Focusing on one element of the play -- lighting, direction, costumes, acting, whatever -- discuss the successes and/or failures of the play. Your response should be a healthy 2-3 paragraphs.
Something that I really liked in the play was the way they did the lighting. The scenes kept on switching, from the characters acting out the play, to simply talking in the theater to scenes outside the theater. I think that throughout the entire play the lighting changed every time they switched locations or from acting to talking. Usually, when they were acting inside the theater, the lights were dimmed to create a more dramatic effect. When they were simply talking or planning inside the theater, all the lights were on to show a more relaxed and/or natural atmosphere. I noticed they also had all the lights on when they preformed the play at the end for the king, I thought this was interesting because it seemed like they weren't really trying to preform the play, but just deliver the message to the kings assistant (I already forget his name). Lastly, when there was a scene happening outside the theater (like Shakespeare's meetings with Thomas Winter and the priest) it was the darkest, and the only lights on were those focused directly on those who were talking at the time.
This use of lighting showed who was most important to focus on at the time. When all of the characters were talking in the theater we would watch all of them, it was more constant action, coming from every character at once. During the rehearsals, the audience focused on those who were acting at the time because they were the ones in the spotlight. When Shakespeare left the theater to talk to Thomas Winter, the priest, and the kings assistant it was always only him and that one other person that was the main focus. Something that I would have changed about this method of lighting would have been to make it completely consistent. For the most part the lighting was changed depending on where the characters were and what they were doing but it didn't always. I think the definition between these scenes could have been more dramatic had the use of lighting remained entirely consistent throughout the play.
Since I'm not a full blown theater student, it is difficult for me to assess the quality of the acting other than boring classifications such as it was "good" or "bad" with out sounding like I'm talking out of my ass. Because of this, most striking element of the play was their lighting. Like Cara mentioned in her post, the lighting was never quite the same and always aided in creating a 'mood' for the scene and actors. In the soliloquies, monologues or other individual scenes, the lighting allowed the audience to fully focus on the scene and listen with not breaks in their concentration. For example, in the scene in which Shakespeare meets with Thomas Winter, parts of the scene is lit with a deep dark colors that add an air of apprehension which I thought was masterfully done. Similarly, with the decapitation of Thomas Winter, the lighting focused only on the head of the target even though there still was dialogue happening. This aided in focusing the attention of the decapitation happening there and then and gave the audience a sense of the importance of what was happening.
In general, the lighting of the play aided as a "mood setter" for both the actors and the audience. I believe that throughout the play, the most simplistic and modern dialogue was used when the lighting was bright and plain, illuminating the entire scene. This lighting symbolized that these actors were not in the play that Shakespeare was currently writing and could therefore speak in modern english. It seemed to me that when ever the lights would change from this basic form, the actors language and cadence would change and transform into a form of early modern english. This transition was very cool to experience and actually realize.
Like Bo, I do not identify as a student of theater, however I am going to take a stab at the acting content of the play. Personally, I was blown away by the actor who played Robert Cecil. The most physically noticeable thing about the character was the limping, and yet urgent, gait that he used whenever he was in a position of power, ie when the king was not around. He would leap around the stage doing just as he pleased, and his boisterous manner could have been a compensation for the physical attributes that he lacked. Yet when the king was present he became demure and subservient, no longer leaping but limping along behind the king and allowing himself to be ordered and shunted around. Even the manner in which he spoke identified his role in the scene. When in power he was loud, red-faced, and booming. Spittle flying everywhere. With the king though he bowed his head and hid the Cecil that we knew.
My other favorite actor was the blond one who played the king, and this was the role I most enjoyed him in, I didn't like him as much when he was playing Sharp- I think that was the name. He played the king as a child- amused by entertainment, giddy and clapping his hands with that absurd laugh and smile of his. And yet, there were moments where we glimpsed a cunning side of the king, one who knew what was going on rather than being completely ignorant. He got, for example, what MacDuff meant when he spoke of being untimely ripped from his mothers womb. "Thats poetry for cesarean section". Moreover, at the end of the Scot-ish play as he spoke of how no one in the court mentioned Macbeth's evil deed, there was more than a subtle hint that he saw the subtext woven into the play.
From these performances especially, the effect of subtleties and how a character is played on the meaning of the dialogue became vividly clear.
After directing a one act play in the Fall, I now look more closely at the details whenever I see a play. I always find myself asking questions and making comments about the blocking (i.e. Why did he make that cross there and did that have any significance?) and other stylistic decisions. With this new knowledge, I was able to view Equivocation in a whole different light. I felt that the director of this production (Jasson Minadakis) did a fantastic job! Minadakis was able to use a very minimal set and transform it into the Tower of London, the Globe Theater, a public hanging area, and many other locations. I also thought that the transitions between locations was very fluid (it did not feel choppy and I never became lost as to where the characters were). I also really enjoyed the transitions between Shagspeare talking to someone involved in the gunpowder plot and the play within a play rehearsing. This was extremely clever and provided the audience with the perspective of the events by both Shagspeare and all of the actors.
Equivocation must have been a very difficult play to direct, as some actors had to take on multiple roles. Although this is not uncommon in plays, the director needs to carefully establish the different characters, otherwise the audience will feel confused and will not understand the plot. However, Minadakis used small yet significant costume changes and over-exaggerating movements to distinguish his characters. Although I felt that the acting was nothing special, Minadakis used his creativity to help his actors identify themselves onstage. Whether it was Craig Marker using a simple crown to transition between Sharpe and King James or Andrew Hurteau using an over exaggerated limp as Cecil to distinguish himself from his other character Nate, Mandakis improved the performances of his actors through extremely inventive methods.
Overall, I think that MTC’s production of Equivocation was good, but not great. Because I saw the play two different times by two different companies, I have to say that the Oregon Shakespeare Festival presented a better version. My largest criticism of MTC is its design concept; I don’t understand the choices for scenic and costume design. Equivocation is not a play where one can temper with the time period; it is specifically set to be in the window of time between Shakespeare’s penmanship of King Lear and Macbeth. For that reason, the costumes and sets should match the period. OSF approached this in a much more Elizabethan fashion, and it was much more successful because it didn’t distract the audience and made it seem like it was actually in Elizabethan times. Shakespeare’s plays are all fictional to some degree, and it is appropriate to adapt these to modern times, but I think that Equivocation is not a play where the time period can be flexible. Also, the costumes were just all wrong. There were elements of Elizabethan England and elements of a modern touch. The play neither went one way nor another; instead, it found a middle ground that just was illogical onstage. The costumes and sets, for me, just distracted from the show, and made it harder for me to believe that we were observing the real William Shakespeare.
The acting in the play had its ups and downs. I think that the two strongest actors were those playing Richard (The Priest) and Robert Cecile. Richard was my favorite. The way he approached expressing dialogue was so natural that it sounded like everyday speech. His emotion was internalized but very present. He communicated exactly what he was feeling in subtle but still noticeable ways. He captured my attention every time he was onstage. Cecile was incredibly dedicated to his character, and crafted a being that the audience despises and pities. I first noticed his talent during the first scene, when he has a very large monologue describing Shakespeare’s patterns in his plays. I didn’t even know this was a monologue. He guided the audience through it seamlessly that it was unnoticeable. Monologues are incredibly difficult, and the fact that he approached it in such a style is really impressive. His exaggerated limp was slightly distracting, but I understand that it was used to differentiate the character of Cecile between others.
The weakest cast members in my opinion were Shagspeare and Judith. I thought Shag lacked the power and dignity to be someone as brilliant as William Shakespeare. He was always the most doubtful and apprehensive person on the stage, and portrayed Shag in a way that was plainly feeble. His failure to capture the audience’s attention made the play seem more about the other characters, but the heart of the entire play is the humongous dilemma Shag faces. The play’s focus strayed from this issue because of the feebleness in Shag’s performance. Judith, in my opinion, overacted in her role. Judith’s character is a young girl hardened by the rejection of her father, and she played it like a school girl who is everything her father believes she is. There was very little dignity in the way Judith soliloquized, almost as if she were asking the audience to pity her, and that’s not who Judith is. Her monologues were also long and boring. She failed to make them conversational, and it came across as a young, emotionally vulnerable girl lecturing the audience. I think Judith’s character would have been more appreciable and respectable if she did not reveal her emotions quite as much, and asked the audience for understanding instead of sympathy with her performance.
The element of Equivocation that I am going to focus on is the staging. There were two aspects of the staging that most intrigued me, both of which were made possible by the two-story metal semi-circle that encompassed the main stage. First, it allowed characters to be partially involved in scenes; present but not a main actor in the situation. That allowed the audience to realize their presence but not get distracted by them. I noticed this a lot with Shakespeare's daughter, since she often knew a lot without being directly involved. The second floor distinguished between main actors and eavesdroppers/observers, which helped me follow the play and made it visually more interesting.
In addition to the benefits of the second floor in relation to the plot-line, it also provided the height to utilize the ceiling. This seems like a strange and rarely appreciated benefit, but in Equivocation the two story metal semi-circle allowed for the ceiling to be used. Rather than the sound-effect of thunder being played over speakers, which produce a pretty clearly false sound, the stage director was able to hang a giant sheet of metal from the ceiling. When the need for a thunder type sound occurred, one of the eavesdropping/observing players could shake the metal to make the sound in a more genuine, interesting, and creative way. This was made possible by height of the staging, and definitely was a success for the play.
Wow. The comments thus far are far superior than anything I could have imagined. They are insightful and well reasoned. Amazing. Really. I feel like I'm reading responses from students well trained in the art of theater observation and review. Awesome!!!!!
This isn't my full blown post but after reading AJ's post I have to agree: I thought that Shakespeare and Judith were definitely the weakest links. I never felt as though Judith was fully developed as a character, she would have a witty comment here and an insightful one there, but most of the time she was up above observing, and I feel she could have been a much more integral part of the play. Also, I felt Shakespeare was just going along for the ride. While I'm sure that in real life most of his material simply fell into his lap, there is no way he could have just followed others around and taken whatever he was told at face value. I picture Shakespeare as, yes, a brooding genius, and while the interpretation of this Shakespeare was different I didn't find it successful.
I also wanted to comment on the set. I have been in a few musicals and being in this class has really helped me appreciate how complex or simple a set can be. While it was at times confusing to determine where the actors were, for the most part I thought it was an ingenious design. By uttering a few lines the barren structure was cast into a completely different light, transferring from the Globe to the gallows and back. It also was interesting how the director chose some cast members to be watching others during a scene, but I don't quite understand why he did that.
I focused on the use of multiple roles played by the same person throughout the play. Much like Michael and AJ, I was supremely impressed by the man who played Robert Cecil. I thought that his two main roles (that of the company member and that of Cecil) were distinct and fitting to their characters. The spitting and leaping was a nice touch to show when Cecil was in control. I wish that the Judith/Shag characters had had other roles as well; their always being the same character had some significance that I didn't understand (the play is in the chaos of Shagspeare's mind, but Judith is an ignored constant?). I felt that either that significance should have been more played up in the script, or the difference shouldn't have existed.
The best part about the multiple roles, though, was the ease with which transitions could occur. When Shag was interviewing Winter, Winter's story was being acted out by the other actors, who then turned into members of the company rehearsing the plays. The fact that flashbacks could be played by people who also played people in the present was an interesting tool that kept the dialogue going the entire time.
Personally, I thought the play was much better than I expected it to be. There were very few moments where I felt bored, or that something was going on for too long. I agree with Michael In that the actor who played Cecil did an outstanding job because he made it seem like he truly was playing Thomas throughout the whole play. The way he took charge in almost every conversation and he would just limp around all over the stage knowing that in that story and in his character he seemed to be the one with all of the power. Also I thought that who ever played The King did an amazing job because the over stupidity and the childhood type acting enhanced his role and made it even funnier than it was. It was the perfect amount and did not seem to much or too little. He was hilarious to watch and his actions seemed perfect for the character that was supposed to be playing the king. I thought that parts of Thomas Winter's yelling scenes were a little unnecessary or over dramatic. It just seemed like his character didnt really fit exactly the Shakespeare I would have had in Mind.
I also thought that the only other not so great parts about the play were the ending, and the fact that there seemed to be sooo many side plots, and the acting by the woman and Shakespeare. My problem with who ever played Shakespeare was that everyone knew how brilliant Shakespeare was, and the actor who played him just did not fit the idea of Shakespeare at all. With the woman to she just seemed really bland, even on the kiss she still didn't have that spark in an actor that you would have liked to have seen. It seemed like every time we thought one thing was gonna happen another one would change it. I understand that that is a way in movies and plays, but after the first few times it just seems a little repetitive. Its like the idea of trying to stretch LOST out for 9 seasons when everyone knows it should never have lasted that long.
I enjoyed seeing Equivocation, however some parts of it were better than others. Like others before me, I focused on the acting. Overall, I thought that the cast was strong but I was disappointed by the performance of main character, Shagspeare. To me he seemed tired and too old for the role. From his costume it looked like he was supposed to be a young bohemian writer, but as he was in his 50's he just looked uncomfortable and out of place. He also seemed very aloof and not committed to the character - his extreme emotions were overdone and the rest of the time he seemed passive. I am on the fence about Judith. I liked her monologues about soliloquies, they were thought provoking and funny and I thought she played them very well. However, I thought that her relationship with Shagspeare was awkward. There almost seemed like there was sexual tension. Also, I know this is miniscule but the way she held her mouth really bugged me.
In contrast, I was very impressed by the actors who played Nate/Robert Cecil and Sharpe/Thomas Winter/King James. I liked how the actor who played Nate transitioned into his character of Robert Cecil. He made the transitions very clear by making the physicality and cantor of speech of each character completely different. Although, Cecil's galloping limp was often distractedly comical I thought it was a great character choice and he fully and completely committed himself to it. I thought the actor who played Sharpe was the best in the show. As Sharpe, I loved his commitment to the wild and spontaneous character (like when he smooches Judith). I also thought that his physicality of the tortured Thomas Winter was brilliant. The attention to detail in his limp hands was both impressive and moving. And then, the best part of the show, when he switches between Sharpe and King James he was so hilarious. What made these switches so spectacular was the ease and quickness with which the switch was made, the specificity of the accent and the use of the crown and cape to change the character. So in the end I thought the play was good, but if some of the actors were better it could have been great.
I overall thought that the play was good but not as great as i thought it would be. I first thought the design of the stage was a little amphorous. From context i can infer that the stage was shaped like the globe theater (circular kind of shape). I thought that it looked kind of weird. I also liked how they worked the lighting and the sounds. I thought that was great. It created a more dramatic setting and feel for each moment and scene. I didn't noticed the sounds (background chatter) until the second half of the play. I thought that was very realistic and they did a well job conveying that realism.
As an actor i feel that i can better interepret and assess one's acting better than the average person. There's a thing in theater called breaking character. When an actor breaks character what it essentially means is that they don't act as their character and act as themselves personally. This can happen for a split second or a long period of time throughout the play, although it is rare. In equivocation, i saw that most of the actors broke character at one time throughout the play. This made it hard for me to define character when the actor's themselves can't even define their own character. I also thought that since the actors were playing so many different roles made it hard for me to define their characterizes well.
Overall i thought the play had its ups and downs. it was an ok play
I'm kind of building off of what Deshon said because the one element that I focused on was the set of the stage itself. I thought that it was really interesting how the stage where all the action took place was made to be see-through, with scaffolding in the background and being able to see characters moving behind the scenes. I liked how it had kind of a play within a play aspect. In effect, it broke down the barrier between the theatre goer and the actor. When the metal sheet were banged to make thunder like noises or when the actors clanged swords without fighting in the background during one Macbeth fight scene are both examples of this barrier breaking down. I was also impressed with the soliloquy that Judith gave to the audience where she lambasted the whole concept of soliloquies. I thought that that concept was done quite well and succeed in unnerving the audience at being directly addressed by a character in a play, rather than having the audience just be an observer. Equivocation was very successful at combining the whole theatre feeling and was useful in bringing the behind the scenes actions to light.
The weakest part of the play, I thought, was that it tried to cover too many concepts and ideas at the same time. The spreading out of ideas made certain characters need to change their personalities and acting types too many times to be completely believable. The ending of the play especially seemed rushed and cramped in trying to cram too many thoughts into the same space. The play tried to cram the notion of equivocation, Shakespeare's relationship with his daughter, Shakespeare's final plays and what it says about the relationship with his daughter and earlier with his son, the Catholic Church and how it was change for the king's personal son over daughter aspirations, torture and the idea of theatre being its own religion, into the last few moments of the play, just to name a few. This weakened the play. For example when Cecil talked about how he had looked into the mirror and had seen how his decendents would be important figures in England in modern times, it seemed to break his character and the transformation that seeing Macbeth seemed to put him through. Furthermore, it isn't even a good arguement to point out that the family had torture in its history because that doesn't impact the current family members or their morality. I didn't really understand what the goal was of connecting the torture to modern times was anyways or what the audience was supposed to take away. Including that arguement, in addition to many others, weakened the primary message of the play as a whole.
As a whole, I agree with AJ that Equivocation, and this production of it was good, but not great. As my fellow theater people have already dissected the acting (and I do agree with the general thoughts that Sharpe and Cecil were great and Shag and Judith were weak) I thought it would be interesting to take a look at the writing.
My first impression, especially after the first act, was that the writer, Bill Cain, tried to fit quite a bit of moral philosophy and perhaps his personal beliefs into his writing. With lines like the one about "Politics being the religion for people who don't believe in God" (I'm paraphrasing) and the exceedingly aloof and borderline pretentious statement by Shagspeare saying "How many times have I heard you but not actually 'heard' you?" I was a little skeptic of the purpose of the play. Was it to fit in as much philosophy and moral guidance as possible, or to actually share a story? However, as the show went on, I found that I liked the writing more and more.
Especially in the second act, the writing began to allow both the director and the actors to manipulate the play to their own ideas. This stood out to me in that the writing was not in what I like to think of as "Old English." Shakespeare was wearing jeans, and even though he was talking about the Powder Plot and James was king, the show could still be set, or at least costumed, in a modern fashion. The writing didn't dictate, or rather force the performers to mold to it. Also, I felt like the writing itself became more comedic as the show went on. Personal favorites include: "You are the only major playwright whose actual existence will be questioned!" and (after one of Judith's soliloquies) "...who are you talking to?" I feel that Cain struck a great balance between more comedic aspects and scenes that focused on driving the plot of the play forward. However, I do think that he could have done so in a shorter time, 2:45 is just too long.
Lastly, I think it's important to note that some of the parts, specifically the two we seem to agree were the weaker ones, were very tough to play. Shakespeare, as he should be, is written as an incredible scholar and orator and thus, is very difficult to embody because all of his lines are, for lack of a better word, Shakespearean. Judith, who spends most of the show on stage, silent, is also difficult to play simply because of the focus it takes to remain on stage doing nothing.
Throughout Equivocation I focused on the lighting of the play. Every time the actors would act out what Shakespeare directed to them, the lighting would turn blue with a darkened shade. This lighting really made me excited and got me into these scenes as opposed to when the lighting was the normal shade of yellow. Also, I noticed that when there was a soliloquy the lights became very dark upon the person that was speaking, which really directed my attention to the person. Even when there were two people on stage, the lights would be dimmed. During the scene where the lightning occurred, it gave the scene a very chilling and dramatic effect as opposed to if an audio of the lightning had been played.
I really enjoyed the simplicity of the set. It was not confusing at all; there was just a two story metal structure that provided depth and appeal for each character. The metal structure allowed for each character, such as the King to have a unique entrance, instead of the boring entrance of each character coming in from the left or right side of the stage. In addition, it was very interesting watching the actors climb down the ladder to enter the center of the stage. By adding varieties of how the actors enter and leave the scene, it allows for the audience to maintain their focus and interest for the play.
I really enjoyed the fact that the show used so few actors for so many characters. It would have been so easy to just write that there are as many actors as characters, but because the playwright made that decision to blend reality and theater, the play got that much better. The scenes that went from a prison cell to the stage, for instance, would be much harder to pull off if there had been more actors, and it worked so much better to have the number they had.
Despite the length of the play, I really loved it. One thing that really stood out to me was the lighting, especially because it was so key in helping the audience differentiate between when the characters were acting and when they were themselves. The way the play was set up was a bit confusing because the scenes would blend together constantly; there was never a definite beginning or end to a scene, that I can remember. Still, once I was able to catch on quickly enough to the fast changes, it made my experience as an audience member very different and unique, as well as enjoyable. It kept me on my toes constantly, so the length didn't bother me much in the end. It also made me anticipate that something surprising or fast would happen soon, so while one scene was happening, I would be waiting, aware that something else would pop up quickly. There was never a boring moment for me during the play.
One moment that I can vividly recall being extremely confusing was when Thomas Winter is being executed. Right before, Shakespeare is begging Cecil to let Winter live and then suddenly Winter is brought out onto the stage to be executed. I didn't get where Cecil's and Shakespeare's conversation was being held because it might have been at Parliament or the public place where Winter was hanged. The whole scene just moved weirdly and left me confused and surprised when, two minutes later, Winter is already dead.
One other aspect that worked very well for the play was the director's choice to have all the characters onstage almost all the time. Even when they were clearly not in the scene, they were either hiding underneath the stairs or on the second story, hidden in the shadows. It was especially effective with Judith, since she was in the least number of official scenes. Oftentimes, she would be subtly hiding behind the set and suddenly, she would interject something that would turn the scene in a totally new direction.
17 comments:
Something that I really liked in the play was the way they did the lighting. The scenes kept on switching, from the characters acting out the play, to simply talking in the theater to scenes outside the theater. I think that throughout the entire play the lighting changed every time they switched locations or from acting to talking. Usually, when they were acting inside the theater, the lights were dimmed to create a more dramatic effect. When they were simply talking or planning inside the theater, all the lights were on to show a more relaxed and/or natural atmosphere. I noticed they also had all the lights on when they preformed the play at the end for the king, I thought this was interesting because it seemed like they weren't really trying to preform the play, but just deliver the message to the kings assistant (I already forget his name). Lastly, when there was a scene happening outside the theater (like Shakespeare's meetings with Thomas Winter and the priest) it was the darkest, and the only lights on were those focused directly on those who were talking at the time.
This use of lighting showed who was most important to focus on at the time. When all of the characters were talking in the theater we would watch all of them, it was more constant action, coming from every character at once. During the rehearsals, the audience focused on those who were acting at the time because they were the ones in the spotlight. When Shakespeare left the theater to talk to Thomas Winter, the priest, and the kings assistant it was always only him and that one other person that was the main focus. Something that I would have changed about this method of lighting would have been to make it completely consistent. For the most part the lighting was changed depending on where the characters were and what they were doing but it didn't always. I think the definition between these scenes could have been more dramatic had the use of lighting remained entirely consistent throughout the play.
Since I'm not a full blown theater student, it is difficult for me to assess the quality of the acting other than boring classifications such as it was "good" or "bad" with out sounding like I'm talking out of my ass. Because of this, most striking element of the play was their lighting. Like Cara mentioned in her post, the lighting was never quite the same and always aided in creating a 'mood' for the scene and actors. In the soliloquies, monologues or other individual scenes, the lighting allowed the audience to fully focus on the scene and listen with not breaks in their concentration. For example, in the scene in which Shakespeare meets with Thomas Winter, parts of the scene is lit with a deep dark colors that add an air of apprehension which I thought was masterfully done. Similarly, with the decapitation of Thomas Winter, the lighting focused only on the head of the target even though there still was dialogue happening. This aided in focusing the attention of the decapitation happening there and then and gave the audience a sense of the importance of what was happening.
In general, the lighting of the play aided as a "mood setter" for both the actors and the audience. I believe that throughout the play, the most simplistic and modern dialogue was used when the lighting was bright and plain, illuminating the entire scene. This lighting symbolized that these actors were not in the play that Shakespeare was currently writing and could therefore speak in modern english. It seemed to me that when ever the lights would change from this basic form, the actors language and cadence would change and transform into a form of early modern english. This transition was very cool to experience and actually realize.
Like Bo, I do not identify as a student of theater, however I am going to take a stab at the acting content of the play. Personally, I was blown away by the actor who played Robert Cecil. The most physically noticeable thing about the character was the limping, and yet urgent, gait that he used whenever he was in a position of power, ie when the king was not around. He would leap around the stage doing just as he pleased, and his boisterous manner could have been a compensation for the physical attributes that he lacked. Yet when the king was present he became demure and subservient, no longer leaping but limping along behind the king and allowing himself to be ordered and shunted around. Even the manner in which he spoke identified his role in the scene. When in power he was loud, red-faced, and booming. Spittle flying everywhere. With the king though he bowed his head and hid the Cecil that we knew.
My other favorite actor was the blond one who played the king, and this was the role I most enjoyed him in, I didn't like him as much when he was playing Sharp- I think that was the name. He played the king as a child- amused by entertainment, giddy and clapping his hands with that absurd laugh and smile of his. And yet, there were moments where we glimpsed a cunning side of the king, one who knew what was going on rather than being completely ignorant. He got, for example, what MacDuff meant when he spoke of being untimely ripped from his mothers womb. "Thats poetry for cesarean section". Moreover, at the end of the Scot-ish play as he spoke of how no one in the court mentioned Macbeth's evil deed, there was more than a subtle hint that he saw the subtext woven into the play.
From these performances especially, the effect of subtleties and how a character is played on the meaning of the dialogue became vividly clear.
After directing a one act play in the Fall, I now look more closely at the details whenever I see a play. I always find myself asking questions and making comments about the blocking (i.e. Why did he make that cross there and did that have any significance?) and other stylistic decisions. With this new knowledge, I was able to view Equivocation in a whole different light. I felt that the director of this production (Jasson Minadakis) did a fantastic job! Minadakis was able to use a very minimal set and transform it into the Tower of London, the Globe Theater, a public hanging area, and many other locations. I also thought that the transitions between locations was very fluid (it did not feel choppy and I never became lost as to where the characters were). I also really enjoyed the transitions between Shagspeare talking to someone involved in the gunpowder plot and the play within a play rehearsing. This was extremely clever and provided the audience with the perspective of the events by both Shagspeare and all of the actors.
Equivocation must have been a very difficult play to direct, as some actors had to take on multiple roles. Although this is not uncommon in plays, the director needs to carefully establish the different characters, otherwise the audience will feel confused and will not understand the plot. However, Minadakis used small yet significant costume changes and over-exaggerating movements to distinguish his characters. Although I felt that the acting was nothing special, Minadakis used his creativity to help his actors identify themselves onstage. Whether it was Craig Marker using a simple crown to transition between Sharpe and King James or Andrew Hurteau using an over exaggerated limp as Cecil to distinguish himself from his other character Nate, Mandakis improved the performances of his actors through extremely inventive methods.
Overall, I think that MTC’s production of Equivocation was good, but not great. Because I saw the play two different times by two different companies, I have to say that the Oregon Shakespeare Festival presented a better version. My largest criticism of MTC is its design concept; I don’t understand the choices for scenic and costume design. Equivocation is not a play where one can temper with the time period; it is specifically set to be in the window of time between Shakespeare’s penmanship of King Lear and Macbeth. For that reason, the costumes and sets should match the period. OSF approached this in a much more Elizabethan fashion, and it was much more successful because it didn’t distract the audience and made it seem like it was actually in Elizabethan times. Shakespeare’s plays are all fictional to some degree, and it is appropriate to adapt these to modern times, but I think that Equivocation is not a play where the time period can be flexible. Also, the costumes were just all wrong. There were elements of Elizabethan England and elements of a modern touch. The play neither went one way nor another; instead, it found a middle ground that just was illogical onstage. The costumes and sets, for me, just distracted from the show, and made it harder for me to believe that we were observing the real William Shakespeare.
The acting in the play had its ups and downs. I think that the two strongest actors were those playing Richard (The Priest) and Robert Cecile. Richard was my favorite. The way he approached expressing dialogue was so natural that it sounded like everyday speech. His emotion was internalized but very present. He communicated exactly what he was feeling in subtle but still noticeable ways. He captured my attention every time he was onstage. Cecile was incredibly dedicated to his character, and crafted a being that the audience despises and pities. I first noticed his talent during the first scene, when he has a very large monologue describing Shakespeare’s patterns in his plays. I didn’t even know this was a monologue. He guided the audience through it seamlessly that it was unnoticeable. Monologues are incredibly difficult, and the fact that he approached it in such a style is really impressive. His exaggerated limp was slightly distracting, but I understand that it was used to differentiate the character of Cecile between others.
The weakest cast members in my opinion were Shagspeare and Judith. I thought Shag lacked the power and dignity to be someone as brilliant as William Shakespeare. He was always the most doubtful and apprehensive person on the stage, and portrayed Shag in a way that was plainly feeble. His failure to capture the audience’s attention made the play seem more about the other characters, but the heart of the entire play is the humongous dilemma Shag faces. The play’s focus strayed from this issue because of the feebleness in Shag’s performance. Judith, in my opinion, overacted in her role. Judith’s character is a young girl hardened by the rejection of her father, and she played it like a school girl who is everything her father believes she is. There was very little dignity in the way Judith soliloquized, almost as if she were asking the audience to pity her, and that’s not who Judith is. Her monologues were also long and boring. She failed to make them conversational, and it came across as a young, emotionally vulnerable girl lecturing the audience. I think Judith’s character would have been more appreciable and respectable if she did not reveal her emotions quite as much, and asked the audience for understanding instead of sympathy with her performance.
The element of Equivocation that I am going to focus on is the staging. There were two aspects of the staging that most intrigued me, both of which were made possible by the two-story metal semi-circle that encompassed the main stage. First, it allowed characters to be partially involved in scenes; present but not a main actor in the situation. That allowed the audience to realize their presence but not get distracted by them. I noticed this a lot with Shakespeare's daughter, since she often knew a lot without being directly involved. The second floor distinguished between main actors and eavesdroppers/observers, which helped me follow the play and made it visually more interesting.
In addition to the benefits of the second floor in relation to the plot-line, it also provided the height to utilize the ceiling. This seems like a strange and rarely appreciated benefit, but in Equivocation the two story metal semi-circle allowed for the ceiling to be used. Rather than the sound-effect of thunder being played over speakers, which produce a pretty clearly false sound, the stage director was able to hang a giant sheet of metal from the ceiling. When the need for a thunder type sound occurred, one of the eavesdropping/observing players could shake the metal to make the sound in a more genuine, interesting, and creative way. This was made possible by height of the staging, and definitely was a success for the play.
Wow. The comments thus far are far superior than anything I could have imagined. They are insightful and well reasoned. Amazing. Really. I feel like I'm reading responses from students well trained in the art of theater observation and review. Awesome!!!!!
This isn't my full blown post but after reading AJ's post I have to agree: I thought that Shakespeare and Judith were definitely the weakest links. I never felt as though Judith was fully developed as a character, she would have a witty comment here and an insightful one there, but most of the time she was up above observing, and I feel she could have been a much more integral part of the play. Also, I felt Shakespeare was just going along for the ride. While I'm sure that in real life most of his material simply fell into his lap, there is no way he could have just followed others around and taken whatever he was told at face value. I picture Shakespeare as, yes, a brooding genius, and while the interpretation of this Shakespeare was different I didn't find it successful.
I also wanted to comment on the set. I have been in a few musicals and being in this class has really helped me appreciate how complex or simple a set can be. While it was at times confusing to determine where the actors were, for the most part I thought it was an ingenious design. By uttering a few lines the barren structure was cast into a completely different light, transferring from the Globe to the gallows and back. It also was interesting how the director chose some cast members to be watching others during a scene, but I don't quite understand why he did that.
I focused on the use of multiple roles played by the same person throughout the play. Much like Michael and AJ, I was supremely impressed by the man who played Robert Cecil. I thought that his two main roles (that of the company member and that of Cecil) were distinct and fitting to their characters. The spitting and leaping was a nice touch to show when Cecil was in control. I wish that the Judith/Shag characters had had other roles as well; their always being the same character had some significance that I didn't understand (the play is in the chaos of Shagspeare's mind, but Judith is an ignored constant?). I felt that either that significance should have been more played up in the script, or the difference shouldn't have existed.
The best part about the multiple roles, though, was the ease with which transitions could occur. When Shag was interviewing Winter, Winter's story was being acted out by the other actors, who then turned into members of the company rehearsing the plays. The fact that flashbacks could be played by people who also played people in the present was an interesting tool that kept the dialogue going the entire time.
Personally, I thought the play was much better than I expected it to be. There were very few moments where I felt bored, or that something was going on for too long. I agree with Michael In that the actor who played Cecil did an outstanding job because he made it seem like he truly was playing Thomas throughout the whole play. The way he took charge in almost every conversation and he would just limp around all over the stage knowing that in that story and in his character he seemed to be the one with all of the power. Also I thought that who ever played The King did an amazing job because the over stupidity and the childhood type acting enhanced his role and made it even funnier than it was. It was the perfect amount and did not seem to much or too little. He was hilarious to watch and his actions seemed perfect for the character that was supposed to be playing the king. I thought that parts of Thomas Winter's yelling scenes were a little unnecessary or over dramatic. It just seemed like his character didnt really fit exactly the Shakespeare I would have had in Mind.
I also thought that the only other not so great parts about the play were the ending, and the fact that there seemed to be sooo many side plots, and the acting by the woman and Shakespeare. My problem with who ever played Shakespeare was that everyone knew how brilliant Shakespeare was, and the actor who played him just did not fit the idea of Shakespeare at all. With the woman to she just seemed really bland, even on the kiss she still didn't have that spark in an actor that you would have liked to have seen. It seemed like every time we thought one thing was gonna happen another one would change it. I understand that that is a way in movies and plays, but after the first few times it just seems a little repetitive. Its like the idea of trying to stretch LOST out for 9 seasons when everyone knows it should never have lasted that long.
I enjoyed seeing Equivocation, however some parts of it were better than others. Like others before me, I focused on the acting. Overall, I thought that the cast was strong but I was disappointed by the performance of main character, Shagspeare. To me he seemed tired and too old for the role. From his costume it looked like he was supposed to be a young bohemian writer, but as he was in his 50's he just looked uncomfortable and out of place. He also seemed very aloof and not committed to the character - his extreme emotions were overdone and the rest of the time he seemed passive. I am on the fence about Judith. I liked her monologues about soliloquies, they were thought provoking and funny and I thought she played them very well. However, I thought that her relationship with Shagspeare was awkward. There almost seemed like there was sexual tension. Also, I know this is miniscule but the way she held her mouth really bugged me.
In contrast, I was very impressed by the actors who played Nate/Robert Cecil and Sharpe/Thomas Winter/King James. I liked how the actor who played Nate transitioned into his character of Robert Cecil. He made the transitions very clear by making the physicality and cantor of speech of each character completely different. Although, Cecil's galloping limp was often distractedly comical I thought it was a great character choice and he fully and completely committed himself to it. I thought the actor who played Sharpe was the best in the show. As Sharpe, I loved his commitment to the wild and spontaneous character (like when he smooches Judith). I also thought that his physicality of the tortured Thomas Winter was brilliant. The attention to detail in his limp hands was both impressive and moving. And then, the best part of the show, when he switches between Sharpe and King James he was so hilarious. What made these switches so spectacular was the ease and quickness with which the switch was made, the specificity of the accent and the use of the crown and cape to change the character. So in the end I thought the play was good, but if some of the actors were better it could have been great.
I overall thought that the play was good but not as great as i thought it would be. I first thought the design of the stage was a little amphorous. From context i can infer that the stage was shaped like the globe theater (circular kind of shape). I thought that it looked kind of weird. I also liked how they worked the lighting and the sounds. I thought that was great. It created a more dramatic setting and feel for each moment and scene. I didn't noticed the sounds (background chatter) until the second half of the play. I thought that was very realistic and they did a well job conveying that realism.
As an actor i feel that i can better interepret and assess one's acting better than the average person. There's a thing in theater called breaking character. When an actor breaks character what it essentially means is that they don't act as their character and act as themselves personally. This can happen for a split second or a long period of time throughout the play, although it is rare. In equivocation, i saw that most of the actors broke character at one time throughout the play. This made it hard for me to define character when the actor's themselves can't even define their own character. I also thought that since the actors were playing so many different roles made it hard for me to define their characterizes well.
Overall i thought the play had its ups and downs. it was an ok play
Daniel
I'm kind of building off of what Deshon said because the one element that I focused on was the set of the stage itself. I thought that it was really interesting how the stage where all the action took place was made to be see-through, with scaffolding in the background and being able to see characters moving behind the scenes. I liked how it had kind of a play within a play aspect. In effect, it broke down the barrier between the theatre goer and the actor. When the metal sheet were banged to make thunder like noises or when the actors clanged swords without fighting in the background during one Macbeth fight scene are both examples of this barrier breaking down. I was also impressed with the soliloquy that Judith gave to the audience where she lambasted the whole concept of soliloquies. I thought that that concept was done quite well and succeed in unnerving the audience at being directly addressed by a character in a play, rather than having the audience just be an observer. Equivocation was very successful at combining the whole theatre feeling and was useful in bringing the behind the scenes actions to light.
The weakest part of the play, I thought, was that it tried to cover too many concepts and ideas at the same time. The spreading out of ideas made certain characters need to change their personalities and acting types too many times to be completely believable. The ending of the play especially seemed rushed and cramped in trying to cram too many thoughts into the same space. The play tried to cram the notion of equivocation, Shakespeare's relationship with his daughter, Shakespeare's final plays and what it says about the relationship with his daughter and earlier with his son, the Catholic Church and how it was change for the king's personal son over daughter aspirations, torture and the idea of theatre being its own religion, into the last few moments of the play, just to name a few. This weakened the play. For example when Cecil talked about how he had looked into the mirror and had seen how his decendents would be important figures in England in modern times, it seemed to break his character and the transformation that seeing Macbeth seemed to put him through. Furthermore, it isn't even a good arguement to point out that the family had torture in its history because that doesn't impact the current family members or their morality. I didn't really understand what the goal was of connecting the torture to modern times was anyways or what the audience was supposed to take away. Including that arguement, in addition to many others, weakened the primary message of the play as a whole.
As a whole, I agree with AJ that Equivocation, and this production of it was good, but not great. As my fellow theater people have already dissected the acting (and I do agree with the general thoughts that Sharpe and Cecil were great and Shag and Judith were weak) I thought it would be interesting to take a look at the writing.
My first impression, especially after the first act, was that the writer, Bill Cain, tried to fit quite a bit of moral philosophy and perhaps his personal beliefs into his writing. With lines like the one about "Politics being the religion for people who don't believe in God" (I'm paraphrasing) and the exceedingly aloof and borderline pretentious statement by Shagspeare saying "How many times have I heard you but not actually 'heard' you?" I was a little skeptic of the purpose of the play. Was it to fit in as much philosophy and moral guidance as possible, or to actually share a story? However, as the show went on, I found that I liked the writing more and more.
Especially in the second act, the writing began to allow both the director and the actors to manipulate the play to their own ideas. This stood out to me in that the writing was not in what I like to think of as "Old English." Shakespeare was wearing jeans, and even though he was talking about the Powder Plot and James was king, the show could still be set, or at least costumed, in a modern fashion. The writing didn't dictate, or rather force the performers to mold to it. Also, I felt like the writing itself became more comedic as the show went on. Personal favorites include: "You are the only major playwright whose actual existence will be questioned!" and (after one of Judith's soliloquies) "...who are you talking to?" I feel that Cain struck a great balance between more comedic aspects and scenes that focused on driving the plot of the play forward. However, I do think that he could have done so in a shorter time, 2:45 is just too long.
Lastly, I think it's important to note that some of the parts, specifically the two we seem to agree were the weaker ones, were very tough to play. Shakespeare, as he should be, is written as an incredible scholar and orator and thus, is very difficult to embody because all of his lines are, for lack of a better word, Shakespearean. Judith, who spends most of the show on stage, silent, is also difficult to play simply because of the focus it takes to remain on stage doing nothing.
Throughout Equivocation I focused on the lighting of the play. Every time the actors would act out what Shakespeare directed to them, the lighting would turn blue with a darkened shade. This lighting really made me excited and got me into these scenes as opposed to when the lighting was the normal shade of yellow. Also, I noticed that when there was a soliloquy the lights became very dark upon the person that was speaking, which really directed my attention to the person. Even when there were two people on stage, the lights would be dimmed. During the scene where the lightning occurred, it gave the scene a very chilling and dramatic effect as opposed to if an audio of the lightning had been played.
I really enjoyed the simplicity of the set. It was not confusing at all; there was just a two story metal structure that provided depth and appeal for each character. The metal structure allowed for each character, such as the King to have a unique entrance, instead of the boring entrance of each character coming in from the left or right side of the stage. In addition, it was very interesting watching the actors climb down the ladder to enter the center of the stage. By adding varieties of how the actors enter and leave the scene, it allows for the audience to maintain their focus and interest for the play.
I really enjoyed the fact that the show used so few actors for so many characters. It would have been so easy to just write that there are as many actors as characters, but because the playwright made that decision to blend reality and theater, the play got that much better. The scenes that went from a prison cell to the stage, for instance, would be much harder to pull off if there had been more actors, and it worked so much better to have the number they had.
Despite the length of the play, I really loved it. One thing that really stood out to me was the lighting, especially because it was so key in helping the audience differentiate between when the characters were acting and when they were themselves. The way the play was set up was a bit confusing because the scenes would blend together constantly; there was never a definite beginning or end to a scene, that I can remember. Still, once I was able to catch on quickly enough to the fast changes, it made my experience as an audience member very different and unique, as well as enjoyable. It kept me on my toes constantly, so the length didn't bother me much in the end. It also made me anticipate that something surprising or fast would happen soon, so while one scene was happening, I would be waiting, aware that something else would pop up quickly. There was never a boring moment for me during the play.
One moment that I can vividly recall being extremely confusing was when Thomas Winter is being executed. Right before, Shakespeare is begging Cecil to let Winter live and then suddenly Winter is brought out onto the stage to be executed. I didn't get where Cecil's and Shakespeare's conversation was being held because it might have been at Parliament or the public place where Winter was hanged. The whole scene just moved weirdly and left me confused and surprised when, two minutes later, Winter is already dead.
One other aspect that worked very well for the play was the director's choice to have all the characters onstage almost all the time. Even when they were clearly not in the scene, they were either hiding underneath the stairs or on the second story, hidden in the shadows. It was especially effective with Judith, since she was in the least number of official scenes. Oftentimes, she would be subtly hiding behind the set and suddenly, she would interject something that would turn the scene in a totally new direction.
Post a Comment