by Sharon and Matthew Falduto
Tom Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead is the story of two minor characters from Hamlet, examining the spaces in between the scenes of Shakespeare’s play, and what these two might be doing with themselves. As they are characters created solely to die, they find themselves lacking in motivation or even memory of any day before today. At times they even forget which is Rosencrantz and who is Guildenstern.
Brad Quinn’s Guildenstern (well, I guess he's Guildenstern) is the philosopher of the two, giving soliloquies of his own on the nature of the laws of probability, and the best process for his sole motivation, “drawing out” the nature of Hamlet’s madness. He is given to monologues, flowingly delivered by Quinn and always relatable, even when they concern unicorns or dwarves.
David Priebe’s Rosencrantz is more reactionary, filling silences with his animated expressions and striding lengths. Though his character is allegedly the less bright of the two, it is clear that he does contain some intelligence and understanding of the end game of the show. Priebe uses his wonderfully expressive face to great comic effect.
The main characters are in their best form when they are engaged in rapid-fire dialogue, such as their games of questions. These scenes are some of the most enjoyable of the play. At other times, the pacing of the show seemed a bit off; the coin tricks that are supposed to demonstrate that these people exist outside the laws of nature end up dragging the show down at times. Admittedly, it's hard as an actor to say the same word over and over and make it interesting, but unfortunately the play gets a little static at the beginning.
When the players within the play took the stage it also livened up the action, illustrated by one of Stoppard’s great lines spoken by Rosencrantz: “I feel like a spectator - an appalling business. The only thing that makes it bearable is the irrational belief that somebody interesting will come on in a minute.” The mostly silent troupe of actors fills the stage with merriment as they demonstrate their remarkable acting skills, mostly illustrated by the myriad ways in which they can act out death. They are led by Ed Henry, the most vociferous of the group, who delivers his lines with an actor-ly bearing which we found always entertaining but somewhat lacking in vocal variety.
Matthew James’ Hamlet was the true scene stealer of the show; he perfectly exhibited the Dane’s “north by northwest” madness by making perfect sense and reason when necessary and literally falling on the floor screaming and thrashing when not. With akimbo hair and expressions that varied from conniving to convivial, James made the most of every moment he was on stage.
The costumes were beautiful and lively; Rosencrantz and Guildenstern’s cloaks and hats were a riot of color in stark contrast to the plain black outfit that Hamlet wore for most of the show. Director James Trainor made good use of the stage, choosing the right moments to place a character on the balcony and utilizing the trap system for a hilarious sequence late in the play.
We were glad to have brought a blanket along to utilize in the somewhat unseasonable September weather, and you might want to bring some bug spray as well. We in Iowa City are very fortunate to have such a wonderful outdoor venue in our community. Enjoy theatre under the stars this weekend at ICCT's production of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead.
4 comments:
First thing first. This was such a great show.
I have to admit I am pretty disappointed by this lackluster analysis of it. That isn't to say I don't agree with the review that was given or that I expect a gushy, "there wasn't a thing wrong with this Best SHOW EVER" sort of review from this blog (and in all reality I think I would be more disappointed in that), but there were definitely some things that were not mentioned.
For instance: the large amount of time I spent as an audience member laughing so hard I was wiping tears from my faces. There are some fantastically played moments of comedy in this show. It was also refreshing to see the obvious sexual bawdiness of this show exploited. There are so many things that could have been toned down and weren't. It gave this show a spark and character.
The relationship between Brad Quinn and David Priebe is an equally balanced and believable one. Ed Henry had my attention every moment he was on the stage, and even the characters with no names and no lines(or ones i can't remember anyway) are still worth remembering for their attention to detail and commitment to their parts. Heck, even the impromptu stagehands-as-pirates were cause for a chuckle.
Now, granted, this is a LONG show. Be ready to tuck into your seats and yes bring a blanket. It will challenge you mentally. You may not get all the jokes. But I have to say it is one of the best shows I have seen from ICCT in the 3 years I have lived in Iowa City. If this is any measure of the rest of the season, and am REALLY excited!
Please come out to see this show in it's second weekend. If you have any love of theatre at all you wont regret it.
A little controversy?
Always a good thing.
Why does everyone always complain about the bugs when they discuss rehearsing and performing and attending outdoor theater?
I try to get out to most of the theater in the area - well, not most but a lot.
Theater outdoors is always special - it gives me a pain when people complain about the little things.
VIVA live Theatre!!!
Wow. Seriously? "Pretty disappointed by this lackluster analysis?" The reviewer praised the performers, praised the costumes, praised the director and ended by talking about how lucky Iowa City is to have such a nice outdoor theatre. I mean, come on -- from the huge thumbs-up the reviewer already gave, there's not much more room to go up without writing the gushy "Best SHOW EVER" review that you claim you didn't want.
Maybe you should look at reviews from larger markets like New York and Chicago, so you can see what a "lackluster" review really is. This review was a big endorsement and I don't know how anyone could describe it as anything less.
To clarify, Lackluster as in Lacking in vitality, force, or conviction; not in terms of negative or positive. Take it how you will, though.
Post a Comment