MIT Shakespeare Ensemble The Tempest
Oct. 27th, 2006 12:29 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
xiphiasTonight was the opening night of the MIT Shakespeare Ensemble's production of The Tempest, running 8 pm this Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, and again next week on November 2 through 4.
The short version: one of the fantastic things about living in Boston is college (and community) theater -- for less than the price of a movie ticket, you can see live theater, and this is an example of how much of a good thing this is. It's well worth the $8 a ticket it costs -- at that price, how can you go wrong? It's a hell of a fun way to spend two hours.
Lis (aka![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
cheshyre and ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-syndicated.gif)
riba_rambles) had never seen the play, and I haven't seen it in long enough that I only remembered the barest outline, and this production was a fine introduction and re-introduction. They played it straight -- no tricky staging or unusual period setting, and did it quite competently and enjoyably. Nothing fancy, just straight-up Shakespeare done by people who clearly understand their characters and the play, and are having fun. And how can you avoid having fun seeing such a production?
Michael Haddad is the oldest member of the cast, by which I mean he's about my age. And, as you want your Prospero to be older than everyone else, and more in control, that's a good thing. He seems to be the most experienced and skilled actor in the production, which makes sense, and is a good thing in your Prospero.
Miranda is played by Anna Roussanova, and she's adorable in the role. I think, to play Miranda well, you need two main things: innocence, and love. And Roussanova brings both notes out well. You can really believe that Ferdinand would fall in love with her at first sight, she with him, and that they really could live happily ever after (something which I have a hard time believing with some of Shakespeare's couples sometimes). Anthony Rindone plays Ferdinand, and, while he's not the strongest member of the cast, he's fine.
Finishing off the corporeal residents of the island, Kellas Cameron's Caliban is amazing, truly one of the highlights of the show. He moves like a misshapen, half-human thing, sometimes scampering like a monkey, or scuttling like an insect. He really seems like a deformed subhuman beast, just as Shakespeare intended.
The incorporeal characters are headed by Ariel, played by Meg Rosenburg, also the costume designer. I strongly suspect some ballet training in her floating, spirit-like movements. As much as her Ariel wants his/her/its freedom from Prospero, he/she/it also appears to be having a hell of a good time messing with the other characters under Prospero's direction. Pretty much what you want from an Ariel. I noticed a little hesitation in some of her delivery of Ariel's longest soliloquies, but, heck, it's opening night, and, in any case, it wasn't bad.
Alonso, the king of Naples, is played by Bonnie Krenz, who does a fine job being noble, and upset at the (supposed) loss of his son. The main thing you notice about Laird is her physical presence: she's imposing and handsome. Good kingly qualities.
Sarah McDougal plays the kindly and perhaps somewhat naive Gonzalo with humor, playing up his age for cheap laughs. Works for me -- I thought it was funny and liked it.
Alonso's brother Sebastian is played with slow-witted sleaziness by Deirdre LaBounty, and Prospero's brother Antonio is played by Holly Laird. I didn't have any problems with Laird's Antonio, but felt that it was really not that much more than adequate. Sebastian was a bit better, but the treacherous lords aren't the highlights of the play. But they also don't detract -- they're not bad, just not outstanding.
Onto the drunken clowns Stephano and Trinculo, by Jennifer Benoit and Sharon Gouchenoun respectively. I think I nearly hurt myself laughing. Trinculo, in particular is just hysterical.
Marilyn Edobor, Tana Waterman, and Paul Boudreau play various spirits, sprites, and sailors. In addition, Boudreau plays the ship's bosun, and Edobor and Waterman play Ceres and Juno -- well, more accurately, play spirits portraying Ceres and Juno -- I don't think Prospero's quite powerful enough to boss around actual gods. All three of them do well in the ensemble bits, but Boudreau and Edobor tend to be halting and not quite fluent in their longer speeches. I liked Waterman's bits of business as Juno, given fewer lines than one might expect.
As the house lights went down, the actors came out, handing out costumes, getting into them, chatting, and wishing each other well. The Actors' Shakespeare project did a similar thing with the opening of their Julius Caesar, and, although I felt the ASP did it better (as one would hope: they're a top-notch professional Shakespeare company, with full-time actors, as opposed to a college production in which the actors have to balance their rehearsal time with studying for exams), I enjoyed the conceit in this production, too.
The play opens in a terrible storm, which I felt that they portrayed well. Lis had problems actually hearing the dialogue, as did I, but I don't care -- nothing is said in the opening scene that much matters -- the idea is to present a ship in distress in a terrible storm, and that they did quite well.
Magic was done effectively, and primarily through acting -- Ariel sent people to sleep, froze time, caused swords to drop from nerveless hands. Characters were paralyzed, hypnotized, occasionally brutalized (although only the bad guys), disarmed, charmed, though never harmed. And all that was portrayed through competent acting. Two moments were portrayed through special effects of sorts: the opening storm which gives the play its title used lighting and sound to great effect, although its effectiveness was also dependent on the actors -- one of the most effective uses of "Bridge Lurch Left! Bridge Lurch Right!" I've ever seen. They did better than the Star Trek folks on that.
The other magical effect somewhat fell flat, but I suspect that was mainly a technical issue and, it being MIT, I doubt a technical problem has is going to last long. I mean, it worked, but with a loud "THUNK" that made it kind of less impressive. However, I was still impressed, because the effect in question was part of the original production, so I was glad they did it.
The action was presented in the way that I personally tend to like best -- no curtain, no breaks between scenes except one group of characters walking off and another one walking on immediately. Especially in a play like The Tempest, in which, frankly, nothing much happens, but it happens with style, keeping the action moving is vital. The production clocks in at a snappy two hours, plus ten minute intermission, and that is a very good length and pace for this play.
So, to summarize: if you've never seen The Tempest, or it's been a few years, this is an excellent, straightforward production, and you should see it. If you've seen The Tempest a lot, then presumably you like the play, and you should therefore see it.
It's playing Thursday (which already happened), Friday, and Saturday of this week, and Thursday, Friday, and Saturday of next week, at MIT's Little Kresge Theater (that's the theater downstairs in the Kresge building, y'know, the little one, the one under the big Kresge Auditorium). It's $8 a ticket. Even if it was a bad production, it would be worth seeing at that price -- and this is in no sense a bad production. True, it's amateurish in parts, but I don't count that against amateur theater. I think Shakespeare would approve. More importantly, I think you will approve when you see it.
The short version: one of the fantastic things about living in Boston is college (and community) theater -- for less than the price of a movie ticket, you can see live theater, and this is an example of how much of a good thing this is. It's well worth the $8 a ticket it costs -- at that price, how can you go wrong? It's a hell of a fun way to spend two hours.
Lis (aka
cheshyre and riba_rambles) had never seen the play, and I haven't seen it in long enough that I only remembered the barest outline, and this production was a fine introduction and re-introduction. They played it straight -- no tricky staging or unusual period setting, and did it quite competently and enjoyably. Nothing fancy, just straight-up Shakespeare done by people who clearly understand their characters and the play, and are having fun. And how can you avoid having fun seeing such a production?Michael Haddad is the oldest member of the cast, by which I mean he's about my age. And, as you want your Prospero to be older than everyone else, and more in control, that's a good thing. He seems to be the most experienced and skilled actor in the production, which makes sense, and is a good thing in your Prospero.
Miranda is played by Anna Roussanova, and she's adorable in the role. I think, to play Miranda well, you need two main things: innocence, and love. And Roussanova brings both notes out well. You can really believe that Ferdinand would fall in love with her at first sight, she with him, and that they really could live happily ever after (something which I have a hard time believing with some of Shakespeare's couples sometimes). Anthony Rindone plays Ferdinand, and, while he's not the strongest member of the cast, he's fine.
Finishing off the corporeal residents of the island, Kellas Cameron's Caliban is amazing, truly one of the highlights of the show. He moves like a misshapen, half-human thing, sometimes scampering like a monkey, or scuttling like an insect. He really seems like a deformed subhuman beast, just as Shakespeare intended.
The incorporeal characters are headed by Ariel, played by Meg Rosenburg, also the costume designer. I strongly suspect some ballet training in her floating, spirit-like movements. As much as her Ariel wants his/her/its freedom from Prospero, he/she/it also appears to be having a hell of a good time messing with the other characters under Prospero's direction. Pretty much what you want from an Ariel. I noticed a little hesitation in some of her delivery of Ariel's longest soliloquies, but, heck, it's opening night, and, in any case, it wasn't bad.
Alonso, the king of Naples, is played by Bonnie Krenz, who does a fine job being noble, and upset at the (supposed) loss of his son. The main thing you notice about Laird is her physical presence: she's imposing and handsome. Good kingly qualities.
Sarah McDougal plays the kindly and perhaps somewhat naive Gonzalo with humor, playing up his age for cheap laughs. Works for me -- I thought it was funny and liked it.
Alonso's brother Sebastian is played with slow-witted sleaziness by Deirdre LaBounty, and Prospero's brother Antonio is played by Holly Laird. I didn't have any problems with Laird's Antonio, but felt that it was really not that much more than adequate. Sebastian was a bit better, but the treacherous lords aren't the highlights of the play. But they also don't detract -- they're not bad, just not outstanding.
Onto the drunken clowns Stephano and Trinculo, by Jennifer Benoit and Sharon Gouchenoun respectively. I think I nearly hurt myself laughing. Trinculo, in particular is just hysterical.
Marilyn Edobor, Tana Waterman, and Paul Boudreau play various spirits, sprites, and sailors. In addition, Boudreau plays the ship's bosun, and Edobor and Waterman play Ceres and Juno -- well, more accurately, play spirits portraying Ceres and Juno -- I don't think Prospero's quite powerful enough to boss around actual gods. All three of them do well in the ensemble bits, but Boudreau and Edobor tend to be halting and not quite fluent in their longer speeches. I liked Waterman's bits of business as Juno, given fewer lines than one might expect.
As the house lights went down, the actors came out, handing out costumes, getting into them, chatting, and wishing each other well. The Actors' Shakespeare project did a similar thing with the opening of their Julius Caesar, and, although I felt the ASP did it better (as one would hope: they're a top-notch professional Shakespeare company, with full-time actors, as opposed to a college production in which the actors have to balance their rehearsal time with studying for exams), I enjoyed the conceit in this production, too.
The play opens in a terrible storm, which I felt that they portrayed well. Lis had problems actually hearing the dialogue, as did I, but I don't care -- nothing is said in the opening scene that much matters -- the idea is to present a ship in distress in a terrible storm, and that they did quite well.
Magic was done effectively, and primarily through acting -- Ariel sent people to sleep, froze time, caused swords to drop from nerveless hands. Characters were paralyzed, hypnotized, occasionally brutalized (although only the bad guys), disarmed, charmed, though never harmed. And all that was portrayed through competent acting. Two moments were portrayed through special effects of sorts: the opening storm which gives the play its title used lighting and sound to great effect, although its effectiveness was also dependent on the actors -- one of the most effective uses of "Bridge Lurch Left! Bridge Lurch Right!" I've ever seen. They did better than the Star Trek folks on that.
The other magical effect somewhat fell flat, but I suspect that was mainly a technical issue and, it being MIT, I doubt a technical problem has is going to last long. I mean, it worked, but with a loud "THUNK" that made it kind of less impressive. However, I was still impressed, because the effect in question was part of the original production, so I was glad they did it.
The action was presented in the way that I personally tend to like best -- no curtain, no breaks between scenes except one group of characters walking off and another one walking on immediately. Especially in a play like The Tempest, in which, frankly, nothing much happens, but it happens with style, keeping the action moving is vital. The production clocks in at a snappy two hours, plus ten minute intermission, and that is a very good length and pace for this play.
So, to summarize: if you've never seen The Tempest, or it's been a few years, this is an excellent, straightforward production, and you should see it. If you've seen The Tempest a lot, then presumably you like the play, and you should therefore see it.
It's playing Thursday (which already happened), Friday, and Saturday of this week, and Thursday, Friday, and Saturday of next week, at MIT's Little Kresge Theater (that's the theater downstairs in the Kresge building, y'know, the little one, the one under the big Kresge Auditorium). It's $8 a ticket. Even if it was a bad production, it would be worth seeing at that price -- and this is in no sense a bad production. True, it's amateurish in parts, but I don't count that against amateur theater. I think Shakespeare would approve. More importantly, I think you will approve when you see it.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-28 03:56 am (UTC)So Suzi and I went with Erin and her parents to see the Tempest done by the San Francisco Shakespeare-in-the-Park people. It was really very well done (and the weather was rather appropriate for it, too -- cold and foggy). We did disagree a bit with the presentation of Prospero's epilogue; it's delivered almost more to the other characters than to the audience, and it comes off rather differently (and a lot weaker) that way, I thought. The ending proper is very much a triumph, and then the epilogue is one of Shakespeare's begging-for-applause speeches that's a very nice and witty piece of what it is, but is not much a triumph at all, and is wordplaying off the idea that he's still stuck on the island unless they take him back with them -- and it was immediately preceeded by all the other players walking offstage away from him one-by-one.
That was pretty much the one notable fault with it, though, and the rest of it we quite liked. Prospero's daughter was played very much as a 15-year-old for whom the shipwrecked nobility are the first men she's ever seen other than her father and Caliban, and it worked quite well. (Suzi says she's usually played much more seriously.) The same actress also played Ariel -- no costume changes, just putting on and taking off what amounted to a collar with near-invisible two-foot sticks sticking out of it with glittery bits on their end to create this sort of halo of windchimeyness around her that looked far better than I'm describing; her main costume being a sort of billowy white wrap/dress -- and that seemed to work quite well. Looking back at it, I sort of see a lot of playing off the similarities and differences between the fifteen-year-old girl and the spirit-in-thrall; both of them being a bit flighty and easily excited.
Also, Caliban and the prince of Naples that Prospero's daughter falls in love with were both played by the same actor, which also was somewhat interesting.
The stage had the interesting feature that the only exits were four doors, painted as part of the clouds-and-sky backdrop, but also quite visibly paneled doors. This was especially useful for some of the times that Ariel was revealing people to Prospero, or for dramatic exits (or, at times, for cases where people were running around trying to escape the sea spirits; the doors stayed quite firmly closed then -- more of a body language of knowing it wouldn't open and pounding against it rather than trying the handle, really -- which was very effective for that, moreso than traditional curtained stage wings would have been).