Local theatre was...

July 2, 2011 performance reviewed by Frances Benn Hall.

WTF artistic director Jenny Gersten’s bold decision to substitute Jon Robin Baitz Three Hotels for the previously scheduled and well-known comedy You Can’t Take it With You may have come as a surprise to a few season ticket holders, but for most, once they adjust to the drastic change of subject matter and dramatic technique, it should come as a welcome opportunity to explore a somewhat experimental play, opulently mounted on Williams Theatre Festival’s main stage.

The play is an eighty minute series of three monologs, performed without intermission but with scene shifts from one hotel to the next.

The plot concerns Ken Hoyle (Steven Weber), an ambitious and unscrupulous hatchet man for a baby food manufacturer who sells defective formula to credulous African mothers in developing countries.

He and his wife Barbara (Maura Tierney) had started as dedicated and idealistic Peace Corps volunteers twenty years before, but have sold out along the way. Although not as culpable as Ken, she has sold her own soul as she advises other young wives on how to live life in the third world.

The monologs are delivered, not so much as confessions to the audience, but rather Ken in the first and third, and Barbara in the connecting one, confront their own inner thoughts of personal lapses, marital discord, and corporate misdeeds searching for answers and possible forgiveness.

But this is more than just a two character play, for me at least, the three hotels, each so different and significantly so, tell the tale as vividly as do the actors. Set designer Thomas Lynch has had that magnificent 70 foot proscenium to fill and has done it with taste, opulence when called for, and an instinctive feel for mood and scene content.

For Ken’s first monolog, set in a posh hotel in Tangier, Morocco, the entire width of the stage becomes an enormous living room in which Ken can, moving restlessly from one area to another, keep drinking his martinis, keep defending his actions, at time becoming even ruefully funny. His subject matter is his real sins, reminding us of dialog in a play like Arthur Miller’s All My Sons (and the father who sold defective airplane parts).

But as he fights himself and his past, he at times can sting, himself and us, with a wry and sharp comment on himself. But he is still unforgiven and unforgiving.

We see him again in the third monolog The Day of the Dead Oaxaaca, Mexico. And a far different hotel. The room is small. It is on the second floor. The heat is intolerable. He is a guest. He could, and tells himself, he could call for a bottle of water to be brought up to him. But he does not call for it. He remembers that the old man who would have to climb to his room is lame. And one remembers the opulence of the hotel in Morocco and the man in that room with his martinis, unwilling to see himself.

The monolog between these two by Ken is movingly played in bright brilliant white sunlight in a hotel in St Thomas, Virgin Islands as his wife Barbara thinks back through where she started and what has happened along the way, ending with she herself becoming the whistle blower on her own husband, as at a scheduled luncheon to the young upcoming corporate wives, she has found herself telling them how it really was and is. What they will find themselves becoming. And most movingly trying to deal with the death of her own fifteen year old son.

This is a production not only rewarding to see, but one that would seem to invite audience discussion, at least for certain, advertised performances. Although set in 1991, the plight of the characters as they make worse the world in which they live, is still one very much with us.

Both actors are well cast and every the inch the characters they play. Their skills are there in the tiny touches – Tierney putting on her shoes as she finishes her monolog – or Weber lighting the candle near the end of his.

With so many plays on so many Berkshires stages, this is one I would like to have time to see again, and of course will not. But I have the feeling it would rewarding. Meanwhile I have tried to suggest enough of what it concerns to send you off to see it for me.

June 2, 2011 performance reviewed by Frances Benn Hall.

The summer 2011 schedule at Shakespeare and Company features Women of Will, which is such a dynamic and engrossing theatrical experience that it seems one must review it only briefly with superlatives for author Tina Packer’s concept in creating it and a listing of the wide ranging ground it covers-scenes in which she, supported by Nigel Gore, brings the numerous characters involved to life.

Or, one may attempt, as I shall, in a longer piece, to explain the theatrical ground it covers and how well it all works. Be forewarned.

Among the many hats my eldest son wears is that of an Equity actor, one he earned in a long-ago summer at the BTF. Although these days he is mainly busy trying to become King of Kindle by getting his many hard cover books onto the Net, his love of Shakespearian theatre brings him often from NYC to the Berkshires (where in 1960 he played Lysander in an outdoor production of A Midsummer Night’s Dream on the terraces of a Lenox estate, then a boarding school.)

As we drove home from the performance, his first comment concerned how, despite years of studying Shakespeare, acting Shakespeare, and viewing the plays in many theatre settings, he had never before had the opportunity of seeing staged the Joan of Arc scenes, from the early War of the Roses cycle, performed, and was delighted with how movingly we had just seen them played, and how wonderful it had been to experience them. How powerful they had been and what a useful opening to his understanding of what Tina Packer was to unfold for us as the evening proceeded.

And in deed it was!

For years the talented and dedicated Packer has been living with her dream of dedication to the Bard-a five part journey covering all his plays created from 1588 until his retirement in 1613. The five parts of Packer’s journey thus begin with the neophyte Shakespeare (oh so talented even then but still groping for expression) and expressing through the plays the attitude of the period in which he was living, to roles women played in the period in which they lived, and how they were perceived in the male world.

His Joan La Pucelle scenes are is the ones in which Shakespeare’s audiences in his Henry VI cycle of histories produced in 1589-90, would have delighted. because they so clearly fit their attitude to the period. Joan in our world has been granted sainthood. And in contemporary drama Shaw has paid her wry homage and Anouilh written so poetically and sympathetically in “The Lark”.

Shakespeare’s Joan is a magnificent character to show us Tina’s thesis. Her chronological journey thru the scenes in which Joan appears deal with Elizabethan attitudes toward the role she attempted to play and how she was forced, as a woman, daring to take part in a man’s world, to be destroyed.

In this opening play of Tina’s 5 part series-The Warrior Woman, from violence to negotiation, not only do we encounter Joan, but also Kate, a shrew who must be tamed, and Margaret of Anjou, who audaciously wanted the throne of England -each a vibrant and passionate woman who lost in fighting for her will in a man’s world.

Skillfully designed and played by Packer and her wry and as written dominating partner, Nigel Gore, these scenes are woven into a self-contained evening-one that surprisingly includes the scene from the War of the Roses in which Gore as dominating male Rutland has his tragic moment, the news of the death of his son, in which he can act dynamically and show us how briefly even the “inferior ” sex could at times wound, if not trumph.

In these scenes and the others in Part I, the women struggle as warriors from violence to negotiation. And even if one does not know the entire play, Tina’s intent and Shakespeare’s attitude are easy to follow since between each scene is a dialog with the audience that pulls us into the intent of both Tina and of what she finds in that of Shakespeare. Gore assists her, often with physical business and stage movement in the audience contact scenes. The attitude of both actors toward the audience is warm and friendly as well as serious, informative and at times joking.

While as planned Woman of Will spans in chronological order the entire ouvre of Shakespeare, in each case dominated by a theme concerning the position of women in the environment of the play, and gradually showing how it shifts.

The complete journey through the plays is divided into 5 cycles, each lasting about two hours, performed on different evenings. One can pick and choose if unable to see all five performances.

The chronological material is divided thus:

• Part I. Warrior Woman-From Violence to Nightmare (low expectations for women in a man’s world)
• Part II. New Knowledge-The Sexual Merges with the Spiritual (Shakespeare sees sexuality can be a spiritual journey as plays considered range from Romeo and Juliet ro Troilus and Cresida and are as merry as Midsummer Nights Dream and as dark as Measure for Measure or Antony and Cleo.
• Part III. Living Underground – Or, Dying to Tell the Truth – (Middle period in Shakespeare, if these women stay dressed as women they go mad or die -plays range from As You Like it to Hamlet.
• Part IV. Chaos Come Again, the Lion Eats the Wolf (Shakespeare’s period of despair at what happens when women want a different voice in society. Disaster follows in Macbeth and Lear and others.
• Part V. Maiden Phoenix – Or, The Daughter Redeems the Father. (Shakespeare changes his story and turns to myth and fairy tales in the Four Romances:; Pericles, Cymbeline, The Winter’s Tale and The Tempest, plays in which the daughters discover the ways to save the situation, usually in relation to the father.

If this sounds complex, it is not so in performance, based on the presentation of Part I which this reviewer found an amazing journey through the early plays which so well expressed the views of the man and the plays and the gradually changing view of women that are expressed in them.

One not only is entertained by a fast paced, information packed, and expertly presented two hours of theatre, but delighted with the subtle and competent presentation of the actors. Packer and Gore work seamlessly together. It is a performance you will long remember. I know one small thing that I will never forget. As Joan, Packer’s facial expression, very clear from my seat, changed so from her first buoyant moment when she entered happy, with the aid of heaven, to serve her country, to the snarling, suddenly older woman, unsympathetic and ugly under English captivity. Of such small moments are remembered ones often granted us.

Woman of Will works on many levels-any amount of Shakespeare experience is enough to gain much from this one.

Credits go also to Director Eric Tucker who has guided his actors well, to Govane Lohbauer for designing costumes that served all scenes with an addition here or a subtraction there, to set designer Patrick Brennan whose seemingly bare stage could become anywhere and did. A tall bare ladder served eloquently.

This play goes off on tour in the Fall. We are fortunate to have it in Lenox now.

August 4, 2000 performance reviewed by Frances Benn Hall

The Einstein Project would have delighted William Butler Yeats, who, a century ago, advocated a kind of total theatre uniting all the arts – voice, dance, text, and art (not to be confused with “scenery”). Yeats was inspired by the intense simplicity of the Japanese Noh theatre, and so it is interesting that Eric Hill, whose directorial hand is strongly present in this work, also looks often to Japan.

Yeats never made it to Japan; having Ezra Pound as a secretary was as close as he got. Hill has, though, and The Einstein Project bears traces of his insights and study. This Berkshire Theatre Festival production is very much a collaboration of all the theatre’s arts. Co-written by Paul D. Andrea and Jon Klein, it is has been co-directed by Hill and Oliver Butler, with dance choreographed by Isadora Wolfe. Lighting by Melissa McLearn and sound by Jason A. Tratta provide all the setting the play needs.

This is a play of many short scenes that flow effortlessly into each other. Place is suggested rather than defined, shifting from Germany to Switzerland to America; time is also fluid, beginning in l945 but cutting backwards and forwards. Characters live and die in the time warps.

Central to all is Einstein, physicist and man, German and Jew. He leaves Germany for America where, still insisting he is a pacifist, he writes the famous letter to Roosevelt that unleashes the horrors of Hiroshima. The play probes his conscience, exposes its frailties, lays bear his cruelty and inability to act towards others with love and compassion. He “thrives on ice” and “never talks as a friend.”

This man’s family, his country, are “outside”. He believes in “tracking the mind of God” but cannot look with pity into the human heart of his son. The play attempts to go beyond the stereotypical image of the scientific genius who at age 42 won the Nobel prize and give us the flawed and contradictory being that he was. In doing so it deals with scenes of shattering emotional intensity. The bomb of l945 destroyed all it touched and “only shadows were left behind.”

The play opens with the bomb. An orderly spaced group of humans stand staring upwards; they gradually, slow motion retreat, pull inward, circle and become a huddled ball in the center of the stage to be flung distortedly outwards, upwards, grotesquely mangled in slow motion, finally to stagger or be carried from sight. It is nightmare and dream.

The next scene has Einstein in Switzerland with his son Edward. They are in a boat, beautifully evoked by a stout rope and billowing white cloth flapped by two actors. In this scene Einstein’s unnecessary cruelty to the child is shattering as he tries to force him to understand a mathematical principal concerning the counting of his fingers.

Baffling the child, he insists the answer must be eleven; the rebuked child in dismay holds up his two hands fighting for his own answer of ten. Lines from this scene will occur later with the child, grown to a young man of 20, is in a strait-jacket, totally mad and still groping for the answer. One cannot help but fault Einstein’s lack of compassion in his human relationships.

Tommy Shrider gives a virtuoso performance as he delves into the character of the conflicted man that Einstein was. He reveals the dark underside of a man few people, perhaps Einstein himself, ever knew. As his son Edward, Amanda Byron, is especially moving. The scenes in which she appears are memorable.

The tightly knit cast in this play move, at times in slow motion, though scene after scene-Einstein’s former German colleagues as prisoners of war in England disbelieving the bombing news on the radio; his daughter Clara, (hauntingly played by Jennifer Elder-Chace) picnicking and dying; his fellow-scientist Werner Heisenberg (James Barry) exhibiting the compassion and conscience that Einstein lacks.

At times the scenes, strong in themselves, come too rapidly and one feels one has missed important clues. But then a tiny wordless scene, in which a Japanese woman pours tea, stabs the heart. This play would be more enlightening second time around. It is accessible, however. One delights in the unusual details of stage movement, in the fluidly shifting time and space that move to the tempos of the play’s essence. The plot line will be easier to follow if one arrives early and reads the program notes, especially those on chronology, which is deliberately shifted in this production.

Our theatre is invigorated by many kinds of plays. This is one of them. Eric Hill’s presence in the Berkshires making such theatre available to us is a blessing not to be taken lightly.