(no subject)

[skygiants]

I'm home in Philadelphia for Thanksgiving, and my dad suggested that we all go and see Equivocation at the Arden Theater. If you happen to be in the area: WORTH THE PRICE.

Equivocation posits a hypothetical in which Robert Cecil, Secretary of State to James I, commissions Shakespeare to write a "true history" play of the Gunpowder Plot.

SHAKESPEARE: I don't write propaganda stories.
CECIL: You wrote Richard III! You made Richard of York a hunchback!
SHAKESPEARE: He was a murderer!
CECIL: They're all murderers! He balanced the budget.

In his attempt to turn the Crown's version of events into a coherent and semi-truthful play without getting executed for it --

SHAKESPEARE: A group of men plan to blow up Parliament, and then they don't. There's no plot!
CECIL: It is TREASON to say that there was no plot!
SHAKESPEARE: ...
CECIL: .... ohhhh, you mean there's no plot!

-- Shakespeare goes hunting for the actual truth about what happened during the Gunpowder Plot, along the way confronting interpersonal conflicts among his actors, questions of morality and politics and posterity, and his own stoppered-up emotions about the death of his son Hamnet. Judith Shakespeare, Hamnet's cranky and neglected twin, who keeps track of the number of deaths in Shakespeare's plays and has VERY strong feelings about soliloquies (she hates them) plays a major role. She's the one woman in the production, but she has a lot to say; Shakespeare's relationship with her is either the heart of the story or very close to it.

Richard Burbage also plays a major role. He has a passionate scene in which he confesses that Shakespeare means more to him than anything in the world, and then he strides forward and clutches Shakespeare's face and the fact that they don't actually make out at that point surprised me more than just about anything else in the play. It could just be that Richard was probably the best actor in the cast; he doubled as an incredibly powerful Henry Garnet, a historical figure about whom I previously knew nothing, so it's really quite unfair that I'm now extremely sad about him. James I, who doubles as hotheaded young actor Richard Sharpe, is also much more interesting than he initially appears (although his Scottish accent stays sadly terrible throughout the whole thing.) The cast of Shakespeare's company is rounded out by Nathan Field, who doubles as Cecil and does all his interesting acting there, and Robert Armin, who doesn't really get to do anything interesting as far as I recall except a brief scene in which he doubles as Buckingham in order to bang King James.

The playwright is clearly very pleased with himself for the opportunity to play around with plays within plays -- Shakespeare goes through multiple (intermittently terrible and/or treasonous) drafts of the Gunpowder Plot play, many of them performed with/during/around his interviews with the participants -- and somehow manages to turn the line "Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow" delivered exactly as per Macbeth's script into one of the best brick jokes in the entire show.

It's not a perfect play; it's very clever and very pleased with its own metatextuality and it's probably got too much crammed into it, but this is one of those cases where the flaws probably make it more fun for me, specifically. (Except some unnecessary slanders on the name of Anne Hathaway. RUDE.) But it gives me lots of what I like best, which is lengthy explorations of why people write things the way they do, and also getting to watch people watching shows and reacting to them in interesting ways. Anyway, it's all HIGHLY enjoyable and I would absolutely recommend.

Comments

[sovay]

and Robert Armin, who doesn't really get to do anything interesting as far as I recall except a brief scene in which he doubles as Buckingham in order to bang King James.

Alas for Armin himself, but otherwise +1.

[skygiants]

I mean, Armin is fine, he probably gets some good lines off in the group King's Men scenes, he's just noticeably the only actor who is neither major in his own right nor double-cast in a juicy part. We wondered what that actor had done to annoy the casting director.

[lilysea]

Wow, that sounds like fun. I hope I get to see it one day.

Thank you for writing about it! ^_^

[skygiants]

I hope you enjoy it, if you ever do! :D

[starlady]

Oh dang, I will just miss it! I really love the Arden in general.

[skygiants]

Oh, too bad! The Arden is great, though, I have very fond memories of several productions there.

[misbegotten]

He balanced the budget.

OMG, I laughed and laughed at this.

[skygiants]

I really enjoy the mental image of Sir Robert Cecil, Secret Ricardian.

[ambyr]

That sounds like exactly the sort of play I would like! I am now very sad I don't have plans to be in Philadelphia over the next several weeks.

[skygiants]

Hopefully it will pop up somewhere near you at some point! It seems to have made the rounds a couple of times, so it's not unlikely.

[nextian]

IIIIIII LOOOOOOOVE THIS PLAYYYYYY. I saw it when it first debuted at Ashland and then again with a different, less subtle company in LA, and I would completely watch it again-- I remember when I watched it in 2009 I was too weirded out by how blatant the Cheney Discourse was in it to fully enjoy it the second time, but dang it's so much fun. "Telling the truth in difficult times."

[skygiants]

HAHAHA OF COURSE YOU'VE SEEN IT. It's so great, though! If you feel like elaborating, I would love to hear the differences between the subtler and less subtle company when you saw it staged.

[nextian]

It was a long time ago and I'm not sure I remember exactly what stood out to me, but the biggest thing, for me, was just pace. The LA company would pause to let the "important" lines land, and had more traditional/slow scene transitions. OSF (like in a lot of its productions around that time) did the whole thing at a breakneck pace. Like the equivalent of a West Wing hallway cut. I seem to remember in particular transitions where he'd get some seemingly-damning piece of information from one character and then immediately be banging on Garnet's prison door, or storming into Cecil's study at a yell, or whatever.

Modern costumes too. I do not understand that decision at all.

Also, the OSF cast was just better. Like a lot better. I imagine they at that point had that unhealthy familiarity with the text you get when you have workshopped it to death, and I can't blame the LA cast for not having it, but omg, it was just... electric. On the other hand, in LA Garnet was played by the Mayor from Buffy, and he was fabulous, so swings and roundabouts!

Also also, the next year @ OSF, Anthony Heald (who played Shakespeare) played Shylock and Jonathan Haugen (who played Cecil) played Antonio in an incredible, incredibly openly anti-Semitic, face-meltingly uncomfortable and brilliant production of Merchant of Venice. That is also not the LA cast's fault, but it was hard to unsee.

[skygiants]

That's really interesting -- I would have loved to see it at super-speed. The Arden production didn't strike me as slow while watching it, but we all felt at the end that as much as we liked it, it could probably have been trimmed by about 20 minutes.

The costumes at the Arden were quite understatedly good, though. There were some bits of symbolic quick-changery that I don't remember the details of, but remember being impressed by.

...I can imagine that though. Especially given that sneering part in Cecil's opening speech about Merchant of Venice!

[graycardinal]

I saw the world-premiere production of Equivocation when it ran at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival [pause, count on fingers] about six years ago now, and it is definitely (a) absolutely fascinating, and (b) meta as H*ll. And the production script of that staging (which I bought at the time, and which is sitting on the desk here as I type) quite literally gives Judith the last word...well, actually, the last several words. The play has almost certainly been somewhat revised since, as the OSF script admits to having been printed while they were still in rehearsals, and this is the sort of play where the author keeps tinkering with it through the first two or three productions. But the ending as I have it here -- as Judith describes the last few plays of the Shakespearean canon -- I really quite like. (Among other things, it just goes to show that Yuletide did not invent the problem of Bears.)

[skygiants]

The version I saw still gives Judith the last word! Or, rather, final soliloquy, which I also really liked. :)

[cinaed]

This sounds really good! I'll have to keep an eye out for it in case it ever comes near DC. (Though boo about the slander for Anne Hathaway, how dare they.) The day before Thanksgiving I saw Pericles which is one of Shakespeare's uh odder plays? Definitely odd.

(Also 2015 seems to be my year for unexpected incest in media I watch/read/see this year, which is not a sentence I ever thought I'd write.)

[skygiants]

There's absolutely no plot-related need, it's really just a few cheap jokes. Unnecessary! >:( That's my only actual complaint, though, which all for all is really not bad.

I've never seen or read Pericles! My only vague impression is that it's one of the strange ones. (...and, apparently, incestuous ones? Um.)

[cinaed]

Haha, Pericles begins with Pericles visiting this other kingdom to marry this fabled beauty-- except it turns out there's a riddle he has to solve for the princess's father which is...that the king is sleeping with her. (So either you say you don't know the answer and die, or you go "dude, you're sleeping with your daughter??" and die. Lose lose.)

Pericles thinks fast and goes, "Uh, let me think about the riddle, sir...." and runs away. And then the king sends off an assassin and both the king and the princess die off-screen halfway through the play. It's um very strange.

There is also a whole subplot where Pericles's daughter gets kidnapped by pirates and sold to a brothel, but she speaks so eloquently and is so sweet and kind that all the guys leave the brothel swearing to lead virtuous lives and the brothel owners are like "NO, ALL OUR BUSINESS." It is...a very strange play.

[skygiants]

I THINK WE READ THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF THIS STORY IN LATIN CLASS

we didn't finish it, because my Latin teacher was going through personal issues and therefore we didn't finish anything before she got distracted, but the beginning was startling to all of us!

[frayadjacent]

I saw Equivocation in Seattle a few years ago and loved it. Thanks for the happy reminder! Glad you liked it too.

[skygiants]

You're welcome! I would absolutely see it again if it came back around. I'm very glad my dad happened to bring it up while we were here!

[evewithanapple]

That sounds like a play I would either adore with all of my being or be deeply irritated by depending on how witty the playwright actually was. I laughed out loud at the "plot" pun, though, so probably I would lean more towards enjoying it.

[skygiants]

The 'plot' pun cracked me the heck up, as did all the actors ranting about the various different pieces of theatrical material they're given to work with over the course of the show. (NO ONE enjoys the mad scene in Lear.) I'm an easy sell on some things, but I think you'd probably like it!

[scintilla10]

Ahhh, I saw a production of this play a year or so ago! It was very excellent, for so many of the reasons you mention.

[skygiants]

I'm excited it seems like it's been making the rounds pretty successfully!

[seekingferret]

Tickets purchased! Thanks for the recommendation.

[skygiants]

You're very welcome, hope you enjoy!

[laceblade]

omg, this sounds amazing.

[skygiants]

Sheer delight for the Shakespeare nerd!