As You Like It by the National Theatre of London: What Were They Thinking?

I did something tonight I have never done before. I walked out in the middle of a Shakespeare production. The only time I've ever been tempted to walk out of a Shakespeare production was a terrible Troilus and Cressida production I saw 28 years ago at Stratford, Ontario. But even that piece of dung was superior to what I endured this evening. I went to see a Fathom events screening of the National Theatre's production of As You Like It. Shakespeare. Done in London. Should be awesome, right? No, not awesome. In fact, quite the opposite of awesome.

But let me start with something positive. They showed a little pre-show National Theatre infommercial. We got to see old productions and hear interviews with some of the people who work with the National Theatre. One of them was an old professor of mine from the University of Michigan. He left Michigan after I graduated and went back to England to work with the National Theatre. Benedict Nightingale was always a doll and a great teacher. So, it was double-plus-good to get to see him on the big screen and hear his lovely voice again.

Another of the most entertaining bits of the night was that the movie failed to start, sort of. We got some of the video, but the audio continued to be the pre-movie commercials, songs, and PSAs so it felt a little I was watching a Chinese martial arts movie that had overdosed on English steroids. Seriously, it was more entertaining than the play itself.

Let me give full disclosure. As You Like It is not one of my favorite of Shakespeare's comedies. That honor belongs to a tie between Twelfth Night and Midsummer Night's Dream, followed closely by Much Ado and the Tempest. But still, it's Shakespeare, and it has so many elements that I can and do love that I tend to enjoy every production I see.

This production? This staging? It was atrocious. I can't even begin to enumerate the ways I couldn't stand it. But, gentle reader, I will try.

First, the staging, set design, and setting.

Okay, they took a dukedom and turned into a cubicle farm (complete with a Mexican wrestler, but we'll get to that later). All the people were employees doing a choreographed set piece of shuffling paper one to the next. And they wore pink jackets or yellow jackets and tight pants (but we'll get to that later too).

I wouldn't mind the setting so much since it can be a commentary on how the new duke, Frederick, (who banished the good and wise Duke Senior) is a tyrant, except that there is nothing to indicate that the old duke was any better. We are supposed to surmise that the working conditions had been different before, I guess.

The only cool thing is when we change settings from office building to the forest, the woodlands are made up of the rising/floating desks and chairs. The office furniture floats in the air and provides the backdrop and canopy cover of the forest. Pretty cool and nicely eerie.

And now I must address the acting. Or lack thereof. I've gotten used to seeing these great actors say the lines. They know them. They live them, and yet they deliver them as if they are saying them right now for the very first time. The words sound pure and true as they tumble out of mouths. But many of the actors in this production just weren't up to the task. It was like their mouths were incapable of forming the words much less saying them or acting them in any sort of convincing manner.

Here are the standouts and not in a good way. Duke Ferdinand: the actor delivered his "You are banished" speech like a high school student taking his first Drama class. And Celia: who seemed like she was going for a typical college freshman took on the voicing of half Valley Girl, half Millennial and failed at both. And then there was, yes, the wrestler. He was big. He was mean. He couldn't act. And they put him on a mat, in the middle of the cubicles, in a Mexican Wrestler mask. Huh???

Now, I left before my favorite part because I just couldn't take it. Jaques' "All the world's a stage" speech always brings me to tears. But I knew that if I stayed, I might start heckling the screen, and I didn't want to be that rude.

In the end, I spent time noticing that several of the male cast members must also be dancers. They had great butts and wore really tight pants (and for that I give thanks to the costume designer). And the camera operator, for some reason, gave us a whole bunch of really tight shots of the tight buns. I don't mind nice butts. In fact, I tend to appreciate them quite a bit. But, honestly, if the point at which I find myself marveling at a peach-shaped behind is during Act 1 Scene 2 in a Shakespeare play, then the production must be doing something other than holding my attention.

Review of "The Other Place" at the Manhattan Theatre Club

Tonight, the fab Rich Potter took me to see "The Other Place," as part of my Birthday present (that we celebrated on his Birthday).

Here's my mostly spoiler-free review:

The writing is well done for the most part. I only had one "goink" where I wondered about the logic of what the playwright had set up. Otherwise, the writing is poignant and well done. She did telegraph a major plot point a little too much (for me) instead of letting it unfold naturally (let's face it. If you mention/talk about/reference a red garnet necklace a lot during the course of a play, at some point the audience gets that that garnet necklace is going to be important, if not pivotal to the play's resolution. She could have been more subtle here but the rest was so well done that I'm good with it.

The set was nicely done. It depicted a sort of mathematical, rigid chaos that mirrored the main character's mental and emotional states. Well done there.

The direction was for the most part good. Some aspects of the production that were rough couldn't be helped but that isn't the fault of the director and I'll get to that later.

Now, to the acting. Laurie Metcalf better get a Tony nomination out of this. If she doesn't, well, there be nincompoops on whatever committee chooses them. She transformed seamlessly from one to another patina of personality and did so numerous times. She kept each succinct and made each one hers. Big Kudos to her. Oh and when she fell apart, we unraveled with her. Well done.

The supporting cast would have been great and could have been great. The woman who played the shrink/daughter/stranger didn't change her characters enough to suit me. She changed her clothes and that, I guess, was supposed to be enough to tell us she was being a different person. I think she's talented and will do well. But imho, she's just not there yet. It could also be that she was up against Metcalf and that woman is a force to be reckoned with in this so it's possible that the comparison highlights the discrepancy.

And now I come to one of my favorite actors, Bill Pullman. I've loved him since Ruthless People. He's always had a "trust me and I will deliver the goods" quality and he has never disappointed me (except one tiny moment in "While You Were Sleeping" but I have a feeling that was how he was directed rather than the choices he made). He came in to save the day/play when Daniel Stern had to pull out suddenly. He had two weeks to memorize the show. He learned the blocking in his apartment, had two rehearsals with the cast, and one run through during an afternoon and then he went on that evening. Yeow. He achieved a lot with what he had. For that, I give him high marks, for sure. A lesser actor would not have been able to do nearly as much. However, since he hadn't rehearsed with the rest of the cast, he just didn't have the flow. The dialog is fast and furious. You need to have impeccable timing, impeccably rehearsed in order to do it justice. Mr. Pullman just hasn't had enough time to get in the pocket. If he had a few more weeks, I'd say it would be phenomenal!

As it is, he tended to swallow his words and delivered his lines as if he the actor was just as frustrated with not quite having it all down as he the character was with what is happening to his wife.

He is wearing the clothes of his character but he hasn't embodied him yet. And so, he went from zero to sixty (and sometimes back again) in no time in his own journey throughout the play and that was too rough and jarring a treatment of the man he was portraying. He also just wasn't in the pocket in his interactions with Metcalf's character. They ended up running over each other's lines because the dialog moves so quickly and so we lost some of the tension, passion, and connection these two were supposed to have.

I would loved to have seen it either with Stern or with a better rehearsed Pullman.

The show moved me, but if either of the above had occurred, it would have completely blown me away.