?

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

(Anonymous)
Dec. 12th, 2010 05:05 pm (UTC)
Mary the movie
Did you ever see the movie with Glenda Jackson and Vanessa Redgrave? I loved it when it came out and I think that was before I saw Schiller's play (as a college student, probably in 1971). Certainly there was a strong contrast between Mary, the single-minded passionate idealist, and Elizabeth always thinking three different thoughts at once--sensibility and sense, I guess. Jackson had played her in a miniseries (which I hadn't seen) and she was so completely THERE that she was not unsympathetic, yet Mary's situation and actions were such that even Elizabeth had to sympathize with her. Maybe that's why I didn't pay much attention to either the Mirren or Blanchett Elizabeths. I would watch a bit on TV, and then, much as I admire these actresses, shrug my shoulders.

Latest Month

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

Tags

Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow