?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Dear friends and readers,

This is another don't miss it!  My third in a row.

Last night Jim, I, and Isobel enjoyed the real privilege of seeing a the WSC's new production, Schiller's Mary Stuart. Adapted by Peter Oswald, Schiller's Mary Stuart opened "to great acclaim" in London in 2005, where it moved from the Donmar Warehouse to the West End and then in NYC to Broadway.  Performed with remarkably few gimmicks, the remarkable acting and script comment on politics today and just rivet you with the rivalry of the women -- and just as much the male courtiers and (vulnerable) flunkies all around them.  As they are doing it with their presentation of Richard III (this one maybe over-directed by contrast) as a parable about politicians, it seems they are having a season which connects indirectly to politics today.

What's remarkable is with how much respect they treat both Elizabeth and Mary Queens of Scots. This is no harpy v harpy production but two women fighting for respect, life, meaning. A third, Mary's servant, Hannah, is not neglected either. .  In Richard III, Mundy Spears as Lady Anne and Karen Novack as Elizabeth Tudor were similarly powerful effective. The function of these numinous "star" women is significant, even if male critics avoid noticing this or mock it -- some London critic's tone was often semi-derisory (they make money for their snarkiness and evidence a nasty nstinct to dismiss what they saw was at work).

Our local critic of Hovdn's production -- strong praise -- treated the play and production with insight.  Elizabeth was played as unnerved.


Heather Hanley as Mary Stuart


Sara Barker as Elizabeth the all powerful

Small steps forward.

In the London production Janet McTeer played Mary



and Harriet Walter, Elizabeth: 



Unfortunately I also have no close-up pictures of Sara Barker as Elizabeth and there are an overabundance of shots of McTeer too -- which suggests we still favor Elizabeth (despite the Kate Blanchett and Helen Mirren movies, the latter of which made Elizabeth a sentimental heroine).  Nonetheless, Elizabeth is presented as a real person, not a monstrous fiend, nor crazed frustrated Machiavel (as she is by Sophia Lee, then Walter Scott and perhaps Schiller too). At the WSC company, Sara Barker had the hard role of somehow emoting intense feeling without showing it too strongly -- as did Joe Brack as Leicester. They were all up to it Virtuouso performances from young actors.

Ellen

Comments

misssylviadrake
Dec. 8th, 2010 03:49 pm (UTC)
Arlington director: Colin Hovde
The production I saw _did_ not make Elizabeth a baddy at all.

It showed her caught up in political necessity and surrounded by people egoistic and hypocritical.

It gave both women real sympathy,
Ellen

Latest Month

November 2019
S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

Tags

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow