"The Front Page" at Stratford Festival

Stratford Festival ensemble production photo by Emily Cooper

This one was a tough call. The Front Page by Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur is a classic of the American stage. Some even think it's one of the two or three most exemplary American plays. So with the Stratford Festival staging Michael Healey's adaptation of this show, I really wanted to see it. Not to mention that it would be my chance to finally see a show in the Festival Theatre. On the other hand, during our visit it was opposite a new and interesting sounding new play (Mother's Daughter by Kate Hennig). So we split up and I went to see The Front Page while the rest of the family went to see Mother's Daughter.

Adding to the dilemma: the morning before these two competing matinees, we attended a panel discussion called "Tudormania", about the ongoing interest in the Tudor family of British royalty. A couple of academics and playwright Hennig made a good bridge between the previous night's Henry VIII and Mother's Daughter, which focuses on Queen Mary, the bridge between Henry VIII and Elizabeth I. Countering that is that the previous night while having a nightcap at the pub and trying out our new Trivial Pursuit: The Shakespeare Edition at the bar, we met one of the company members who is in the cast of The Front Page. Moot point, I guess, since I already had a ticket, but definitely added incentive to go see my new friend's play, rather than the play of the writer I briefly met after the panel discussion.

Short answer, Stratford is just a cool place where you can meet interesting theater people.

The Play

So, anyway, the play I did see. It's set in the press room of the Chicago criminal court building, where a group of beat writers are awaiting the execution of a controversial convicted murderer. Writers Hecht and MacArthur were both reporters themselves, so it's kind of a fun insight into the lives of a group who were not highly regarded. It's also a view into the corrupt local government that Chicago was so famous for, particularly during Prohibition. This adaptation also adds some elements of gender (more female roles, with more lines and more agency) and plays up the racial elements more, too.

It's pretty amazing to hear elected officials from 1928 (in this case, the sheriff and the mayor) attacking the free press and accusing them of (literally) "fake news"--there truly is nothing new under the sun. In fact, a lot of the issues raised in the play could easily come out of today's headlines. We have elected officials monkeying with the timing of an execution (and indeed, with whether to execute at all) as leverage for an upcoming election, pandering to specific elements of the electorate. And we have various of the reporters reporting the story with varying levels of, shall we say, creativity.

One of the more pointed sections of the dialogue comes when Wilson (E.B. Smith), the only African American writer in the gang, discusses why he can't afford to write anything that isn't scrupulously sourced and verified, since there are elements in town who would love to shut down both him and his black-run paper for any excuse. Similarly, when the sheriff is handing out tickets to the execution, he gives a pair to each of the writers, but not to Wilson, who has to go a little extra to get his.

As the play progresses and the plot devolves, there are a number of little humorous twists in the plot, all adding up to a developing farce, as we finally get an escaped fugitive hiding out in the press room while one of the writers , Hildy (Ben Carlson), aided by his boss, Mrs. Burns (Maev Beaty), tries to secure an exclusive story without the others even knowing the fugitive is there. It's silly, yet somehow believable that a paper would go to such lengths to score a scoop.

For all the hijinks, there are a lot of meaningful bits and threads running through the play--it is much more than it appears on the surface. I'm not clear that it really qualifies as one of the truly great American plays, but it's not a mere screwball comedy, either.

The Production

By now it probably goes without my saying that the quality of the productions at Stratford is pretty consistently amazing. One of the things this show takes advantage of is the large repertory company. Although there are a good dozen meaty roles in the play, there are also a number of small parts. Rather than doubling or tripling the casting, Stratford can pull actors with big roles in other shows and assign them to small roles. For example, the minor but amusing role of the gangster Diamond Louis is played by Michael Blake, who on a different day will play the title role in Othello.

I should comment on the Festival Theatre, of course. I had taken the backstage tour of it last year, so I'd been inside (and backstage...), but this was my first time seeing a show. It's quite a large house, seating well over 2,000 people, though it wasn't close to sold out for this Wednesday matinee. But the design is wonderful. Built to mimic the original festival tent from the 1950s, the audience nearly surrounds a large, three-quarter thrust stage (i.e. there are people on three sides of the stage). That provides a much more visually rich, intimate experience, even in such a large space. It's a big stage, but it works really well for a show like this, and I know they use it for a lot of their big musicals now, too. As a theater, I have to say I like it better than the Avon Theatre, where we saw Little Shop the previous afternoon, which has a more traditional proscenium setup. And the Studio Theatre is a wonderful little black box with very steeply-raked seats on three sides, so it is also three-quarter thrust, just on a much smaller scale. Next year they will open a new theater, so there will be four--wow!

The combination of the theater and the terrific cast makes the more-than-three hour run time bearable (with two intervals), and director Graham Abbey keeps the pace lively without being too manic (until the farce comes to a head, of course) and the set design by Lorenzo Savoini is really evocative of a government office building of the period.

Bottom Line

I really enjoyed the show. For what it's worth, the rest of the family also enjoyed Mother's Daughter, so we now have a copy of the script so I can read it. As noted earlier, I don't know that this play is really up near the top of the American stage canon, but it holds up remarkably well for a modern audience, at least with the adaptations in this version.

And I'm pretty much coming to the conclusion that any show at the Stratford Festival is going to be worth seeing, between the production values and the choice of scripts. I heard remarkable things, for example, about last season's production of To Kill a Mockingbird, which apparently was able to plumb some of the history of American racism in ways that I've never seen a U.S. production achieve. I'm sorry I missed that one.

So it was fun to see this Canadian interpretation of a different American classic. It's scheduled to run through October 25th, in case you find yourself in Stratford.

"Henry VIII" at Stratford Festival

Stratford Festival production photo by Emily Cooper

Sometimes it feels like I've seen all the Shakespeare plays (though there are still about a handful I have neither seen nor read), but there are quite a few that I have seen rarely, or once. I have great memories of seeing Henry VIII at Ashland on my first trip there, about ten years ago. It was wonderfully done, and riveting in the outdoor Elizabethan theater. So given the choice of seeing it in Stratford this week or joining the rest of the family to see Billy Elliot, I chose Shakespeare.

The Play

My strong memory was that although King Henry VIII provides the context for the play, it was largely a play about Cardinal Wolsey and Katherine of Aragon. And that is really the case, at least for most of the play. The political machinations of Wolsey (Rob Beattie) do occupy much of the bulk of the play, and they largely come at the expense of Katherine (Irene Poole). I found the play engaging and the politics fascinating, though I gather my reaction is somewhat atypical. I was looking at a cute poster they sell in the Festival shop, depicting a flow chart for determining which Shakespeare play to watch, and Henry VIII is indicated for those who want to take a nap.

The play is talky--there isn't a lot of action. But in the intimacy of the Studio Theatre it's all right there in front of you, and even from my position in the front corner where I was often behind the actors, there was always a lot to see, and the actors mostly play the thrust stage almost as if they were in the round, so I didn't feel like I was missing much.

I will say toward the end, after the rather unremarkable transition from Katherine to Anne Boleyn and the subsequent birth of Elizabeth, the play gets a bit mawkish in foreshadowing the amazing impact she will have on the nation. With this play coming out relatively soon after the death of Elizabeth, it's understandable that there is some necessary hagiography, but it really kind of diminishes the impact of Henry as a historical figure if he's just the necessary forebear of the future Queen Elizabeth I.

The Production

This is a sort of play where the Stratford Festival really excels. Although there are not a lot of big roles, there are a lot of actors required, and the repertory company has plenty. Plus, they have a huge storehouse of period costumes, so even though the little theater doesn't accommodate a lot of set pieces, the costuming is lush and varied, and the lighting makes it all quite vivid.

King Henry himself (Jonathan Goad) is good, though hardly the major force one expects from other depictions of that ruler. This Henry seems quite willing to let others run rather amok and only sort it out when he must--much more passive than I would expect. On the other hand, if Henry is diminished by his lack of vigor, it gives more room for lesser characters to shine a bit. Tim Campbell's brief early stint as the Duke of Buckingham is one such, and Stephen Russell as the Lord Chamberlain is another.

But really, as usual, the cast and designs are just solid throughout. It's really a joy to see such vibrant, detailed renderings of Shakespeare's plays.

Bottom Line

Maybe I'm weird, but I really liked this play. And judging from the enthusiastic response from the full house, I'm not the only one.

I find this history play rather more approachable than most (perhaps because I'm not particularly steeped in British history myself), and quite enjoy the politics and such. I'm happy I got to see it again. The play runs through at least mid-October, and is well worth seeing if you're at the festival.

"Little Shop of Horrors" at Stratford Festival

Stratford Festival production photo by Chris Young

We're making a quick stop at the Stratford Festival this year on our way to New York. Only two days here, but two plays each day. First up is a musical for everybody: Little Shop of Horrors. I've seen this on stage once before, and also enjoyed the musical version of the movie, so really, what could be bad?

The Play

I think this story is pretty well known. On Skid Row in New York City there is a flower shop run by Mr. Mushnik. He has two employees, Seymour (an orphan who Mushnik raised from childhood) and Audrey, the battered girlfriend of a sadistic dentist. Business is bad on Skid Row, and so is life. Just as Mushnik is about to give up and shutter the business, Seymour puts one of the exotic plants he raises as a hobby in the window. Suddenly, everything changes, seemingly for the better, but of course there is a price to pay.

As musicals go, the songs are mostly pretty good (written by the team of Howard Ashman and Alan Menken, who combined to write a lot of successful Disney movie scores). But this is also an adaptation of a Roger Corman "B" movie from 1960, so it's a bit dark. All in all, that blends pretty well. Some of it is a bit dated, but like most older movies about even older periods, you have to look at the intentions of the time as well as the sensibilities of the present. For the most part, it works well.

The Production

As with every production I've seen at Stratford over the last two years, this one is excellently done. Great acting, design, and direction. This is a particularly tricky show to produce, requiring as it does some major mechanical puppetry, but it seemed to work pretty flawlessly. The lead actors all have strong voices, and the trio of singers who act as sort of a Greek chorus were really very good.

I didn't especially love the set design, which puts Mushnik's flower shop in a circle in the middle of the stage, but I also realize that all the mechanics required to handle the exotic plants limit what one can do. The projections in the background were fun and interesting.

Bottom Line

There's not a lot to say about this show. It's fun, and the production is top quality. The crowd loved it, and the run has been extended well into November. This is the kind of thing I've come to expect at Stratford.