ways the audience was invited to break the 4th wall and
enter into the play. And during some of
these times there were subversive things going on, notably a little more than
platonic relationship between Lucencio and Tranio, discovered by Bianca. And one had the sense there was even more of
this going on. Another dimension I
noticed was the relationship between the servants and masters. In many ways these relationships were almost
as abusive as the relationships between the men and the women. What does that say about money and
power? And then adding in the subtext
complications a completely different set of motivations and relationships begin
to appear. Remember that the entire plot
is about money and property – it is not about love, or even about relationships
or women – all of that is in service of the pursuit of money and property. There is a subplot about lust – lust for
Bianca – but ultimately the primary issue is who will become Baptista’s heir.
I want to complain about one
director decision that I thought did not work. I understand that he wanted the
establishment characters of Gremio, Hortensio and the wealthy Contessa to be
somewhat representative of power bases in society and so Gremio becomes a
Catholic Cardinal. Except that Gremio is
openly pursuing Bianca like the others.
He is just as lustful and desirous to marry her as all the others. Ok, a Cardinal can be lustful, but to be
openly a candidate for her hand in marriage just didn’t work. He is a Cardinal, which means he is supposed
to be celibate. Even in the Middle Ages high ranking churchmen worked harder to
hide their assignations than this. This
didn’t work for me. I don’t think having
him being a churchman at all was necessary and added nothing. That is my only
complaint.
The cast was excellent. The Kate
of Maulik Pancholy was really terrific as was the Bianca of Oliver
Thornton. I had seen Telly Leung in
Godspell on Broadway about 5 years ago and was really impressed and he was
terrific as Lucencio also. Tom Story was outstanding as Hortensio, with equally
outstanding work from Matthew Russell and Gregory Linington as the put upon
servants Tranio and Grumio. Bernard White as the plotting father of the women
Baptista was effective and I enjoyed the many incarnations of André De
Shields. Finally Peter Gadiot played the
unsympathetic role (at least for me) of Petruchio and I can’t imagine it being
performed more effectively. The entire
company was excellent. This is a
terrific production and performance.
Lastly, I have to mention that
one of the unique elements of this production was the addition of original
songs by Duncan Sheik. This added a unique dimension which I felt really
worked. At times it felt like a musical,
the cast were all excellent singers and the songs were beautiful and
effective. In this way the music added
yet another dimension of commentary and complication to the plot. This was not a 2 dimensional “Taming;” all of
these elements came together to create a complicated set of odd relationships.
Oliver Thornton as Bianca and Maulik Pancholy as Katherina
A few weeks later I travelled to
Chicago to my 2nd favorite place on earth – Navy Pier – for 5+ hours
of Shakespeare in the form of a montage entitled Tug of War: Foreign Fire.
Created by Barbara Gaines, director of Chicago Shakespeare, this long
evening consisted of three plays: Edward III, Henry V and Henry VI, part
1. These were cut to focus on the
war-making dimensions and to fit into 5 to 6 hours of Shakespeare. The primary
focus of this 1st part of Tug of War were the English wars against
the French in an effort to win the rule of France during the Hundred Years War.
In these wars there are the elites who make the decisions, often based on
flimsy and questionable foundations, there are the commoners who are the ones
who bear the primary burden of the fighting and the dying and there are the
women who are also used as chess pieces in the complex back and forth between
fighting and diplomacy. Edward III rescues the Countess of Salisbury from the
Scottish only to attack her by attempting to coerce her into a sexual
relationship. She resists (in one of the most wrenching and powerful scenes in
the entire play – performed powerfully by Karen Aldrich as the Countess and
Freddie Stevenson as Edward). Her success in shunning the King forces his
response in commencing the brutal wars against the French that ends ultimately
in the French defeat and deaths of 1000’s at Crecy and Poitiers. I had never
seen Edward III before, and it is still somewhat contested. I suppose this will be my only opportunity to
see it, and I really loved the play. It
does bear some interesting parallels to Henry V.
Henry V is also cut to focus
exclusively on war-making. John Tufts’
Henry was not as sympathetic and likeable as most Henry’s. After a magnificent
exposition of the Salic laws, delivered brilliantly by Steven Sutliffe as the
Archbishop of Canterbury, Henry is engaged in the act of war on the
French. One of the most moving and
poignant dimensions was having the Ghost of Edward III watching as events
unfold and then repeating lines from the first play that perfectly parallel
lines from Henry V during the Harfleur scene.
The brutality and cruelty is something the two Kings have in common. No
nationalistic romp this production – the “Band of Brothers” speech was anything
but inspiring. Rather, yet another
effort at manipulation coming as it does on the heels of the King’s rather
self-serving wanderings through the camp where he argues his righteousness with
his own soldiers. Finally we have
Princess Katherine used as a bargaining chip.
I felt that this scene was anything but cute and seductive, rather, it
felt violent to me. Katherine attacked
to be taken as used, much like Petruchio’s Kate is taken and used. But here it is in the service of a peace that
will actually never take hold.
And the King dies young and is
succeeded by his infant son and the entire French possessions are lost and in
the process of regaining them we encounter a new woman, a warlike woman – Joan
of Arc. Played powerfully by Heidi
Kettenring this is a woman who can stand up to men, who is as strong as any man
and who has to be destroyed. All the
while a weak and pious Henry VI, played by Steven Sutliffe attempts to avoid
conflict as his counselors are fighting bitterly with each other. This play serves as a hinge from the French
wars to the English turning in on themselves and beginning the civil war
between the white and red roses – the houses of York and Lancaster (all
descended, BTW, from Edward III). This
then sets up the next installment in the fall – Tug of War: Civil Strife which will include Henry VI, parts 2 and 3
and Richard III.
It is obvious that Gaines is
making a statement about the stupidity and futility of war and violence. She is also, not so subtly pointing out that
while the men who make the decisions stand above the fray, on various levels of
scaffolding looking down on the bloodshed and carnage, it is the poor foot
soldiers who do the work of fighting and dying, by the 1000’s! (It is not an
accident, I think, that both Edward III and Henry V, both include a lingering
uncomfortable scene where they read a list of the killed and lost). It is also
the women who are the chattel and are used and abused in this chess game of
war, and who sometimes (like the Queen in an actual chess game) becomes a
player herself (Margaret of Anjou, for example). And for what, for a throne which is elusive
and unstable (symbolized brilliantly by a golden tire hanging and lit in full
view throughout the entire play.) The
final dimension is the music. A rock
band which plays and sings a series of songs about war and war-making serves as
both participant and commentary on the action.
As is typical of the incredible
work of Barbara Gaines there are so many little details that add so much to the
performance. My favorite: a young boy
being given a hat to keep him warm by his mother as he leaves for the
wars. This cap continues to be featured
in a variety of ways until it is finally returned to the mother, without the
boy. It was a moving symbol of the
incredible cost of this kind of war-making.
I cannot even begin to pick out
and name the incredible cast for this marathon venture. As usual Gaines’ cast is tremendous, each and
every one of them. Larry Yando, Kevin
Gudahl, Karen Aldrige, Heidi Kettenring, James Newcomb and Michael Aaron
Lindner (who provided the only really effective comic relief of the adventure
with his outstanding Fluellen) are all veterans of Chicago Shakespeare. New
actors included Freddie Stevenson’s incredibly powerful and dangerous Edward
III, John Tufts as his grandson the equally powerful and self-centered Henry V
(no nice guy Hal, or even Falstaff to mitigate this character – there was a
brief nod to this whole subplot when Henry momentarily reacted to the news that
Pistol would be hung, but it was over in a moment. After all those who break the rules must pay
no matter who they are – that is if they are poor peasants!). And then there
was Alex Weisman, whose youthful, almost childlike looks brought an incredible
power to his scenes as Talbot’s son, and the boy with the cap.
I am really looking forward to
the last installment in the fall. This
is an incredibly powerful work. Hats off
to Barbara Gaines. The evening of the
performance I attended there were cameras all over. I can only hope that they
are recording this for television or some kind of release. Shakespeare’s insights about war and
war-making are just as relevant today as they were in his own time. If only the war-makers would pay attention.
A video montage of Tug of War: Foreign Fire - Note the use of the paper crowns!
No comments:
Post a Comment