"King Lear" at Shakespeare Theatre Company

 

Shakespeare Theatre Company production photo by DJ Corey Photography

After not going to DC (or seeing any theater in DC) for many years, it seems a bit odd that we returned for our third trip in less than four months, but this was actually the first of the trips we planned, specifically so we could see this one play. Why seek out Yet Another King Lear? Specifically because of the actor playing Lear, Broadway star Patrick Page, who also happens to be a college friend of my wife's. We've seen him perform before (most recently in Hadestown on Broadway), but this seemed to be an ideal match between actor and role.

The Play

I don't need to spell this out. It's Shakespeare's King Lear. They've trimmed it down to only about two hours total, which should be fine, though I think it led to a couple of issues I'll touch on in the next section. Suffice it to say that it's a great play, and one that generally lives or dies by the actor playing the lead role. Lear has a really high percentage of the lines in the play, and even more so in this cut of the script. So this is very much Patrick Page's show.

The Production

This is the same, fairly small, theater where we saw Jane Anger last December, so it's a pretty intimate setting for a Shakespeare play. But that intimacy is great when it gives you a chance to see an actor like Page up close. What a treat! Page is a wonderfully nuanced actor, and watching his Lear descend into madness, fighting it all the way, is a wonder to behold. His interplay with his Fool (Michael Milligan) was just a delight. Probably the best choice made in the production was to have the Fool play his role quite straight, with almost no clowning. As the wise a restrained one, he emphasizes to Lear and the audience just how dramatically Lear declines.

Probably the other key role in the production is Matthew J. Harris as Edgar (and Poor Tom). Again showing restraint, Director Simon Godwin keeps Edgar/Tom in control, despite the machinations of his bastard brother Edmund (Julian Elijah Martinez). Craig Wallace does a good job as their father, Gloucester, who along with Kent (Shirine Babb) manages to be about the only character who stays true to himself (or anyone else), not that it does him any good.

My main issue with the choices made in the production come with the daughters (who after all are the point of conflict in the script). Between casting, costuming, and some script editing, we know from the outset that Goneril (Rosa Gilmore) and Regan (Stephanie Jean Lane) are very femme, highly sexualized, characters who are united in their opposition to both Lear and Cordelia (Cailen Fu), who never gets a chance to demonstrate the reasons why she was supposedly Lear's favorite. At least with Edmund we get to hear why he is behaving the way he is, though his shifting allegiances come across less as plans and opportunism (as I read the script) and more as kind of stumbling from one chance to another. Ultimately the only motivations left to Goneril, Regan, and Edmund are greed and kinky lust, which cheapens their part of the story considerably. I'm not sure how that sort of misogyny still creeps into a modern adaptation of this play.

The modern setting, other than the weird kinks of the daughters, works quite well. It's kind of a mystery how the one female character who initially shows any agency or power (Kent) got that, and why she then disguises herself as a man for the remainder of the play. It just feels like the gender politics of this ficton weren't thought through very completely.

Bottom Line

As I noted up front, however, a production of King Lear rests on the titular character, and Patrick Page is more than capable of carrying the show on his shoulders. Between his booming voice and his physical virtuosity, he dominates the stage as Lear ought. There is enough strength in his supporting cast to make it work, but Page's voice and body carry the show.

It's fascinating. Weird at times, but fascinating. And well worth the chance to see a master craftsman doing great work, up close.

The show has been extended through April 16th. I suspect it could go even longer if they can keep the cast together. For all the flaws in the direction of the show, the artistry of the key characters still shines through. It's a really good evening of theater. Go see it for yourself.

"Jane Anger" at Shakespeare Theatre Company

 This was just too intriguing to pass up: a promised mashup of Shakespeare and feminism, set in a plague year. What fun! And we were going to be in Washington, DC, anyway. Perfect. And a chance to check out Shakespeare Theatre Company before we go see their production of King Lear next March.

The Play

Written by Talene Monahon during the COVID pandemic, Jane Anger postulates that famous playwright William Shakespeare, himself quarantined during a plague, is having difficulty writing his next play(s), meant to be an adaptation of an old tale about King Leir. Sure, this sounds a bit like the premise of Shakespeare in Love, but this is definitely a different story. For one thing, the play starts with a monologue by the eponymous Jane Anger, who is based on a real-life person who published a pamphlet in 1589 called "Jane Anger, her Protection for Women".

And after Shakespeare flails about for a bit with his assistant, Francis, Jane Anger literally climbs in through the window and puts her angry wit to work on Will.

The Production

Wow. What to make of this? The lobby of the very nice Klein Theater is full of materials about the real Jane Anger and her ilk. Great stuff: makes me all ready to see a play about an assertive woman who influences a better-known (and able to be published/performed) playwright into improving his works! Sadly, this is not the play we were led to expect.

Apparently playwright Monahon and director Jess Chayes would rather write a sophomoric skit full of gender and bodily-function "jokes". Had I read Monahon's prologue in the program ahead of time, I would have learned that she is "deeply interested in jokes--in puns and gags and potty humor." Oh. Well, then I guess that's what STC wanted to present. I won't say there is nothing of substance around the gags and potty humor, but the balance is way off from what I had anticipated. Instead of using those in service of (as she claims to want) "rupturing history", she instead uses the promise of a feminist overthrow to string together gags and puns, but then never gets to the punch line: We never get to see or hear or even really know much about the supposed better works that Jane Anger would have produced.

It's kind of hard for me to evaluate the cast here. My take at the time was that the acting was way too over-the-top and broad. I suspect that toning down the overt clowning might make the jokes more effective, not less, but perhaps that is just my preference. For what it's worth, Amelia Workman does a pretty good job as the titular character. The others are so thinly written and so broadly performed that it's hard to say how well it's done, and I'm not familiar with any of the players.

Bottom Line

This feels like a missed opportunity. I'm still interested in the question of how a feminist, woman of color might have been able to influence or even subvert a famous writer into projecting their ideas into the mainstream, and what would have resulted. But Monahon, despite feints in that direction, doesn't seem to want to go there. Instead we have a very forgettable piece of fluff, sort of amusing, but not terribly funny, that seems to have even less of a point than the materials hung in the lobby. I'm grateful that I got introduced to Jane Anger, but Jane Anger was not really worth the effort.

I look forward to seeing what STC does with an actual Shakespeare play next year.