Ashland report: Words fail (and rescue) the festival

Filed under:Bob Hicks, Environment, General, Theater — posted by Bob Hicks on July 14, 2008 @ 4:59 pm

I walked into the open-air circle of the Oregon Shakespeare Festival’s Elizabethan Stage last night a disgruntled man, and three hours later walked out, finally, with what I’d come to Ashland looking for: the emotional, intellectual and aesthetic transformation that fine theater can achieve. Thank goodness for Our Town.

The trip’s been fine: that glorious drive south of Eugene, where the climate changes and the road becomes a curving slice through the mountains. (Why is Rice Hill at the bottom of the hill and the Rice Valley exit at the top?) An overnight stop, with two good meals, at the Wolf Creek Inn, where Jack London stayed in a tiny room for a few weeks in 1911 and wrote a story called The End of the Story. (I’m going to have to look it up: I’ve never read it.)

A quick stop at the nearby gold-mining ghost town of Golden, where volunteers are working to stabilize the remaining wood-frame buildings (the church has new glass in the windows) of a little boom town that was always different: Built by preaching miners, it had two congregations and no saloons. Two or three genuine markers lie in the little cemetery, but most of the headstones are fakes, set there many years ago for filming of an episode of Gunsmoke: So the not-so-wild West reinvents itself. And bless the volunteers, who have split new rails for the fence along the little road and are slowly reclaiming the natural state of the gouged-out mined areas below the town. May they outfox the woodpecker who was tap-tap-tapping away at the old church spire.

But in Ashland, aesthetically, it hadn’t been a good beginning. On Saturday afternoon, indoors at the Angus Bowmer Theatre, a gauche and vulgar version of A Midsummer Night’s Dream, a play that deserves far, far better. Dream is a wonder of the Western World, one of the most nearly perfect plays ever devised, and I’ve often thought it close to foolproof. Turns out it’s not. It can be defeated by a director and designers determined to overwhelm the magic of its language with insipid pop-cultural winks, incessant visual distractions, head-scratching hand gestures that appear to be choreographed but have no apparent link to the emotional lives of the characters or the plotting demands of the story, and a general busy-ness that makes it almost impossible for the actors to settle into the quiet glowing heart of the story. It was the Roman circus, not the magical wood. My congratulations to Ray Porter, who managed a fine low-comedy focus as Bottom, and Kevin Kenerly, who kept his dignity intact as Oberon while all around him were being engulfed in foolishness.

Putting together a new production of a classic is never an easy thing — there is that struggle between keeping the tradition and making your own mark — but to my mind Dream director Mark Rucker got the whole thing backwards: Obsessed with creating pop-cultural touchstones and sight gags to spice the old girl up, he ignored the emotional depths of Shakespeare’s language-driven story and wound up pandering to his audience (which, depressingly to me, at least, gave the thing a standing ovation). This production is all about distractions, from those strange hand gestures, to the wobbly New Jersey accent that Theseus and no one else affects, to that ultimate insipid nudge in the ribs, a VW bus full of hippies — one of the laziest punch lines in the business. And even that gag, the production doesn’t get right. The festival’s fine technical crew painted the flowers on the van too well, with exquisite detail and shadings that give them dimensionality rather than the homespun flatness of the real ’60s decorations. And why would the mechanicals — who, after all, are honest laborers, hard-working men if not exactly mental giants (and I think that underlying sense of earnest decency is crucial to the comedy of their scenes) — be presented as lazy dope-smoking shirkers (the common if not exactly correct current stereotype of hippies, who having failed to live up to their dreams have become a cultural gag), anyway?

There is a difference between comedy and triviality. As the show jumped like an ADHD kid from pop gag to pop gag from the 1960s, ’70s and ’80s, it struck me that it didn’t even have the courage to connect the play to the contemporary pop-cultural moment. Could it be that that string of “contemporary” pop allusions was nothing more than easy nostalgia playing to the graying heads of the festival’s audience? And if you’re trying to be relevant — which in the theatrical world all too often means connecting too obviously to the daily assumptions of your audience instead of challenging them to think outside their own time and place — why not be relevant to the younger audience you’re going to need to develop if you mean to survive?

On the other hand: On the afternoon before his 14th birthday my elder son guffawed with pleasure throughout the show. And his doctor reports that her teen-aged daughter loved Midsummer so much when she saw it on a school trip that, on a recent trip to California, she begged her mom to stop in Ashland so she could see it a second time. So something’s working here. Am I just a geezer to insist that what the Shakespeare festival used to hold as its primary focus — the supremacy of language — is still important?

Then, on Sunday afternoon, to the little New Theatre for Luis Alfaro’s newish play Breakfast, Lunch and Dinner, a sweet-spirited mishmash about an obese woman who gets bigger and bigger until she mystifyingly floats into the air (a neat technical trick) and finally, at the end of the second act, whooshes off to points undetermined in the universe. Bye-bye, strange family, she seems to be saying. I gotta be me.

What this all means is anyone’s guess — I’m not going to hazard one — and again, the primary problem seems to be that the language just isn’t there: It’s a play of incidents, effects and characters who have a nice vividness but no direction or purpose in a story that, when you get right down to it, doesn’t really exist.

Still, director Tracy Young has given the thing a nice gloss, and her cast is good: Zilah Mendoza as the fat woman’s sexy sister, Rene Millan as the sister’s policeman lover, G. Valmont Thomas (so funny in last year’s production of Tom Stoppard’s “On the Razzle”) as the fat woman’s husband, and Sandra Marquez as bloated Minerva herself. Marquez manages that astonishing thing that actors sometimes do: She commits herself completely, physically and emotionally, to a character who makes no sense on the page, thus making us care in spite of our knowledge that there’s nothing there to care about. It’s a marvel of the acting craft. Too bad it couldn’t have been attached to a better project. I’m left wondering why this small and effectively uncompleted play was chosen for production in the first place.

At last, on Sunday night, Our Town, a play that the late festival director Jerry Turner used to insist was the greatest American play ever written. I don’t think I agree with that, but I know where he was coming from. I’m glad that as a culture we’ve finally become inoculated sufficiently from the virus of easy irony to appreciate Thornton Wilder’s masterpiece again, and I’m glad that Bill Rauch, the festival’s new artistic director, saw fit to have it performed on the outdoor stage, where this play of universal dimensions seems right at home beneath the encompassing curve of the stars.

My most memorable Our Town came many years ago, at the old Portland Civic Theatre, in a production that was quite consciously the swan song of director Bob Nielsen, who was dying from the effects of AIDS and wanted with all his heart and soul to leave this final statement — a caress to the audience and his fellow theater people, really — about the sweet fragility of life and the cold wonder of death. It was one of those rare shows in which there seemed no difference between the magic that was inside and outside the theater doors: a slowing-down of time itself, a rare contemplation of the moment.

Ashland’s production can’t match the memory of that special occasion, but it’s a fine version of the show, directed with clarity and sensitivity by Chay Yew. Anthony Heald is an ideal Stage Manager, our host and narrator and manipulator of the action, the voice of God, perhaps — teetering somewhere in the balance between crackerbarrel cornpone and deep unadorned truth. Yes, we are part of something larger that we don’t understand. Yes, the world’s beauty is contained in the small and “insignificant” and generally overlooked. Yes, there is something humbling about the journey from the cradle to the grave. If the first two acts can seem a little self-congratulatory, the final act lowers the boom. Here: Here’s what it comes to. Worms and indifference. And something else, as the ghost of Mrs. Gibbs reminds the bitter ghost of Simon Stimson. Something that is still becoming.

Our Town works so well at the festival because it is a play of language, a sturdy construction that builds its own world on the architecture of its words. Yew and his Ashland cast understand that for all its seeming simplicity, this play is Pirandellian — a play as much about the possibilities of the theater as about the possibilities of life. Wilder whisks his audience through time and space, stopping and starting the action, reaching emotional truths through overt artificiality, creating puppet characters that somehow spring to life. That’s theater. That’s more like it.

I’ll be seeing a lot more in the next few days, so look for more reports as time permits: Shakespeare’s all too rarely produced political drama Coriolanus; Othello; a Wild West Comedy of Errors; the ancient Indian epic The Clay Cart; Avenue Q librettist (and Coos Bay native) Jeff Whitty’s comedy The Further Adventures of Hedda Gabler. Plus, if I can score tickets, the jazzy, frisky, musical comedy version of Archy and Mehitebel, based on Don Marquis‘ miniature comic masterpieces, at Oregon Cabaret Theatre. Stay tuned.

8 comments »

  1. But, see, I felt supremacy of language WAS the primary focus in this production (I loved loved LOVED it, by the way). More than, say, “Comedy of Errors,” where they changed the play linguistically and then added songs, “Midsummer” stuck to the direct text, made it lively and modern and bawdy and musical — just like Shakespeare would have done, I think.

    I love that it was a play that could appeal to the people in the pit, but I also love that it is just about the easiest way to bring young people to theater in the history of forever.

    Anyway, I love the play in general, but this production is one of the best I’ve seen of everything. I thought it was just about the truest adaptation, despite seeming so far away from what you would expect.

    Comment by DeAnn — July 16, 2008 @ 11:05 am

  2. I’ve been reading your Ashland reports closely because we just returned from there having seen many of the same plays. Agree with your assessment of Hedda Gabler, especially as it relates to The Colored Museum, but disagree about Breakfast, Lunch & Dinner, which, while not entirely successful, is the play that I remember the most and had the greatest impact on me.

    Fortunately, I attended the talkback afterwards to learn that as he was writing, the playwright was influenced by his mother’s cancer diagnosis and (I hope I’m remembering this correctly) subsequent death. So when Minerva floats (and is unable to do any of the housework, for instance), she is metaphorically preparing her family for her inevitable departure (death). Hopefully, Alfaro will make this a little clearer in any future rewrites.

    Comment by Marc Acito — July 25, 2008 @ 10:36 pm

  3. Hi Marc,

    Nice to hear from you. Glad you got more from “BL&D” than I did. I understood that the playwright was playing around with magical realism, but it seemed unanchored to me (and not just because the heroine was floating away!). I got the magical part. I was looking in vain for the realism. Your explanation makes a lot of sense, as does your hope that the playwright will make that clearer in any rewrite.

    So here’s something to toss around: Should the Shakespeare Festival be producing plays that frankly aren’t ready for production yet — that still need significant rewriting? Is Ashland the proper place for this sort of development? We’ve seen unfinished plays on the season at, for instance, Portland Center Stage, but we understand that’s part of what the company does. Should a classic theater be doing the same thing? Or should it be producing contemporary plays only when they’ve demonstrated their completeness and literary quality, as “The Further Adventures of Hedda Gabler” does?

    A thought: What about a new-plays lab in the festival’s old Black Swan Theatre, which is now used for rehearsals and other purposes? A play like “BL&D” could be produced for, say, a month, with the playwright in attendance, and tickets could be sold but at half-price, with the understanding that this was an experimental production and the show was likely to change. That way the festival wouldn’t be eating up one of its 11 annual slots on a not-ready-for-prime-time play, but it would be in the thick of new-play development, which is highly desirable for a company wanting to keep its edge. Yes, this would cost the festival money. But surely grants wold be available to underwrite such a project. (And it might be just a modest expansion of what the festival already has planned with its development of a series of plays about American history.)

    Thoughts, anyone?

    And, DeAnn,

    Glad you liked “Midsummer” so much. From what I hear, there’s been a real generational split on the production: Younger people tend to love it, and older people tend to detest it. So maybe a really AM a geezer!

    cheers,
    bob

    Comment by Bob Hicks — July 26, 2008 @ 8:30 pm

  4. You raise an interesting question. I didn’t mean to imply that the play was unfinished. In fact, this is its third production, although the first with such complicated flying. Yet we all know that plays change as they are worked on production by production over the years (I believe there are three versions of “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof”). So, your question really becomes: should Ashland be a part of the development process or only produce plays that have sufficiently proven themselves over time? (You put it as “demonstrated their completeness and literary quality” such as “Further Adventures of Hedda Gabler,” which has had fewer productions than BL&D.)

    I haven’t been down there enough over the years to know what the audience will endure, but I would posit that the latter path essentially turns OSF into a museum; albeit a very good one at that. I love your idea of the experimental black box (I regularly attend PCS’s JAW Festival, so the idea of new, unfinished plays is not difficult for me) and would be very pleased if Bill Rausch moved the festival in that direction.

    BTW, I had dinner with Victoria Frey of PICA last night and told her about Breakfast, Lunch and Dinner. She believes its the organization’s job to let the audience know when there’s an important element that needs to be understood (but isn’t explained) such as the floating away metaphor in BL&D. Needless to say, this stimulated discussion among those at dinner who believed it was the artist’s responsibility. Perhaps that’s the difference between the avant garde and the commercial.

    Comment by Marc Acito — July 28, 2008 @ 5:14 pm

  5. [deleted]

    Comment by Solveig Ayres — August 4, 2008 @ 3:30 pm

  6. [deleted]

    Comment by Bob Hicks — August 5, 2008 @ 2:37 pm

  7. Well, I’m “older,” I guess (53), and I’ve seen Midsummer up here twice this season, and adored it both times.

    Yes, its conceits are a little tricksy… but I’ve never heard the language spoken better. I was able to draw ideas and implications out of the text in this production that I’ve never seen before, through dozens of Midsummers. In particular, the four lovers were done better than I’ve ever seen them; it’s the first time I’ve really understood each of them as a personality (the first time, for example, that I’ve really been able to distinguish between Demetrius and Lysander, who usually seem to be near-identical Handsome Young Men ordered as a job lot from Central Casting).

    As a survivor of both the ’60s and the ’80s, I was lukewarm on the van full of “rude mechanicals,” but totally adored the glam-rock fairies… and my general fondness for beautiful men in fishnets and platforms was only a small part of that, I swear.

    My companions, all seeing it for the first time and all of my generation, loved it too. So it isn’t just a young person’s Midsummer, although if the kids enjoy it so much the better.

    I’m also going to disagree with you on Breakfast Lunch & Dinner. It was clear to me from the beginning that Minerva’s obesity was not fat in the ordinary sense of the word, but a filling up of some other kind… the desire for wisdom, I think. I don’t think it’s coincidence that she was sending food to a deity-figure, nor that the gifts she received in return were spiritual in nature.

    I hadn’t thought about Marc’s idea of the floating metaphor as preparation for death, but I like it a lot; it adds another dimension for me.

    The biggest problem I had with the production was its set design, which was pretty but misleading: nothing in this play was really about eating or food except at the most surface level, and the refrigerator and the mouth and so on say otherwise.

    Saw Our Town for the second time last night and adored it; we agree on this one. I don’t think the young couple were quite up to snuff, but the rest of the cast made up for it, and it’s really almost a bulletproof play. At the end of the second act my friend, who’d never seen it before, was looking at me in bewilderment, trying to figure out why I’d insisted she attend it… and at the end she was wiping her face, blowing her nose and saying, “I had no idea.” Why this beautiful play has been relegated to high school productions for so many years is beyond me.

    Comment by Janet — August 15, 2008 @ 8:56 am

  8. Janet, thanks! Good comments. I’m pleased to hear from a bunch of smart people that “Midsummer” and “Breakfast, Lunch and Dinner” worked for them. That means the festival’s doing its job. It doesn’t have to please all of us all the time (if it tries to it’s going to fail; it’ll be boring and unchallenging), and a house of 600 audience members is going to have 600 perspectives on the show. So maybe I was just grumpy the day I saw those two, or maybe we simply disagree — which is no bad thing. I do agree that the juveniles in “Our Town” weren’t quite up the level of the rest of the cast — but so much worked right in the rest of the show that I didn’t mind too much!

    Comment by Bob Hicks — August 15, 2008 @ 3:31 pm

Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post or for TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)