"The Road to Mecca" at Z Below

 

Production photo by Kevin Berne

This show kind of sneaked up on us. I admit I don't pay close enough attention to what's playing at Z Space and Z Below, but when a friend mentioned that there was an Athol Fugard play going up at Z Below, it seemed like a great idea.I haven't seen a lot of Fugard's work, but I always find the stories fascinating, so this was an easy choice.

The Play

I didn't really know much coming into this, but the more I learned from the program and some online poking, the more interesting it became. Most specifically, finding out that the play was inspired by the life of an actual person was super intriguing!

So, we have an older (~70) woman living by herself in a small, remote town in South Africa in 1974. New Bethesda is a conservative, religious town mostly populated by Afrikaners, and Miss Helen has been something of an outcast in the community since her husband died and she started making art in her yard. The cement sculptures she populates her yard in are meant to indicate a move to "Mecca", or more broadly, "the East". No one in town knows quite what to make of Miss Helen or her Mecca.

Enter Elsa, a young British woman who was just passing through. She became friends with Miss Helen and appreciated her artwork, then moved on to Cape Town where she now teaches. The play commences with Elsa returning, unannounced, to Miss Helen's home, in response to a disturbing letter she has received from Miss Helen.

In the first act, Elsa and Miss Helen have a bit of a reunion interspersed with some verbal jockeying and difficult discussions. It appears the local church is trying to get Miss Helen to move to a retirement community for her own good, but Elsa suspects there is more to it, and that Marius, the pastor, is up to something.

In act two, Marius arrives on the scene and all three characters have some deep, difficult discussions. A lot gets dredged up from all of them.

It's not a big play, but it's deep, and the characters get well into the role of the individual versus the interests of the group, the rights of the indigenous "coloured" peoples, and much more. It's very personal for all of the characters, but with much wider implications. The interplay of "love" and "trust" is a big key to it all.

The Performance

The set is really evocative: an eclectic space with lots of candles and little art pieces in a fairly rustic home. The design by Erik Flatmo, lighted by Kurt Landisman, with props and set decoration by Leah Hammond, is really evocative. It's a small, homey space, but very particular to this character, Miss Helen (Wendy vanden Heuvel). Miss Helen has terrific rapport with Elsa (Kodi Jackman), though it's also very clear that there is much being left unsaid for much of the play. The staid, reserved Marius (Victor Talmadge) is both an outsider to the women's more familial relationship, but very much the establishment of the local community. It's a pretty complex dynamic for such a small set of people, but the actors do a good job with it. Director Timothy Near seems to have a good feel for Fugard and the South African culture, and it comes through in the performance.

Both vanden Heuvel and Talmadge have occasional difficulty with the Afrikaner accent, but both handle it well enough most of the time to keep it from being a distraction.

The Bottom Line

The material was dense and sometimes difficult, but ultimately it was a pretty gripping and emotionally interesting story. All three characters are interesting, and the production is visually appealing. All in all, it was a satisfying evening at the theater. Unfortunately, the show is closing on June 30th, so you've probably missed it. But it's worth keeping an eye open for shows at Z Space, and particularly those by Weathervane Productions, which presented this show.

"Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" at Oakland Theater Project

 

Oakland Theater Project production photo by Ben Krantz

This is a play I like, though it's often tough to watch. I saw it multiple times a few years ago at Shotgun Players, so got a good feel for the text. I really need to see the film version, given my recent exposure to Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor in another context.

Anyway, this show falls in the category of plays that are rather unpleasant to watch, but the writing is so good and so insightful that it's worth watching four people's lives implode before you.

The Play

I don't have a lot to add to what I said about the play when I saw it at Shotgun in 2016, except to say that I appreciate the writing even more now. Edward Albee crafted this play brilliantly, and it still holds up now, sixty years later.

The Production

This being Oakland Theater Project, the house is small, so it's a pretty intimate experience. The set by Dina Zarif is simple, but evokes the atmosphere of a mid-century modern design. It's stark and white and rectilinear with steps and informal seating. And of course, the bar, right in the center. I quite liked the mirror behind the bar as a statement, both about the period and about the nature of the play.

Two things I note about the casting: One, during Albee's lifetime, he insisted that all the characters in the play were white, and therefore must be played by white actors. I gather his estate has eased up on that, as both of the men in this cast are black. I think that opens up the dynamics of the characters in interesting ways, and I'm glad to see that theaters are now allowed to explore these matters (and give the opportunity to play these amazing characters to actors previously excluded). Two, in the Shotgun production, all four actors were people I know quite well, so there was always some cognitive dissonance in seeing them play these quite extreme roles. Seeing the play again with actors I don't know, I had a different level of distance from them, and was able to interrogate the roles differently. So that was interesting.

All in all, I thought the play was well done. It's a very difficult text, but director Michael Socrates Moran does a good job of keeping the action where it needs to be. All four actors (Lisa Ramirez as Martha, Adrian Roberts as George, Wera von Wulfen as Honey, and William Hodgson as Nick) did a solid job, drifting steadily into intoxication. I've been really impressed with Roberts' work lately, having seen him in OTP's The Tempest last year (pre-blog revival) and mere weeks ago in Aurora's Cyrano.

The Bottom Line

I really like the play, and OTP's little black-box garage space works remarkably well for a show like this. I thought the production as a whole was quite competent, though some of my compatriots felt the costuming was not sufficiently accurate to the period. But that aside, I thought the interpretation of Albee's work was very solid, and on the whole well worth seeing.

OTP has been a very reliable source of quality theater in the east bay of late, particularly when Moran directs. I really look forward to their work, though I'm generally not enamored of the theater space.

"The Wizard of Oz" at ACT

 

ACT production photo by Kevin Berne

Normally I wouldn't go far out of my way to see a production of The Wizard of Oz. It's a well-worn story that has become almost a parody of itself, so one must tread carefully. But this production featured a bunch of my friends in the cast, as well as a number of other well-known and respected local actors, so it seemed like it ought to be fun.

The Play

Really? Am I going to summarize L. Frank Baum's classic story (adapted by John Kane for the Royal Shakespeare Company) here? If you don't know the story in some form, you probably have no business reading this. Dorothy and her little dog, Toto, run away from home in Kansas just as a tornado hits, transporting them to the land of Oz, where Dorothy makes friends and enemies on her way to solicit assistance from the eponymous wizard in order to return home.

The Production

As you can deduce from the production photo, it's a very colorful production. The designers and crew obviously had a field day with this one, and I'm sure it's not a coincidence that the performance schedule fell right in the middle of Pride month in San Francisco. It's campy and a bit raucous, clearly influenced by artists such as Taylor Mac, but not in a way that would prevent it being a kid-friendly show. And indeed, there were plenty of families with children in the audience, along with a goodly contingent from Pride activities. In short, a cross-section of San Francisco and Bay Area life.

Dorothy (Chanel Tilghman) has an incredible voice, but I don't think she quite pulls off the childlike quality needed for the character. We need to feel like this is a child in trouble, who needs to get back home, but mostly she comes off like kind of a petulant teenager. Toto is a puppet. Dorothy's companions in Oz (Danny Scheie as the Scarecrow, Darryl V. Jones as the Tin Man, and Cathleen Riddley as the Lion) are all very strong and sympathetic in their portrayals, with Scheie getting to be quite snarky at times. 

I guess my main qualm about the show is its self-awareness that creates a bit of distance. Director/choreographer Sam Pinkelton lets the cast get playful, which is fun, but as a result the show lacks a certain earnestness that would help sell the story to the audience. By continually breaking the fourth wall (e.g., Courtney Walsh as the Wicked Witch keeps encouraging us to boo her), we're taken out of the story line, which probably contributes to the overall lack of cohesion. The cast is obviously having a ball, but by endlessly reminding us that they're putting on a big, fun show for us, we never get to enjoy the show itself, the story they are ultimately trying to tell.

The Bottom Line

It was great fun to watch, and clearly a lot of fun to put on. But I can't help feeling that they missed an opportunity to do something more. By assuming that we all know the story, so they can just play and camp it up, they miss the chance to actually let us learn something from the story itself. Because the whole reason the Wizard of Oz is a timeless classic is that there is an underlying story there, and I think that got lost in the effort to throw a big, campy party.

So I really enjoyed watching my friends putting on a show. I just wish the director and company had shown a little more respect for the story they were telling, instead of just leaning into the costumes and props and effects. There really is something useful to be conveyed by the script if they'd remembered to give it that level of care.

Fun. Glad I went. Wish it could have been a bit more substantial under all that color and glitter.

"Let the Right One In" at Berkeley Rep

 

Berkeley Rep production photo by Kevin Berne

As part of our rushing around, trying to catch up on all the local shows in our subscriptions before they close, we scrambled in to see Let the Right One In at Berkeley Rep just before it closed. Clearly, I had not been paying much attention, as I went in knowing essentially nothing about this play, or the movie it was based on. I suppose had I been better prepared, my reaction might have been different, but overall, I think my impression is valid.

The Play

The play is an adaptation by Jack Thorne (yes, the same one who wrote The Motive and the Cue, which we just saw in London!) of the Swedish novel and film by John Ajvide Lindqvist. Though I had never heard of either, apparently the film is kind of a cult classic, but in a genre I don't pay attention to. So I found myself pretty baffled by a lot of what was going on.

It turns out this is a vampire story (though they carefully avoid using that term for some reason). Oskar, a 12-year-old, bullied social outcast meets Eli, who appears to be about the same age, in the playground outside his home. Eli sort of presents as female, but really falls into the non-binary category, and indeed, self-describes as neither a boy nor a girl, but "nothing". Eli lives with Hakan, who it turns out has been harvesting people in the woods to provide blood for Eli, which causes terror among the locals.

When events finally catch up with Hakan, Eli needs someone new to rely on, and coincidentally, Oskar needs someone to protect him from the bullies. A match made in, um, Sweden, I guess.

I've never been a fan of vampire stories or horror movies much, though I realize they have wide appeal. I get the whole vampire as metaphor for queerness thing, which is fine. I just don't enjoy watching all the gore and bullying and such. But that's what we've got. I probably would have opted out of seeing this show had I realized what it was, but since I saw it, you get to read my reactions.

The Production

This is a well-done show. The set by Christine Jones is elegant in its simplicity, though the locals seem to spend a lot of time pondering the trees and snow, considering they live there all the time. Director John Tiffany seems to want to make sure we notice that everyone is aware that there are trees and it's snowing. And groups of actors seem to spontaneously start dancing in unison (with movement choreographed by associate director Stephen Hoggett). As I have doubtless mentioned often, I'm not a big dance fan--I don't really understand it--and it doesn't seem to add much to the show, though many people seemed to enjoy it. Similarly, the weird contortions of Eli (Noah Lamanna) apparently evoke "vampire" in the minds of those in the know. I mean, it's impressive and I guess well done, but I'm sure there are other ways to convey the otherness and the physical cravings of a hungry vampire. But subtlety is not a hallmark of the horror genre.

So anyway, it's hard for me to see the relationship between Eli and Oskar (Diego Lucano) as anything but another instance of someone taking advantage of Oskar's weaknesses. 

The Bottom Line

I feel like this is happening a lot lately, but this seems like yet another show that appeals to a particular audience (which is good), but not to me (which is fine). I wish I'd known that going in, since I might well have foregone this particular experience, knowing that it's something I generally dislike. On the plus side, it was nice to see a lot of people in the theater that are not generally there. And indeed, a friend who ushers at Berkeley Rep confirms that they're pulling in a much younger audience for this show. That's great!

But unlike a show such as last week's Yerma at Shotgun, where I can appreciate the show on some levels, this genre just feels very exclusive. Although I can appreciate that some audience members like seeing this kind of story, and maybe even relate to some of the characters, I struggle to see what anyone else (i.e., me) is supposed to get out of the experience. But this is why I keep going to the theater: new experiences, new questions. It's not always pleasant for me, but it's interesting to see what people are doing and think about why and how.

But I'll pass on the horror/vampire play next time.

"Yerma" at Shotgun Players

 

Shotgun Players production photo by Ben Krantz

OK, back from our vacation jaunts, with plenty of local theater to catch up on. Lots of things closing in the next couple of weeks, so we'll sneak them in when we can!

First up in Yerma at Shotgun Players. I thought we were going to miss this entirely, but they added a Wednesday evening show that we could squeeze in between a couple of little trips, so we literally made the one performance we could before they closed.

The Play

I actually had a chance to read the script while it was under consideration for the Shotgun season, and frankly, I was not that impressed. It's an adaptation and translation by Melinda Lopez of a play by Spanish poet Federico Garcia Lorca about a young woman, Yerma, who desperately wants to have a child with her husband, Juan. But she never conceives. The play is about her efforts to have a child, and what she will and won't do to achieve that.

For whatever reason, the story doesn't appeal to me. Perhaps I've never been in a position of wanting something terribly that I could not have. But whatever it is, the play just doesn't do it for me. But clearly it has a strong appeal for many others, so I was hoping to find something in the performance that eluded me when reading. 

The Production

The play is indeed better in the flesh than it was on paper, but I still don't think it's all that. In the hands of director Katja Rivera (a long-time member of the Shotgun artistic company, making her mainstage directorial debut) and a good crew of designers (Nina Ball designed the set, lighted by Sara Saavedra, with costumes by Valera Coble), the story comes to life. But there still isn't that much story. I find myself siding with the majority of the characters who can't fathom why Yerma seems unwilling to take any of the alternative options presented to her (e.g., sleep with someone who looks like your husband, or adopt one of your many nieces and nephews) when endlessly repeating the same scheme continues to produce no results.

Regina Morones as Yerma, Caleb Cabrera as Juan, and Samuel Prince as Victor all give fine performances, but the material they have to work with just doesn't give them much room to shine. And some of Yerma's friends and relations (such as they are--she's pretty distant from everyone) manage to give more life to the characters than I detected in the script. Notably, Linda Maria Giron as Marta and Linda Amayo-Hassan as Incarnacion manage to make me care about them.

The Bottom Line

This just seems to be one of those plays that has great appeal to some audience, but not to me, personally. (Another example would be last season's Man of God at Shotgun.) Well done, but with a script that doesn't do much for me. But that's fine. Theater isn't just for me, and I can appreciate that there is value in hearing other voices and seeing other faces on stage.

So I applaud theaters for taking steps to highlight other stories, especially when they do it well. Expanding the scope of the works and the audience are both important goals. With so many theaters struggling to draw audiences after the pandemic, it's good to see so many of them at least trying to reach out to broader swaths of the community.

2023 Summer Theater Tour: London Portion

 After our week in New York City, we headed for Europe, which included two short stays in London, so we booked two plays during each, for a total of four shows. Since we had only a limited time, we were pretty selective, and were pretty sure we'd like everything we saw.

Out of the four shows, I'd say two really stood out, but we quite enjoyed all four.

The Best

Two shows stood out for us, both because they're very well written plays and because the performances were just top-notch:

• The Motive and the Cue
• Patriots

Each of those just kind of reminded me of how great London theater really is.

Also Very Good

Neither of these others is bad at all, just not as outstanding as the other two:

• A Midsummer Night's Dream
• Operation Mincemeat

Overall, I'd have to say it was a most successful venture through London! So between our New York and London stops, we saw thirteen plays, and at least five of those were genuinely excellent. That's a pretty terrific ratio, I'd say. It's nice to be able to go on the road again and catch some theater!

"Operation Mincemeat" at Fortune Theatre

 This is one of those shows where we just took a flier on it. We were coming to London and had one night where we could fit in a play, and didn't have a clear favorite for what to see. Operation Mincemeat was getting great reviews, so since nothing else jumped out at us, we decided to check it out.

The Play

Based on real events in World War II that also became a movie, Operation Mincemeat refers to a plan concocted by British Intelligence (MI5) to convince the Germans to move their troops out of Sicily, where the Allies planned to invade. It's an example of some of the Hail Mary chances the Allies managed to pull off. In this case, they planted fake invasion plans (pointing to Sardinia) on a corpse made to look like a British pilot who crashed in Spain. The notion being that if the Germans found these plans they would believe the invasion was coming to Sardinia and move their troops there, thus enabling the Allies to invade Sicily as planned.

So we get a bunch of MI5's smartest guys in the room all trying to posture and promote their own schemes. The story here is as much about the infighting and internal politics in the intelligence service as it is about the actual operation. But it's charmingly and disarmingly done with self-deprecating musical numbers. On the face of it, the whole thing seems a bit daft--both the actual WWII operation and the scheme to portray it in a musical comedy--but it works. It's especially effective that the whole show is Brits poking fun at their own system: prep schools, class differences, bureaucracy, Ian Fleming, etc.

The show was written by four artists, David Cumming, Felix Hagan, Natasha Hodgson, and Zoë Roberts, and all by Hagan are still appearing in the show. It's kind of staged like a musical revue, but also like a more traditional musical theater piece. It's silly, but never veers so far off into the silliness that it gets truly outrageous, which probably saves the whole endeavor.

The Production

The show includes five actors, which as far as I can tell are sort of a revolving group from the nine cast members. Essentially there are two actors who can play each of the five roles/tracks, but I have no idea how they choose who goes on when. Our cast included two of the three original writers (Natasha Hodgson as Montagu and Zoë Roberts as Johnny Bevan). All five actors portray male and female characters and do a lot of quick switching. It's really quite impressive.

Of particular note was Jak Malone in the role of Hester Leggett. He evoked a lot of pathos in a wide-ranging performance. Frankly, all of the actors have to have a lot of range, but Malone in particular showed both breadth of skill and a depth of empathy that was especially impressive.

The Fortune Theatre is pretty small, so even from our seats toward the rear, we had a great view. Also, the full house was filled with a terrific variety of people, from teens to seniors, and all seemed to be enjoying it immensely. I've not seen a theater production in a long time that seems to have such a broad appeal, particularly with the younger crowd. There seemed to be multiple groups of roughly high school aged kids out together, where I would have expected them to be at a movie or something. That was refreshing to see! And particularly surprising since the subject matter revolves around WWII, which doesn't seem like prime teen viewing today.

The Bottom Line

If I had to sum things up in two words, I would probably choose "funny" and "charming". And when I say funny, I mean that in a genuinely comedic sense, where the audience was engaged and amused, but not just yukking it up from one gag to the next. And charming in the sense that although the play pokes fun at almost everyone, it does so in a gentle and affectionate way that engages rather than distances one from the objects of the fun. In that sense, it's a remarkably subtle and thoughtful effort.

We genuinely enjoyed the show. It feels like a truly British theater experience, but even as foreigners (and Americans were definitely among the targets of the jokes!) we felt welcomed and included in the crowd. It definitely felt like a slice of local culture, rather than just a piece of art for art's sake.

So I would recommend this for a light, fun evening at the theater. They're currently selling tickets through September 23rd, but I think it's pretty much an open-ended run at this point.

"Patriots" at Noel Coward Theatre

 

Production photo by Marc Brenner

After a quick trip to Paris, we came back through London for a few days to catch up with friends and maybe another play or two. Peter Morgan's Patriots kept showing up on a lot of lists of good shows, so we decided to check it out. It was an added bonus that it was playing at the Noel Coward Theatre, and we had just heard a lecture on the life and career of Noel Coward, who also happens to be a favorite artist of one of the friends we'd been traveling with. So all signs pointed to this play!

The Play

Even without all the omens, this looked like a play we'd find interesting. It's basically about the rise of Russian oligarchs taking up the power vacuum left by the fall of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, and particularly the story of one of the most visible oligarchs, Boris Berezovsky, the controlling owner of Russia's main state television station, ORT. As a media mogul, Berezovsky was able to both reflect the government's policies and also influence them, including boosting the career of a former KGB officer and low-level party apparatchik named Vladimir Putin.

Berezovsky's position is that he is saving Russia (or at least what he believes to be important about Russia) by exerting his financial muscle to advance his preferred policies. Although he also accumulates tremendous personal wealth and privilege, he believes he is being patriotic by "saving Russia" in the absence of coherent political action. The core conflict in the play is the tug-of-war between politicians and businessmen, each believing themselves to be the true patriots.

In a sort of Frankenstein scenario, we ultimately see Berezovsky's creation, Putin, rise up and thwart his benefactor, with Berezovsky ending up in exile in Britain, trying to find ways to influence, and ultimately return to, Russia.

It's quite involved, and covers a lot of Russian history that is probably not well understood by a lot of Americans. But of course, this is British theater, so they assume a much higher level of involvement by their audience. Morgan's script is clever and clear, bringing out the conflicts both within the character of Berezovsky and between him and the enigmatic Putin.

The Production

I'm always amazed at the quality of the theatre productions in London. It's really good to see support given to thoughtful plays that might not attract a mass audience, but which get full houses for good-length runs in the major theaters. The quality of the acting and the designs is always a pleasant surprise to me, since so few plays get that kind of treatment in the U.S.

This is a case where the production itself isn't terribly glitzy, but it's more complex than you might initially think, and it's very effective. The lighting and sound work is excellent, and the acting is top-notch, starting with Tom Hollander as Berezovsky. I had the pleasure of seeing Hollander a few years ago in the Broadway transfer of a UK production of Tom Stoppard's Travesties, and he was stellar in that. So it's no surprise that he carries this production as well. Berezovsky is the central character throughout, so he has a lot of lifting to do. Will Keen's rendition of Putin is also quite good, managing to evoke the cypher that is the bureaucrat-turned-autocrat, such that we're never sure whether Berezovsky manipulated Putin into office, or Putin manipulated Berezovsky into putting him there. The two play off each other magnificently.

Director Rupert Goold keeps the show moving right along. Berezovsky loves to talk, and he talks fast, so we jump from one scene to the next, one phone call to the next meeting, all at rapid pace. Berezovsky is like a manic Wall Street exec from the crazy 80s, constantly making deals and pulling strings. He's oh-so-confident that he's in control until suddenly, he is not. The supporting cast is consistently strong, particularly Josef Davies as Alexander Litvinenko and Ronald Guttman as Berezovsky's academic mentor and sounding board, Professor Perelman.

The Bottom Line

It's a good play, well written and well produced, so it develops and maintains interest in a subject that might not seem so intrinsically interesting. But it's an intriguing insight into how things happen in post-Soviet Russia, which is an important player in the modern world even as it tries to be something else.

We were quite taken with the overall production, and talked about the show at length for several days after, which is always a good sign. The show currently runs through August 19th in the West End. I'd say it's well worth seeing.

"A Midsummer Night's Dream" at Shakespeare's Globe Theatre

Shakespeare's Globe production photo by Helen Murray

 

This was my second visit to Shakespeare's Globe Theatre. The first must have predated my blogging, as I don't have a record of it. I'm pretty sure it was The Merchant of Venice. In any case, it was a very good production, so I was looking forward to this. Midsummer isn't my favorite Shakespeare play, but it can be very good, and I looked forward to what the Globe company would do with it.

The Play

It's Shakespeare. It's a comedy. Lots of fairies and a play within the play and Puck getting up to mischief. You know the drill.

The Production

One thing I like about plays at Shakespeare's Globe is that the theater is very traditional, to the point that they basically don't do sets. Minimal decoration, lots of interesting costuming, and let the play do most of the work. Having seen a number of way over-the-top productions of A Midsummer Night's Dream in recent years, I was looking forward to a more minimalist approach. This did not disappoint. aside from a net that provided Titania's bower and a few props for the mechanicals to use in their Pyramus and Thisbe, it was mostly just a stage and a bunch of actors.

Several things jumped out about the cast. One, it was quite diverse, and two, they cast women in a number of the more traditional male roles (e.g., Mariah Gale as Bottom). In fact, all the mechanicals were played by women, who also doubled as fairies. And Hermia was played by Francesca Mills, a little person, which gave extra power to some of the lines about her (e.g., "though she be but little, she is fierce"). Mills was terrific throughout.

This was a very energetic production. Where many versions of Midsummer stage the chasing and fighting in a fairly minimalist way, the crossed-up lovers were tearing all over the stage here. Weirdly, the least energy came from the craftsmen who were putting up the play within the play. They seemed almost an afterthought, particularly when it came to the actual play, which seemed a disservice to them. But overall, the production was of high quality and quite enjoyable. The nobles kind of inexplicably adjourned to the upper level when the mechanicals staged their play, which made the interplay difficult to hear and understand. By then the nobles were apparently all too drunk to really do much. That seemed a weird choice by director Elle While. But otherwise, it was pretty solid.

The Bottom Line

This play is very well known and frequently performed. As a result, it's pretty easy to mess up and pretty difficult to do in a really impressive way. This show was mostly done well, though with a few questionable choices. But the acting was very solid, the music was good, and overall it was a good time.

Seeing Shakespeare in the Globe is always a treat, and it's nice to see that they can take a clever path through a well-known text without going off in a crazy direction. This was solid, and worth seeing.

"The Motive and the Cue" at National Theatre

 

National Theatre production photo by Mark Douet

This one just sounded right in our wheelhouse: a play about a production of a Shakespeare play (Hamlet) in 1964, featuring Sir John Gielgud as the director and Richard Burton as the lead actor. That sounds really fun. And it's based on real events. Since we were going to be in London with friends, we booked tickets with great anticipation.

The Play

While working together on the movie Becket, Richard Burton and Peter O'Toole decided they would both like to try portraying Hamlet on stage, under the direction of the two best-known Hamlets of the previous generation: Laurence Olivier and John Gielgud. By the flip of a coin, it turned out O'Toole would work with Olivier at the Old Vic in 1963, and Burton would work under Gielgud on Broadway in 1964. Jack Thorne's play, The Motive and the Cue, is set during the fraught rehearsals for the Burton/Gielgud version, which was itself staged to mimic the play being done in the rehearsal hall. Very meta.

But also a great set-up for a dramatic production, as the talented-but-dissolute Burton shows up ready to play the role, except for actually figuring out how he's going to portray Hamlet. And Gielgud is determined not to try to force his own interpretation of the role onto Burton, so they end up at something of an impasse. Meanwhile Burton is his larger-than-life self, along with his equally famous wife, Elizabeth Taylor. Things fly out of control until Taylor actually ends up mediating between the two men, and eventually Gielgud manages to get Burton to come to a realization of how he wants to play the role, and it turns into a memorable and amazing performance.

The play is remarkably well written, with terrific banter and a real feel for the early 1960s. Hearing famous sections of Hamlet read in the voices of such classic actors is a real treat, of course, as they work through both the play itself and the conflicts within the cast. It's deftly done, and a treat to hear. All the more remarkable is the fact that one of the actors in the production of Hamlet actually recorded a lot of the rehearsals with a hidden tape recorder, so we know a lot of this really happened.

The Performance

It's always tricky when actors have to portray other, famous actors on stage. There is a fine line between acting, interpreting, and imitating. The actors in this show manage to stay on the interpretation side of the line, evoking the essence of the subjects without trying to portray them exactly. It helps that Mark Gatiss as Gielgud bears a fair resemblance already, but he manages to convey the quiet, stoic aspect of Gielgud as he struggles to direct Burton effectively. Similarly, Johnny Flynn as Burton and Tuppence Middleton as Taylor convey the glamor and swagger of the famous couple without sliding into parody or exaggeration (though it might be hard to exaggerate Burton's swagger!).

Set designer Es Devlin keeps things quite simple, as the two main sets are a fairly spartan rehearsal room and the sitting room of Burton and Taylor's hotel suite. We get just enough to know where we are and what it's like, without the scene taking over. The focus remains on the characters quite nicely.

The show is long, at over two-and-a-half hours, but it doesn't feel long at all. It's quite engaging, and even though the 1964 rehearsals are clearly bogging down, Thorne's play never does, and director Sam Mendes keeps it all running smoothly.

The Bottom Line

It's all quite outstanding. If you're in London before the show closes on July 15, I heartily recommend seeing it if you can. This was my first play in person at the National Theatre, and the facility is quite impressive, both in the house and in the extensive lobby. But really, the play's the thing, and this one is very, very good.

It's a wonderful, thoughtful play about producing Hamlet, of course, and also an interesting insight into the very famous people who made this particular version happen (and apparently it was a huge hit, once they figured it all out). I understand there is a filmed version of the 1964 Broadway production that I need to see now. But this play and production very much holds its own.

Highly recommended. And even if you don't get to see it in person, I suspect it will be coming to NT Live and NT at Home before long. Well worth seeing it in any form.

2023 Summer Theater Tour, New York Portion

We're on the road for a good portion of the summer, starting with a long week in New York City where we got to see nine plays. We'll be in London next, but for now, it seems like a good time to recap the highlights of the New York leg.

The Best

Of the nine plays we saw, three really stood out:

• Good Night, Oscar
• The Habit of Art
• Fat Ham

All three of those I can recommend without reservation. Good Night, Oscar and Fat Ham should both run for a while (although it appears Fat Ham is now scheduled to close on July 2nd!).

Good Enough

These plays were good, but not the top of the heap:

• Peter Pan Goes Wrong
• Prima Facie
• Primary Trust

Truthfully, Primary Trust could probably have been in the top list, but it's kind of quirky and has a few flaws that keep it from being quite as good as the best shows. Still, no reason not to see these if you have any inclination to do so.

Never Mind

I feel a little bad, because there's nothing affirmatively wrong with any of these. We just didn't think they were nearly as good as the rest, and so not really worth the time to seek out unless they appeal to you in particular.

• Kimberly Akimbo
• Summer, 1976
• Shadow/land

All told, we were pretty happy with the nine shows we saw in a long week. We have at least four shows coming up in London on the next stage of the summer tour, so stay tuned for those!