The Alexandrian

Archive for the ‘Theater’ category

Happy New Year!

January 1st, 2011

How the hell did it get here so fast?

December was a somewhat frustrating month for me creatively. My creative vision became completely focused on a 10-minute transhumanist science fiction play written in verse. Although I spent quite a bit of time researching it, toying with it, and eventually laying out the largest chunks of it, the play just refused to gel. And so, after having it consume all of my creative thoughts and energies for the better part of a month, I’m left with nothing to actually show for it.

Ah, well. That happens upon occasion.

And the month wasn’t completely destitute.

Complete Readings of William Shakespeare

The American Shakespeare Repertory staged The Merchant of Venice, the 19th reading in the Complete Readings of William Shakespeare. Supporting that production, I wrote several essays: The Textual History of Merchant, Elizabethans and the Jews (Part 1 and Part 2), The Pound of Flesh, The Great Conversion, The Soul of Shylock, and The Four Sallies.

SHTAA - South High Theater Alumni Alliance

I continued my work with the South High Theater Alumni Alliance, which gives a newsletter presentation of local theater productions starring alumni from one of the premiere high school theater programs (which also happens to be my alma mater).

Shakespeare's Mousetrap - Margaret Frazer The Outlaw's Tale - Margaret Frazer

I’ve also been working on converting Margaret Frazer’s stories and novels into Kindle ebooks. In December that included “This World’s Eternity”, “Shakespeare’s Mousetrap”, and The Outlaw’s Tale.

Drakul - Walking Shadow Theater

I’m also been working as the dramaturg for Walking Shadow Theater’s Drakul, an original adaptation by John Heimbuch. December saw the bulk of my work on this project to date, and I’m really excited about it: The script is not only the best and most faithful adaptation of Bram Stoker’s Dracula that I’ve seen to date; it also tells a truly compelling story of the sequel to those infamous events.

The show will be running February 11th thru 26th in Minneapolis, MN. If you’re local (or passing through), you should check it out.

And I’m looking ahead to 2011. There’s some exciting stuff on the horizon.

This is somewhat belated, but John and Abigail, the play I wrote starring John and Abigail Adams, is now available for the Kindle.

Through war and peace, tragedy and joy, the friendship and love of John Adams and Abigail Smith formed a passionate and enduring marriage which helped shape the future of a newborn America .

Through long years of separation – brought about by John’s work in Boston and Philadelphia during the events of the American Revolution – the couple’s only means of communication were their letters. Literally thousands of letters survive, and this unique adaptation – in the style of A.R. Gurney’s Love Letters – allows the couple to live again in their own words.

The play was produced independently in January 2002. It received a second production in August 2007 as part of the Minnesota Fringe Festival.

Of its inaugural performance in 2002, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune wrote: “John and Abigail is an adroit adaptation … a chance to hear about the sacrifices involved in championing the American Revolution. John and Abigail endured their extended separations with pen, paper, and patience, communicating news of disease, death, battles, longing, and love.”

The print edition from Lulu is still available, too.

Buy the Script!

Buy the Script on Kindle!

Tonight at the Gremlin Theater in Minneapolis, MN, the Complete Readings of William Shakespeare continue with Richard II:

SEPTEMBER 29th, 2010
7:30 PM
Tickets: Pay What You Can!

Gremlin Theater
2400 University Avenue West
St. Paul, MN
Directions to the Theater

Richard II is the second part of a September Saga which reunites two plays starring Richard II which haven’t appeared on the same stage and starring the same acting company since the reign of King James I. It started two weeks ago with the little-known Richard II: Thomas of Woodstock.

Richard II: Thomas of Woodstock only survives in a well-thumbed manuscript. Literally well-thumbed: The edges of its pages, worn thin by apparently decades of use as a playhouse prompt script, are disintegrating.

But that’s not all: The manuscript’s cover sheet has been lost, taking with it the original name of the play and the author’s name. The last few pages are also missing, taking with them the end of the play.

Despite being battered and beaten, the play has survived. And it brings with it a host of mysteries of enigmas.

First, and perhaps foremost, is the play’s anonymity. Take any half-decent, anonymous play from Elizabethan England and it won’t be long before the question, “Who wrote this?” starts attracting answers of, “William Shakespeare”.

Richard II: Thomas of Woodstock, on the other hand, is a very good play from Elizabethan England, so it shouldn’t be too surprising to discover that the name “William Shakespeare” has been periodically dogging its heels for at least the last couple of centuries. But the heat really cranked up in 2005 when Michael Egan picked up the torch. Egan didn’t just content himself with writing a mammoth tome making his case that Shakespeare was the author of “Richard II, Part 1″ (as he called it): He wrote four. And then he followed it up with a blitzkrieg of publicity.

Which, to make a long story short, is how the play finds its way into the apocryphal cycle of the Complete Readings of William Shakespeare.

PIECING OUT CONCLUSIONS

Putting together a script for Richard II: Thomas of Woodstock was a complicated project, and you can read more about the general problems I face in this essay. But what I want to particularly focus on right now is the most devastating loss suffered by the manuscript: Its finale.

At least one full leaf is missing at the end of the play, taking with it at least 120 lines (based on the number of lines per leaf in the rest of the manuscript). It’s unlikely that we are missing more than one or two leaves, as the play is already rather long at 2,989 lines and is clearly heading towards a conclusion.

The ending of a play, of course, contains the culmination of its plot, theme, and characters. Therefore, in order to discuss or analyze Richard II: Thomas of Woodstock, one must hypothesize the nature of its ending. (If Godot shows up, Waiting for Godot looks like a very different play.) And if one is going to perform it, of course, a conclusion of some sort must be written.

It is perhaps unsurprising to discover that the hypothetical ending of the play has become a crucible for the authorship debate: Write the ending one way, and it strengthens the play’s ties to Shakespeare’s Richard II. Write it a different way and the plays become completely incompatible.

(If you’d like to, you can read the full play and/or the new ending before delving into the discussion of what I did and why I did it.)

CONCLUDING THE PLOT

Much like the authorship debate itself, there are basically two possibilities for the ending of Richard II: Thomas of Woodstock:

First, the play could be viewed as a complete conflation of Richard’s reign: The cronies of Richard’s final crisis (Bushy, Bagot, Scroop, and Green) are transplanted into Richard’s first crisis (which historically featured an entirely different set of nobles). Gloucester’s death, which in real life took place between the two crises, is dramatically shifted to the culmination of the first. But instead of being resolved in a series of primarily political maneuvers, this crisis is instead resolved on the field of battle in the fashion of the second crisis.

Theoretically one could argue that this is not a prequel to Shakespeare’s Richard II, but rather supercedes it entirely: All one needs to do is provide an ending in which Richard abdicates his throne in order to complete the play’s masterful blending of every crisis in Richard’s reign into a single, unified narrative.

This theory runs into a rather significant stumbling block, however, when one notices that Henry Bolingbroke – Richard’s replacement and the future Henry IV – is conspicuously missing from the play. While it’s impossible to completely rule out a last minute revelation of the heir apparent (akin to Henry VII in Richard III or Fortinbras in Hamlet), it’s rather difficult to imagine how the play would simultaneously remove Bolingbroke’s father (the Duke of Lancaster), who has also been left rather inconveniently alive.

Thus we are forced to turn to the second possibility, in which Richard’s first deposition is carried out: Stripped of his friends and with their tyrannies revoked, Richard is allowed to keep his throne. Much like the historical record, there is a return to a sort of status quo, allowing for a relatively seamless continuity with the beginning of Richard II.

In addition to Richard’s fate, there’s the question of how the issue of Woodstock’s murder was to be resolved. It has been hypothesized that Lapoole’s entrance as a prisoner at the top of the scene must presage an ultimate revelation of Woodstock’s fate, but this isn’t necessarily true: Lapoole may merely be rounding out the crowd of Richard’s cronies who have been captured during the battle (and destined to be sentenced during the course of the scene). If the play is connected to Richard II, it’s notable that while Gloucester’s death is known at the beginning of that play, even Lancaster and York are left to speculate on the king’s guilt in the matter.

CONCLUDING THE CHARACTERS

Tying off the loose ends of the plot in R2: Woodstock is largely a matter of shuffling historical necessity and guessing which bits the author intended to include. More difficult to guess are the particular conclusions of each character’s arc, since each character – although largely drawn from the historical record – is nevertheless the unique creation of the author’s genius.

Of course, not every character in a drama is necessarily worthy of equal attention. Therefore, one needs to choose which characters are to be given the spotlight’s focus. In the case of R2: Woodstock, my best guess is that this focus belongs to Nimble and Tresilian (who have been the focus of the play’s B-plot), Richard (by necessity of his deposition if nothing else), and the king’s surviving uncles (partly as a continuation of Woodstock’s important legacy within he play).

As for Nimble and Tresilian, the thrust of their arc has already been initiated in Act 5, Scene 5, and is being drawn to a close when the script abruptly cuts off. It’s not difficult, therefore, to round off an ending in which the servant becomes the master (completing a cycle of class inversion found throughout the play) and Tresilian is brought to justice for his tricks in the culmination of a final trick played by Nimble.

Next we turn to Richard, who is most likely brought onstage as a captive by the Duke of York (who is conspicuously absent at the beginning of the final scene). Is he to be humbled like Tresilian? Perhaps. But if Richard is to end with his crown intact, it may make more sense to draw a contrast between his fate and that of his false judge. Let us instead suppose a Richard who, out of his need to find some strength to rely on, turns to the surety of his divine right to the throne: This harrowing experience can actually serve to strengthen and purify that belief, already found as a subtext throughout R2: Woodstock, into the central tenet of his existence (and thus setting the stage for Richard II).

Finally we come to the dukes of York and Lancaster. Throughout the play they have largely acted in concert as “headstrong uncles to the gentle king” (as Greene describes them in 1.2), but there have also been subtle divisions drawn between their characters: The “relenting Duke of York” (2.1) being contrasted against a Lancaster who is frequently “past all patience” (1.1).

Let’s suppose that in this final scene this division between brothers is brought into the open, perhaps driven by their different responses to Woodstock’s death. Lancaster, who had already sworn to “call King Richard to a strict account” (5.3) can follow their initial inclination to its extreme and depose Richard. York, on the other hand, can learn from Woodstock’s counsel and follow his example of temperance and patience, thus turning Woodstock’s death into a final sacrifice in accordance with Woodstock’s final prayer.

(And this, too, transitions the characters naturally to the beginning of Richard II.)

CONCLUDING THE THEMES

Even moreso than with plot or character, attempting to provide a thematic conclusion for the play bears the risk of stamping it with one’s own interpretation of the drama. Thus I have chosen to walk carefully, preferring to include thematic elements without necessarily seeking to summarize or pass judgment on them.

Occasionally, however, boldness is called for. In particular, I have chosen to take up key themes of Richard II. Many of these themes have already been highlighted in Richard II: Thomas of Woodstock, but others which have not previously been present in the play are established as the transformation of one theme into another.

Thus, for example, a king who has been vain turns reflective. And whereas in the aftermath of Anne a Beame’s death Richard says of himself, “My wounds are inward, inward burn my woe.” In the face of fresher losses, we find that his woe has consumed entirely, transforming him into a hollow king.

Have I overstepped scholastic certainty? Of course. But the ending of a play should never be completely predictable. So if we limit ourselves to providing an ending which does nothing that is not already contained in the play as it exists, we would confine ourselves to an artistically and dramatically unfulfilling conclusion. In seeking to push the boundaries of the play beyond the known limitation of its final, broken page, aiming towards Richard II as lodestar provides at least some guidance where we might otherwise find ourselves stumbling blindly in the dark.

THE SCRIPT

Here are links to PDF copies of the new ending and the full script of Richard II: Thomas of Woodstock. You can find more about the play at the American Shakespeare Repertory.

RICHARD II: THOMAS OF WOODSTOCK – THE NEW ENDING

RICHARD II: THOMAS OF WOODSTOCK – FULL SCRIPT

Permission to use this additional material in print or production is freely granted as long as the following notice is included on either (a) the title page or cover of the printed publication or (b) the cover of the production’s program, website, and any posters, postcards, or similar advertising:

New Ending Written by Justin Alexander
https://www.thealexandrian.net

Originally Produced by the
American Shakespeare Repertory
http://www.american-shakespeare.com

The Minnesota Fringe Festival is wrapping up this week. We’ll be resuming more normal operations around these here parts next week, but I wanted to share with you my reviews for the three best shows I’ve seen at the Festival this year. All of them have performances remaining this weekend, and I heartily encourage you to seek them out if you can.

BALLAD OF THE PALE FISHERMAN

Ballad of the Pale Fisherman

This show was so profoundly moving; so ethereally beautiful; so flawlessly perfect that I grabbed a fistful of postcards as I left the theater and spent the rest of the day enthusiastically handing them out to anyone who would listen to me.

It’s that good.

As a theatrical event, Ballad of the Pale Fisherman takes a page from the minimalist staging of Our Town and the lyrical majesty of Dylan Thomas’ Under Milkwood. But within that broad form it creates its own uniquely beautiful visual vocabulary and transcendent audio landscape. From the first moments of the show you are subtly and powerfully immersed into the richly detailed and mythic world of the play while the cast simultaneously creates a panoply of characters, each intimately drawn and immensely memorable.

The tale itself is like a soap bubble jewel: So infinitely faceted; so delicate; and so ephemeral. And the telling of the tale is masterfully woven, with sudden, almost imperceptible transitions from tragedy to comedy and back again, with each flip of the switch tying you ever tighter to the characters and drawing you ever deeper into the narrative.

It brought tears to my eyes and hope to my heart.

And in the end I was propelled from my seat into a standing ovation, possessed by the kind of raw theatrical energy and passion that is so rarely achieved, but so utterly transforming when it’s experienced.

Shows like this are what make theater worth watching.

SEE YOU NEXT TUESDAY

See You Next Tuesday

Two hours after seeing See You Next Tuesday, we were still talking about it.

The script is nuanced and complex. It refuses to hold your hand or package up a preconceived message. It defies simplistic analysis.

Which makes it infinitely rewarding.

Each character is a completely realized and fully-rounded human being. It means that you can’t just tag them as “The Nice Guy” or “The Bad Girl”. And there’s no one you can point to and say, “That’s the guy I’m supposed to like!” (Particularly since the two main characters are locked in a completely caustic and dysfunctional relationship.)

The ridiculously talented cast latches onto this rich dramatic fodder and turns it into a theatrical feast.

Funny. Provocative. Thoughtful. Clever. Painful. Entertaining. Meaningful. Deep.

Like a fine wine upon the tongue, See You Next Today will linger in your mind.

UNDERNEATH THE LINTEL

Underneath the Lintel

Underneath the Lintel is one of the crown jewels of this year’s Fringe Festival.

First you have the script. It starts off endearing, transitions rapidly to clever, turns suddenly enthralling, and then transforms itself into something transcendentally operating simultaneously on multiple levels.

Second you have the actor. Heading in a one-man Fringe show the default assumption is that you’re going to see someone portraying themselves (or someone much like themselves). But O’Brien is a gifted and talented actor who transforms seamlessly into the giddy excesses of the Librarian, helping to carry you along on the Librarian’s kaleidoscopic journey of discovery.

All of it simply WORKS on a deep, profoundly moving level.

Minnesota Fringe

August 6th, 2010

The Minnesota Fringe Festival started last night and will be running through August 15th. I have an UltraPass this year, which means that over the 10 days of the festival I’ll be seeing 40+ shows. So things are going to slow down a bit here at the Alexandrian for the duration.

On the other hand, I’m planning to be an active Fringe reviewer. You’ll be able to check out my reviews on the Fringe Festival website, and I may play around with reposting some of them here as well. Here are a few samples.

ALEXANDER AT DELPHI – A SQUANDERING OF GOOD MATERIAL

Alexander at Delphi

Many of the actors in Alexander at Delphi spent the majority of the show with their gazes locked on the lone conductor stationed offstage left. Despite disrupting any real chance the show had for chemistry, pace, or immersion, I found I couldn’t really blame them: There wasn’t anything on the stage worth looking at.

The music itself is intriguingly possessed of Greekish overtones, but is largely undistinguished. (Literally. You can’t distinguish one song from the next as they blend together into a kind of sub-symphonic mush.) In addition, the music and the lyrics appear to be locked in some sort of blood feud from which they both emerge as losers. (You can’t really make up for a lack of syllables in a lyric by trying to make one syllable do the work of four.)

I have a passing, but not particularly detailed knowledge of Alexander the Great and the accuracy of the history depicted is impressive. Unfortunately, it often takes the form of historical bullet points serving as dialogue and characters narrating their own biographies.

And although faithful, the script also manages a fair degree of incoherency. For example, Alexander and Hephaestion are first introduced to us as they are roleplaying Achilles and Patroclus during the Trojan War. But this is never actually explained, leaving the audience at least momentarily confused as to which characters these actors are actually depicting. The play also has a habit of jumping backwards and forwards through time, but frequently doesn’t give the audience any meaningful clue where or when they are.

And please stop stabbing the floor with your bendy, plastic swords.

What should be singled out for praise, however, are the many actors who struggle mightily to entertain. Particularly notable is the performance of Brandon Osero, who frequently brings a breath of fresh energy to the otherwise weary proceedings.

1 KITTY

COMMUNOPOLY – INCESSANTLY CLEVER SATIRE

Communopoly

Communopoly succeeds at being much more than the polemic it could have easily become in less talented hands: Instead, it presents itself in a series of complex and multifaceted (and funny!) layers, peeling them back one at a time for our enjoyment.

First, the show makes the game of Monopoly comes alive. And it’s funny. It’s like the movie Clue, except it’s Monopoly and it was written by Monty Python.

Second, it puts up a mirror and forces us to really look at the ideological underpinnings of the game through the lens of communism. And somehow it’s still funny.

And finally they turn the mirror back on themselves for one last bit of self-deconstruction.

And it’s still funny.

The show’s not perfect: It can be a little rough around the edges. But it’s entertaining, clever, and rewarding.

4 KITTIES

RACHEL TEAGLE BELIEVES IN GHOSTS

Rachel Teagle Believes in Ghosts

Watching Rachel Teagle Believes in Ghosts was like sitting around a campfire listening to ghost stories. Except instead of your goofy friends, the tales are being told by a talented and gifted storyteller.

Mixing “real” ghost stories with a collection of original tales, Teagle succeeds brilliantly at exploring the full range of spectral tale-telling: Haunting. Scary. Nostalgic. Painful. Funny.

Unfortunately, the show does occasionally fall down. In particular, the interpretive dance portions of the evening were complete failures for me. And while Teagle is to be commended for the innovation of including guest storytellers at each of her performances, the timing of the guest performer was mystifying to me: Coming immediately after what was, arguably, the high point of the performance, the guest performer (despite his quality) nevertheless seemed to turn the last portion of the show into an anticlimax.

In a perfectly calibrated world, I would probably give this show 3.5 or 3.75 kitties. But since it succeeds far more often than it fails, I’m quite happy to round that figure up to 4 entertaining kitties.

4 KITTIES

Archives

Recent Posts


Recent Comments

Copyright © The Alexandrian. All rights reserved.