5/14/06 Reactions to SITI Company's MND

Directed by Anne Bogart
Alabama Shakespeare Festival, Montgomery, Alabama
matinee performance followed by "Talkback" followed by conversation with three members of the company

My reactions to this production are mixed: I liked many things about the production, and compared to standard regional Shakespeare productions and production styles, it's certainly preferable. And yet there are ways in which it disappointed me. (It may be difficult me to be objective in this account because, at my request, I had a conversation with three of the members of the company after the "talkback" following the performance, for which I am very grateful.) Though I have some reservations, the production was absolutely worth the 6 1/2-hour drive to get there, and deserves a pretty detailed description.

(One of the strongest points in its favor is the mere fact it was done at all at the Alabama Shakespeare Festival (SITI Company was asked by Alabama Shakespeare Festival Artistic Director Geoffrey Shermann to revive and run their production there--and, of course, it was orignally commissioned two years ago by San Jose Rep and premiered there). Judging from some of the comments during the talkback session, this production was very, very different from what ASF's audience is used to seeing, and it would seem to be a brave effort on the part of Shermann to give expand his audience's sense of what is possible with Shakespeare. I think the fact that this production seems so "avant-garde" and unusual, especially when performed at a regional Shakespeare theatre and not in New York speaks volumes about the state of Shakespearean production in the U.S. Also, in Sherman's playbill note about the SITI production, he seems to praise Anno Bogart's production as an "alternative" way of approaching Shakespeare, which seems intended to reassure his audience that nothing is really changing. My reaction is that SITI's production is more representative of worldwide mainstream work than what is usually seen in the U.S. Shakespeare industry.)

Scenic elements: bare stage with three major scenic elements. Upstage was an illuminated, photo-realistic cloud drop framed by aluminum girders (on which the actors very occasionally climbed) and which was permanently lit; two large rolling units on which actors could stand, a oversized gramaphone with large bell, turntable, and crank (the bell could be shifted around and the turntable revolved when the crank was turned), and a oversized radio which provided an elevated level on the otherwise flat stage; a number of ghost lights (standing lamps with somewhat ornate tops and bare bulbs) which changed in number and were helpful in indicate the forest at night and particularly the shift into fairy scenes--these changed in number from one to, I think, seven. Very few other props (I only remember a kind of small carpet for Titania's bower); everything mimed when necessary.

Costuming seemed to reflect, though inconsistently, the idea of setting the production in the depression dustbowl, a look that was really only evident in the mechanical's costumes (and then lost even for them in the last scene, when the actors had to pop back and forth between mechanicals and court members). Puck (Barney O'Hanlon) was in coveralls and a large black ruff (adding to his "fey" appearance, a choice not to my liking). Hippolyta (Ellen Lauren) was in a somewhat Oriental-looking robe which she shed when becoming Titania to reveal a bright red dress with a sheer, loose skirt which worked terrifically when she kicked out her feet in Titania's strange and effective horse-like prance. Theseus (Jeffrey Fracé) had a tan suit jacket and tan pants with high riding boots; he shed the jacket and boots to become a bare-chested Oberon (both Oberon and Titania walked on toes). The four lovers (Akiko Aizawa as Hermia, Karron Graves as Helena, Randy Harrison as Lysander, and Stephen Webber as Demitrius) were (I think) all in white until they woke from their "dream" and were only in underwear (bras & panties, briefs, boxers). Titania's fairies (the Lovers doubled): men wore women's nightgowns, women work short nighties. For the last scene in the court, all the actors (except Hippolyta, back in her robe?) changed into full-length, bright solid-colored clothing of different designs, a choice I understood in terms of story (the formality of the Wedding) and practicality (the need to quickly move from court charcter to mechanical instantly) but which seemed less effective than a simpler choice might have been, given the spare look of the overall design. Overall, though, I thought the costumes did what they needed to do without getting in the way. Oh, the most brilliant choice was Bottom's (Chris Wells) hair: the only indication of his "translation" into an ass (other than the actor's terrific physical work) was that his hair (must have been a wig) was teased up into two large points that functioned as "ears". Worked like gangbusters, and when Puck changed him back, he just tucked the hair back down.

Production opened with a fey Puck walking onstage in followspot with banjo, playing part of a tune (which was picked up later by the audio track) while looking mischievously at the audience, and walking off. Wait, I'm wrong: I think he walked on without banjo, gave us a look, and walked off (which got a laugh); then returned with the banjo. As he played, Hippolyta/Titania entered from u.l., crossing on the diagonal, and delivered part of Titania's set speech. At some point, maybe this one, all the actors ran on and off in various patterns.

Production continued for about 2 1/2 hours with one intermission (taken after lovers put to sleep by Puck). The text seemed to me relatively uncut (I only noticed one scene cut completely, Theseus & court choosing "Pyramus" for entertainment, but there were undoubtedly more cuts). Eight actors played all parts, with only Puck not doubled (Bottom doubled only as Egeus).

Sound/music: There was a musical track which may have been almost continuous but was often so quiet that I couldn't tell--a choice I really liked! The music was there when it needed to be (one scene, I can't remember which, was outwardly happy with a very quiet, very dark musical background--very interesting). There was also the (minimal) live banjo playing by Puck) and Oberon/Theseus, a moment when Puck appeared to play the violin (mimed?), and three instances of song: Stephen Webber as Peaseblossom sang Titania to sleep (using a ghost light as a microphone, crooner-style, while Titania seemed confused, then drawn to the singer, then climbing on the phonograph turntable to sleep--I found her acting during the song confusing); Peaseblossom's reprise (same song?) during the scene with Bottom and Titania in the bower, doing what seemed to me to be a Tom Waits spoof and I found very funny (the fairies' reaction to Bottom was great: laughing with him but finding him very disturbing, and disapproving of Titania's attraction to him); the "Bergomask", which ended with the cast all playing instruments and hitting a vocal chord. I thought the music worked very well, and I was glad that it didn't overwhelm the other aspects of the production.

Acting: Chris Wells as Bottom was amazing. He's obviously a gifted physical clown, and his acting seemed at once the most physically inspired and least effortful of any of the actors. He used the gestural movement-style of the production but made it very much his own, very organic, which is what, I think, made me think of it as effortless. Whether using histrionic gestures while speaking as Bottom in rehearsal, or braying and pawing as the ass (inspired physical and vocal work), or using full-out, over the top hilariously stylized gestures as Pyramus--god, he was good. A large part of his gift seems to be that elusive quality: He was just really, really funny.
I won't describe the other actors specifically. Some seemed better than others. Some seemed to find it hard to be funny, and the effort hurt the production (but nobody was bad in the way that Tina Landau's actors were bad). There were many moments that worked for me (see below) but overall there was something in the conjunction of gesture and speech that I often found problematic, especially early on in the performance. Often the movement seemed to get in the way instead of illuminating what was happening at the moment, as if the actors were comfortable with the physical demands and certainly clear with the language but often couldn't quite put both together in a really organic way--I kept seeing technique (as I write this, I'm thinking of the opening Theseus/Hippolita scene, and I wonder how much of this reaction was conditioned by that opening). It's hard for me to really pin down what bothered me, because so much about the style of the acting and the production was very, very much to my taste and seemed to be right for Shakespeare. It just didn't always work.

Choices I liked (in no order of importance):
the overall simplicity of production choices and the reliance on the actor's body, and to whole look of the stage at almost any given moment;
the way Titania used her legs, jerking up her knees while standing on toes, like a very high-strung horse;
accepting the violence in the Theseus/Hippolyta initial relationship (though it seemed contrived even while absolutely justified) and the apparent resolution near the end, especially through the repetition of gestures (grabbing the elbow, spitting) first as hostile, then as affectionate;
going with the lust in Titania/Bottom scenes;
Titania and her fairies as spoof on ballet, with that "Swan Lake" entrance and move to down right--and the men in nighties!;
Thisbe's (Randy Harrison) death scene which was funnier than I've ever seen it and even managed to top Bottom's death, as it should;
everything that Bottom did but especially his transformation into an ass;
the way that Titania really came alive (and was funny!) in the first scene with Bottom as she lost all inhibitions, and incredible visual picture with Bottom down center, Titania directly upstage standing on the radio (I was sitting 3rd row center, the perfect place) and how it moved into their exit--especially Titania rolling off on the radio practically primally screaming (as I remember it, anyway), really going to the edge of ridiculousness on that one: bravo!;
the physical mayem that the Lovers reached in the forest and the way their four-way confrontation built, especially utilizing those sharp, percussive movements;
the strength and humor of Hermia's performance (even though I don't think Akiko Aizawa is gifted comically); the more conventional and more organic (and thus funnier) humor of Helena's performance, even though it seemed a bit forced by the physical demands of the style;
the image of the four lovers in their underwear, facing out spread across the stage, trying to understand what has just happened: good!
the way Pyramus & Thisbe was staged, with the delightful instant shifts from actor to court audience and especially the way the direction the mechanicals faced the court audience moved around the stage;
Puck's last speech, particularly his "Think you have but slumbered here", which, as an audience member noted, got a laugh maybe for the first time ever and provided a real moment for the audience to reflect on what they have just been through.

Choices I didn't like or didn't think worked:
The whole idea of setting it in the Depression dustbowl: It may have provided a basis for some design choices (costume, set pieces) but the idea wasn't incorporated in any meaningful way. I wonder: Why even talk about it and make it part of the publicity? I'm glad the production wasn't "set" in the Depression in a way that would have boxed in and literalized its meaning, but I think the association created more problems than it solved. For instance:
The oversized gramophone and radio: I loved the look of the props. I loved the way the radio in particular created a new spatial level. But the props in themselves didn't seem to contribute to the ideas in the play and so seemed contrived. What was there function, other than purely practical? I can make up something (both media require imagination on the part of the listeners, etc.; they were iconic "American" objects, sort of) but something that big and striking should me a real impact, should "stop me in my tracks" in Bogart's words. These objects didn't seem to do any work narratively or conceptually. They didn't invite me to think.
Which is an overall problem I had with the production: Most of the time it didn't make me think about much besides technique, design, and the happy fact that here was something different and more interesting than standard Shakespeare. Which counts for a lot, granted, but I wanted to be opened up to ideas in the play.
A more telling criticism is that it didn't make me acutely aware of the "eventfulness" of the moment we were all sharing. Well, it did more than a bad production would, and certain moments almost got me there, but I wanted to be amazed, confounded, and to have a life-changing experience. Not much to ask.
Puck's character didn't really seem to go anywhere. I got indications of "mischief" and sometimes irritation, and he orchestrated the action to a degree (inconsistently?), but I didn't see a strong, interesting choice (I found the O'Hanlon much more compelling in "Hotel Cassiopeia").
Along those lines, and while I'm being nasty, I felt that Stephen Webber as Demetrius was kind of phoning it in, although that may have been more his choice to play the character in a particularly "cool" manner (he got somewhere when he was really pursuing Hermia, though where did that come from?). Also, he didn't seem to change much as Snout or Peaseblossom (though the way he played those songs was just great).
In general, much of the acting bothered me (I think I've said this before) because, as much as I like movement-based theatre (is there really any other kind?), the actors (other than Bottom) often seemed to be "dance-y", saying, "Look how physical we're being," rather than moving and speaking from a genuine need. At time, they even seemed to fall into illustrating the text with gestures. I know, I know, the point actually is to get (back) to a "conventionalized" acting style and away from this awful "naturalistic" acting, but I still think--and this is a good realization for me to come to, so thank you, SITI Company--that those conventions need to be really organic or connected or "right" to work. Am I talking about playing actions? Am I talking about speaking and moving from a genuine need? I'm groping, here: I know it when I see it but I'm having trouble pinning it don't. I guess it comes down to this: acting is hard.