Oh, Henry! . . .
Twenty Feet Productions - April & March 2005
directed by Marc Silberschatz
Henry V, Henry VI - parts 1, 2, & 3
reviewed by Louis Lopardi
This new company performed in repertory all eight history plays dealing with the chaos-breeding Lancaster/York struggle for power: Richard II, Henry IV - parts 1 & 2, Henry V, Henry VI - parts 1, 2, & 3, and Richard III. (The last four plays of the cycle are actually among Shakespeare’s earliest work). It was an exhilarating experience even to see a few of these in succession, and the company did a creditable job at an almost impossible task: presenting this mass of work in repertory, on a shoestring budget, and with only twelve amazingly versatile actors. Reviewed here specifically are only the four latter "Henry" plays.
The productions overall suffered from a lack of diction training and a frequent clash of accents; Regionalisms aside, there should still be class distinctions. There were a few odd lack of direction moments (e.g: the Joan-Talbot confrontation in 1 Henry VI), and all was exacerbated by the usual acoustical problem inherent in a cavernous space. Coupled with a lack of individual coaching where sorely needed, everything pointed to severely overtaxed artistic direction - quite understandable in a project of such large scope and limited budget. The net result: a rather good history and literature study, but uneven theatre. Best of the cycle as seen?-- The sense of a trampling rush into chaos and mayhem - most palpable in Henry part 2 with its swift changes of events (and carrying through to the actual rushing to death of York in Henry part 3). Each night there would be some in the highly appreciative audience who begged for the cycle to continue right then and there, making me doubtless this was this the "star wars" of its day.
The grand experience of seeing such a sweep of historic drama was marred by some truly strange casting (including so-called "gender-blind" casting which often proves to be anything but), which taxed our suspension of disbelief to the point where the plays became more exhausting to watch than they should have been, and diminished the impact of many scenes (the duel between Joan and the Dauphin in 1 Henry VI for example).
Surprisingly, Kymberly Tuttle became acceptable as York upon repeated viewings, in a way that none of the other "tranny-casting" did, despite Seth Duerr’s well prepared mad Meg. (His Margaret hauled around like a crazed Amazon - when not flouncing about in a misguided attempt to be feminine. An interesting experiment, though not one I would want to see often.) Mr. Duerr gave us a Margaret whose lines were uttered with a bravura perhaps never heard in history. It worked mainly after the fact, having impact when the distracting character was essentially finished with a scene. The effect in-tempore was ludicrous, no matter how larger-than-life mad Margaret actually was. (Those who paid a price to see Marc Silberschatz kiss Seth Duerr in 2 Henry VI were delightfully cheated when King Henry kissed his bible instead, then chastely touched it to Margaret’s hand. A nice character touch.)
Director Marc Silberschatz played Henry V and VI. Roughly at first, but even so with glimpses of the "king" to come. With increasing confidence he scaled the terrors of Henry the Fifth, settling into his character by the "traitors" scene. His Henry Sixth was a strange, precious, but ultimately believable person - thanks in part to his control of mannered acting and directing (as in previous aside).
Laura Bozzone played Prince Edward (3 Henry VI) well, as a noble, fiery pup - but her Earl of Westmorland simply didn’t work. Nicole Maggi was consistently powerful, centered, and focused in, amazingly, every one of the many roles she played. Her Bergundy in part 1, Suffolk in part 2, but two small examples.
More diction and verse coaching should have been spent on Sirrah Harris who was in some very exposed roles. She has a talent for character portrayal which could blossom with proper training. Her Richard (3 Henry VI) was not the royal-convincer, but an explainer merely. Sometimes weak (her "Say how he died for I will hear it all" was simply not in the dramatic moment; it needs listening to the meter) - more often she was strong, but delivered every solo with the same "classic arch" form. The important solo in which Richard is fully revealed ("I’ll cut the causes off...") was bland, a physical description, just another of the many list-speeches which this early vintage Shakespeare is so full of. Near the end, after killing Henry in his "See how my sword weeps..." Richard’s focus should drive to Clarence ultimately. Instead it was cold, and without proper structure. I dwell too much on one character, but people who know the story line will pick out the characters destined for later notoriety and pay closer attention to them. (One of many dangers in doing cycles of plays.)
Many others in the hard working cast also stood out. Ryan Patrick Ervin found his metier, really quite believable as the someday King Edward. Diction gave him problems as Fluellen, however. My guess: the acoustics of the space again, since he is fine in quieter moments and when well placed onstage. Albert Aeed played a more noble than arrogant Warwick. Most noticeably in part 3, this Warwick was not physically set up to be the watchdog and protector that he should be. But that is perhaps a finesse obtained only with extra rehearsal time. Larry Weeks played many roles well, but his churchmen were most convincing; this Cardinal was a real person - a character study on a par with his Pandarus of seasons past.
Stage combat - so vital to the histories - was well planned and executed. In 2 Henry VI the armorer’s duel was interestingly played as a drunken brawl; a good solution. Michael M. McGuire did fight direction, providing the lion’s share of carnage and stage combat - varied, interesting, and exciting. Also, in a way, thought provoking: it included in Henry V a small homage to the ‘slaughter of the innocents.’ (In truth, a small force of French knights surprisingly flanked the English and struck their base camps, killing all the boys that had accompanied the army to France. It was this that provoked Henry’s order to kill all prisoners, not merely the threat of French "reinforcements.")
It was also good to see McGuire move into real character roles this season, and exhibit hard work on character, lines, and body language. The "work" was sometimes a little too obvious, but the talent is there and makes it all believable. He was simply miscast as Edmund Mortimer (1 Henry VI), but did an excellent John, son of Lord Talbot. One of the more memorable scenes in the cycle was in fact the Talbot father-son scene. Seth Duerr also played Lord Talbot. It is to his credit in creating a character of heroic stature that the audience for whom the turn of events was new gasped audibly in dismay when it became apparent in a stage picture that Talbot’s demise was imminent - a reminder to us all that there are always some seeing the play for the first time. "Concept-directors" take notice.