"Roe" at Oregon Shakespeare Festival

One of the cool things about a company the size of the Oregon Shakespeare Festival is that they can support a lot of theater and theater artists, beyond just presenting their long, repertory season of plays every year. One initiative that has been paying great dividends is their 10-year series, "American Revolutions: The United States History Cycle," which commissions plays about moments of change in American history.

Twenty-four plays have resulted so far, or which seven ("Roe" makes eight) have been produced in Ashland. Over the last few years they've done some terrific shows on diverse topics, including two about LBJ that we've really enjoyed. I thought last year's "Sweat," by Lynn Nottage, was one of the highlights of the OSF season, and I expect it will be coming to the Bay Area before too long.

But I have to admit a little trepidation coming into this season, knowing that our "revolution" was going to be Lisa Loomer's "Roe," which promised a play about the ongoing controversy surrounding abortion and choice in this country. Since it's really difficult to have a sane conversation on the topic, I worried that the play would end up being either very sentimental or polemical.

To her credit, Loomer has created a really interesting play that manages to be fair to all the parties involved, doesn't pull its punches, and even manages to provide a fair number of light, funny, and touching moments.

Roe v. Wade

The Roe in the title is Jane Roe, the alias for the (formerly) anonymous plaintiff in the landmark legal case of Roe v. Wade. Jane Roe is now known to be Norma McCorvey, a difficult and often unsympathetic character played quite well by Sara Bruner. Sarah Jane Agnew plays the attorney, Sarah Weddington, who brings the case against District Attorney Wade on behalf of McCorvey/Roe.

The play treads carefully along the time line, trying to to fall into the too-much-narration trap that can hinder a historical play, and spends some time toying with the fourth wall as the characters argue over who said what, when, and why. The conceit of the play is basically that Weddington and McCorvey are telling us the story from the start, though they can't really agree on what is the start. And they will quibble over things said and implied over the course of the story, adding to the lighter moments and bringing out the humanity of the characters in what could otherwise be a dry, if contentious, story.

Roe v. McCorvey

I suppose it's not surprising that Roe/McCorvey turns out to be the most interesting character in the story, but in many ways it's not because of the conflict that ends up in a legal battle before the Supreme Court. Indeed, that pregnancy that she wants to terminate is in some ways among the least interesting aspects of McCorvey's long and winding road.

When we meet her, she is a woman in her early twenties who is pregnant, but still partying and drinking heavily. And oh, yeah, she's a lesbian, which is not something you really want to discuss in Texas in 1970 or so. It's fascinating to watch Norma finally land in a stable relationship, work in an abortion clinic, and undergo a religious conversion under the tutelage of Operation Rescue. It's kind of a truth-stranger-than-fiction scenario.

But what's clear throughout is that Norma McCorvey is not a woman comfortable in her own skin, in spite of her flippant and sarcastic efforts to make you think otherwise. Frankly, I thought a lot of Norma's lines, though funny, were pretty unrealistic. She is, after all, a minimally-educated person, but some of her quips seem a bit too polished. She has a difficult life, and Jane Roe is only a part of it, and one that doesn't clearly make her life better in any measurable way.

Indeed, one of the big themes covered by the play is the conflict between the interests of society or at least large groups or movements, versus the interests of individuals. Weddington really wants to change national policy for everyone, and Norma just wants to get an abortion right now.

Theater Stuff

It's fun watching the decades pass, seeing what changes, yet in many ways, what doesn't. A lot of it happens right there on stage before our eyes. We get bits of history before our eyes, as historical events intrude on the play, characters swoop in, sometimes exploit the situation, and move on.

It's a compelling story, and keeps you watching and listening throughout, even when you find the words being spoken or the actions being taken to be appalling or revolting. Better than most such efforts, the play manages to cover the various sides of the controversy (despite the fact that the audience seemed to have a decided slant to one side) and show the basic humanity of the characters involved. One trope I thought Loomer used very effectively was having several characters tell us on stage what was said in their obituaries. That was pretty powerful.

And at least at this writing, they are still tweaking the play a bit. The week before we saw it, the Supreme Court handed down a ruling about Texas abortion clinics that is germane to the action late in the play, so they've  changed a line near the end to reflect the current state. So clearly, this is a timely work.

I have no idea whether this will hold up over time. Someone in our party overheard a couple of young women talking at the intermission, and one indicated she had no idea that abortion had been illegal. So perhaps there is a need to keep telling this story, beyond just updating the history.

Is it great theater? I guess time will tell. But it is an effective use of dramatic art to tell a historical story that clearly needs to be told about a turning point in American history. And that, after all, is the point of American Revolutions.