1984 (The Actors’ Gang 2019 Production) Theatre Review

The book that comes up over and over in conversation and in political criticism these days, more than any other, is George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. When we have a president who actually tells his followers not to believe what they see or hear, and they find no problem with that, we are deeply in disturbing territory, the territory of that novel (the exact quote from Trump is “What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening”). This is the perfect time to revisit Orwell’s work, the perfect time for a revival of Michael Gene Sullivan’s 2006 theatrical adaptation. The play was originally produced at the Actors’ Gang Theater, where it was directed by Tim Robbins. Since then it has gone on to several national and international productions. And now it is being revived at the place where it began, where it is once again directed by Tim Robbins, who is also part of the impeccable cast.

The acting space is a square in the middle of the audience, and there are two television screens at opposite sides above the audience. A heavily pixelated eye stares at us from each screen. We are immediately part of the world of the play. We are being watched. As the audience files in, instrumental renditions of songs like “Que Sera, Sera” and Monty Python’s “Always Look On The Bright Side Of Life” play. Before the play begins, the usual announcements are given a delightful twist, and we are told that The Ministry Of Theatre requires us to silence our cell phones, providing a laugh and helping to immerse us further into the Orwell’s world. As the play opens, Winston Smith (Will Thomas McFadden) is lying on the floor, while four party members (Tom Szymanski, Guebri VanOver, Bob Turton and Hannah Chodos) surround him. A voice sounds from one corner of the room, and all of them turn to face that voice. “How did it begin?” It is a voice of calm authority, a voice that is in control, a voice that can takes its time. (Tim Robbins provides that voice.) And thus begins Winston Smith’s interrogation. He is somewhat disheveled, dressed in an open shirt over a T-shirt, and is barefoot, as if he had been suddenly taken from his home at night. The four party members take turns becoming the people that Winston is questioned about and even Winston himself, recreating scenes from Winston’s diary in order to determine the truth – or, at least, their truth – and to cure him of his insanity before executing him. But in doing so, they seem to be affected, even changed somewhat. Or at least one of them is affected thus. It is fascinating to watch, and the actors do an absolutely tremendous job creating and inhabiting several different people while still maintaining the reality of their main characters. Also, they at times move behind the audience, which makes us feel a bit uneasy, like we ourselves are on trial. We are being watched.

At a couple of points, the television screens suddenly show official news footage, interrupting the action of the play, both for the characters on stage and for those of us in the audience. All heads turn to those screens, and we are all given the same information – or misinformation – about production being up or about a victory in the ongoing war, news that the party members cheer. And you can’t help but wonder how long it would take before audience members began cheering it as well.  One thing that is interesting is how rooted the insidious deceit is, popping up in relatively mundane situations. For example, there is a bit about how the chocolate rations were raised from five to seven ounces, though Winston recalls that actually the rations had gone down from ten to seven ounces. Obviously, this is not a matter of life and death, but the party members keep repeating the lie until Winston gives up. For, again, it’s not all that important how much chocolate people are receiving. This scene reminds me of two things – how Donald Trump keeps repeating lies until people give up contradicting him, and how I recently saw a misleading sale price at Ralph’s (a grocery store here in Los Angeles). Refried beans were advertised as being at a new lower price, two for three dollars, when previously they had actually been a dollar each. The price had gone up, but the store was claiming the price had gone down. So here we are.

It is also interesting how the audience finds humor in the play at the beginning, perhaps feeling a comfortable distance from the action still at that point, but as the play progresses, the laughter dies away. And by the time that O’Brien shows up in the flesh, we are in frightening territory. Tim Robbins delivers a chilling performance, particularly as his O’Brien is so businesslike and rational. Earlier, when Winston and Julia swear allegiance to the resistance movement, it feels the same as swearing allegiance to the authoritarian government, which is interesting and terrifying. They are ready to kill for their cause, and as we’ve been identifying with these characters, we can’t help but question our own capabilities for murder, even for a cause we might believe to be just. O’Brien raises just that point later, questioning Winston’s supposed moral superiority, and thus calling into question the moral superiority of those in the audience. And that is partly why attending a performance of this production is a powerful and intense and ultimately a very personal experience.

This production of 1984 was directed by Tim Robbins, and runs through December 7th. There is one fifteen-minute intermission, and including that intermission the performance is approximately two hours and fifteen minutes. The Actors’ Gang Theater is located at 9070 Venice Blvd. in Culver City, California. Visit the Actors’ Gang website for full schedule.

Shakespeare Reference in Till Death Do Us Part

John Dickson Carr’s mystery novel Till Death Do Us Part contains a reference to Hamlet. John Dickson Carr has his character Dr. Fell say, “It was the perfect picture – ahem – a dramatist hoist with his own petard” (p. 71). That is a reference to Hamlet’s line “For ‘tis the sport to have the engineer/Hoist with his own petard” from Act III.

Till Death Do Us Part was published in 1944. The edition I read was the second printing of the New Bantam Edition, published in 1965.

Shakespeare References in The Mummy Or Ramses The Damned

Anne Rice’s novel The Mummy Or Ramses The Damned contains a few Shakespeare references. As Cleopatra is a character in the story, you might expect a couple of references to Antony And Cleopatra, and you’ll get them. But there are other references as well. The first reference is related to Antony And Cleopatra. Anne Rice writes, “A Greek Cleopatra, not the silly Egyptian image so popular in programmes for Shakespeare’s tragedy, or in the engravings which illustrated Plutarch’s Lives and popular histories galore” (p. 44). A second reference soon follows: “The splendour of the supernatural was a thing for stories and poems, and Shakespeare’s plays” (p. 45). And then we get another reference to Antony And Cleopatra: “Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra was enjoying a long run in London. She and Alex had meant to go and see it, but then Alex fell asleep during serious plays” (p. 48).

The next is a reference to a statue of Shakespeare: “Westminster Abbey. They walked together under the high arches. Such splendor. She showed him the cenotaph of Shakespeare” (p. 116). (It is interesting to me that this book contains two different spellings of the word “splendor.”) And then we go back to Antony And Cleopatra: “The greatest men of the time paid court to her. Hers was a royal soul in every sense of the word. Why do you think your Shakespeare wrote about her?” (p. 189). This novel also contains a reference to Macbeth. After Alex, concerned for his father, says he’s going to call the doctor, Elliott says: “Would Lady Macbeth have benefited from a doctor? I don’t think a doctor would have helped her” (p. 301).

The Mummy Or Ramses The Damned was published in 1989. The copy I read says “First Edition,” but it is a large trade paperback, so clearly is not a first edition.

Shakespeare Set Dressing

Shakespeare is everywhere. I took this photo yesterday at work. A bit of Shakespeare on the set.

Titus Andronicus (The Southern California Shakespeare Festival 2019 Production) Theatre Review

The Southern California Shakespeare Festival is celebrating its fifteenth season with a production of Titus Andronicus, one of William Shakespeare’s earliest and most violent plays. It is a play of misplaced loyalty and patriotism, with Titus putting Rome and Saturninus before his own family, with deadly results. It is a play of horror, despair, deceit and revenge. It is a play for our times. And, perhaps to emphasize just that, this production sets the play in modern day, even employing the use of three screens to show news reports of the action. While setting Shakespeare’s plays in modern times often introduces many problems, it works quite well in this production.

The production opens with news footage playing on the three screens, presenting some background information, such as a report that the emperor has died. One of the television personalities opines that what is needed is an emperor who cares about the common people. It is then that soldiers lead their prisoners in, the prisoners having their heads covered and hands tied. Titus (Matthew Reidy) has red makeup on his face, giving the impression that he is perhaps most at home in bloody battle. The queen of the Goths, Tamora (Linda Bisesti) is one of the prisoners, and she kneels as she pleads for her son’s life. Titus is excited, seeming to be in his element. Tamora and her two other sons, who are downstage from the execution and thus closer to the audience, look away as the eldest son is executed upstage. It is interesting that we feel for them at this moment, that they exhibit qualities that perhaps we ourselves want to. But we in the audience do not look away, and so maybe we are guilty of a certain blood lust ourselves. But we can’t quite fault Titus for wanting them to suffer, for he has lost two sons himself at the hands of the Goths. Matthew Covalt as Demetrius is particularly good in that moment, and I love his delivery of “To quit the bloody wrongs upon her foes.”

The screens are used again so that Saturninus and Bassianus can address the masses. And when the lights come up fully, Saturninus (Alfonso Ramirez) and Bassianus (Larry Mayorquin) stand before us, in suits, two politicians on opposing sides, while Marcus (Michael P. Thomas) stands upstage center, his voice having a slight echo as he speaks to the audience, a nice effect. Then when Saturninus is made emperor, he takes his place upstage center. On his “set our prisoners free,” Tamora goes to Titus to have her hands unbound, which is interesting. Interesting that she chooses to have him do it, like she is already attempting to regain some authority with him, just a hint of taunting him with her newfound freedom. And when Saturninus chooses Tamora as his wife, she gives a little laugh, like she is already seeing how fortune might turn in her favor and lead to her revenge on Titus. It is a really good moment, and Linda Bisesti is excellent. Titus now appears in military dress uniform, and Lavinia (Sofia Levi) is in a white dress, stressing her purity and innocence. Because this is a modern telling of the story, Titus uses a pistol to kill his son Mutius. Marcus speaks softly upon seeing Mutius’ body, in contrast to Titus, who is explosive, like his words and actions are already getting away from him, carrying him along a path from which it will be impossible to return. On his “and bury me the next,” he tosses a couple of coins to the floor for his son’s burial. And though the play has a modern setting, the coins are still placed on the body’s eyes.

When we next see Tamora, she is wearing a dress, clearly already at home in her new role. On her “massacre them all” speech, she steps off the stage just in front of the audience, and out of the lights, which is perfect, for here she reveals her darker desires. And I love her delivery of “I will not be denied” to Saturninus. It is really that moment that you know she is a force that will bring havoc down on Titus and his family, without needing the official help of Saturninus. When Aaron (Kris Dowling) enters at the beginning of Act II, it is in darkness, which is also perfect. This can be a tough character for those looking for nuance and reason, for he is a villain at every moment except when it comes to his newborn son. What has led him to take this path? He seems to be a villain who enjoys being a villain, causing harm just for the joy of causing harm. And so he intrigues us. When he urges Demetrius and Chiron (Richard Pluim) to take Lavinia “by force,” they at first do not embrace that course of action. Rather, it seems they consider it, but not seriously, at least not yet, another excellent moment. Though Chiron and Demetrius do soon perform these horrible acts, and are thus responsible for them, the idea was not theirs. So for a moment those in the audience have hope that they will reconsider this bloody course of action. (By the way, Demetrius reminds me a bit of Malachai from the film version of Children Of The Corn.)

Lavinia displays some sass, some spunk and some attitude in this production, which is interesting. When Chiron and Demetrius re-enter, it is as Lavinia and Bassianus are exiting, and so their entrance forces Lavinia and Bassianus back on stage. Though guns are present on stage at several moments throughout this production, they are fired only a couple of times, and blades are still used in many scenes. It is with a blade that Bassianus is killed, while Lavinia watches, aghast, her sassiness gone in an instant. Her screams offstage tell us precisely what horrors she is being subjected to, and are completely effective. The pit where Bassianus’ body is left and where Quintus and Martius end up is done in an interesting way. The pit is at floor level, a light inside it revealing those people inside. When Lavinia next enters, it is in darkness, for she is still caught in the dark place created by Aaron, Chiron and Demetrius. As the lights go up, we see her clothes are bloody. She moans and cries as Marcus tries to help her.

News reports on the screens tell us that Quintus and Martius are awaiting trial for the murder of Bassianus. It is then that we see a different side of Titus, in despair for his sons’ fate. He kneels during his speech, and when he says that he has never wept before, we believe him. Titus gives a great delivery of the lines when he tells Lucius it wouldn’t matter if the tribunes did hear him, a moment that marks a change in him. By the way, several characters that are male in the text are female in this production, including Lucius (Amber Bonasso). So the line “Why, ‘tis no matter, man: if they did hear” becomes “‘Tis no matter, Lucius, if they did hear.” And when Titus asks “What shall we do,” he truly is asking the question. He is overcome, and for once does not clearly see the path before him. It is a moving moment. Aaron uses an electric saw to remove Titus’ hand upstage center, and blood squirting up further sells the action, as does Titus’ pained scream. Then, before Act III Scene ii, newscasts tell us that months have passed and that Titus’ sanity has been called into question. Marcus gets a golf club and demonstrates for Lavinia how she might use it to write her attackers’ names. Then, as she slowly writes their names, they appear on the screens behind her. Michael P. Thomas delivers an excellent performance as Marcus, and is particularly good during his soliloquy. The golf clubs are used again in place of bows and arrows, though Titus still uses the word “archery.” But perhaps the most modern prop used in this production is the cell phone that Saturninus speaks into for his speech at the beginning of Act IV Scene iv.

When Aaron is led into the Goth camp, his clothes and face are bloody. Lucius at one point hands Aaron’s baby to a member of the audience. As I mentioned earlier, this scene provides a moment when the audience can feel for Aaron, and Kris Dowling really makes the most of it. He delivers a good part of one of his speeches while a noose is around his neck upstage, an effective image. When Tamora and her sons enter to play upon Titus’ supposed madness, they are dressed in red robes and are masked. Titus, of course, is not fooled for a moment, and I particularly love his delivery of “how like the empress’ sons they are.” Titus also displays a wonderful smile after Tamora exits, leaving her two disguised sons behind. It is also interesting, and somewhat strangely comforting, to see Lavinia take some joy in watching her father tell Chiron and Demetrius their fate. Matt Reidy is absolutely fantastic as Titus here.

Before the final scene, there is a news report about the impending dinner, which is called a dinner event. And indeed it is an event. When Titus enters, he is dressed in a chef’s outfit and is pushing a dinner cart. He and Lavinia are cheerful, which is deliciously twisted, considering the meal they are serving. This last scene moves quickly. Marcus’ big speech is presented on television screens, as red light bathes the stage. Lucius moves upstage center to deliver her final speech, but the performance actually concludes with news reports in support of Lucius becoming the new emperor, an interesting touch that was appreciated by the audience.

This production of Titus Andronicus was directed by Robert Shields. There is one fifteen-minute intermission, which comes at the end of Act III Scene i. Including intermission, the performance is approximately two hours forty-five minutes. The play has been running at the Studio Theatre at Cal Poly Pomona. However, yesterday’s performance was the final one at that location. This coming weekend it shifts to the School of Arts and Enterprise in Pomona for two performances. Visit the Southern California Shakespeare Festival website for more information and schedule.

Shakespeare References in Goodbye

I am still struck by how many times I encounter Shakespeare references in my reading. W.H. Manville’s novel Goodbye contains a few references. The first one really surprised me, for it’s a line that I often quote from Antony And Cleopatra, but one I don’t often hear anyone else use. Manville writes: “Where are you? I’m dying, Egypt, dying, man” (p. 40). Antony says to Cleopatra, “I’m dying, Egypt, dying.” (I say it when I feel weak from the Los Angeles heat.) The second is a play on a line from The Merchant Of Venice. Manville writes, “‘All that glitters ain’t necessarily shit,’ he said, and they laughed” (p. 131). In the play, Morocco reads the scroll contained in the gold casket: “All that glisters is not gold.” There is also a reference to Henry The Fifth. Manville writes: “The homoerotic is team spirit. It wins football games. The company of men, this band of brothers, ‘the guys’” (p. 151). The “band of brothers” phrase is taken from Henry V’s famous St. Crispin’s Day speech.

The book also contains two references to Hamlet. The first is a loose reference to a phrase from the famous “To be or not to be” speech. Manville writes, “all the fears that a woman is heir to” (p. 158), bringing to mind “The thousand natural shocks/That flesh is heir to.” The other is a reference to the play itself: “The first time I had seen Hamlet had been in Chicago. I was twelve and had gone with my father. He had tried to explain that the ghost of Hamlet’s father was not meant to be taken as real, that it was a manifestation of Hamlet’s guilty conscience, but I had believed in that ghost at twelve; perhaps I believed in it still” (p. 280). That’s a little odd, because of course the ghost is meant to be taken as real. After all, it is seen by a few other people before Hamlet himself even sees it.

Goodbye was published in 1977 by Simon And Schuster.

Shakespeare References In Magazines (Westways)

The current issue of Westways (July/August 2019) mentions a few events related to Shakespeare, and so I feel a compulsion to mention them here. I can’t help it, you see. On page 76, on the “Current Events” page, The Old Globe Summer Shakespeare Festival in San Diego is mentioned, along with that image of William Shakespeare. I haven’t made it down for any of their productions yet. This season, according to the short piece, the company is putting on As You Like It and Romeo And Juliet. Then on page 78, the Shakespeare By The Sea production of Henry V is mentioned. As you may be aware, that company performs two plays each summer at various parks all over the Los Angeles area. The single performance this magazine chooses to mention is the one I attended at Los Encinos State History Park on August 3rd. On the very next page is mentioned “Midsummer Scream, Long Beach” (p. 79). It is described as a Halloween and horror convention, but obviously it takes its name from A Midsummer Night’s Dream.