I already wrote about reading The Crucible back when my eldest was in high school. Most of what I would have said about the play itself is contained in that post, so I will try not to repeat myself in this one. Instead, I will focus on this particular production at Bakersfield Community Theatre, which was excellent in every facet.
[Other note: I do not generally go back and change past posts, as they are kind of like a diary for me. That particular post was written in 2019, before my eldest came out to us as transgender, so the pronouns are all wrong. My apologies, and please fill in “he/him” where needed. On a definitely related note, since that post was written, the MAGA cult has pivoted to targeting transgender people in their ongoing witch hunts, which, if I were writing that post now, I would definitely have mentioned.]
The main reason I decided to go see this play is that a number of friends were in it, and I always love to see friends making the world a better place through their art. While I may be prejudiced in favor of those dear to me, I think that they are great at what they do, and bring a definite passion and love to the parts they play.
Let me start with mentioning the set, built of raw lumber, which nodded in the direction of the scaffold (both the building sort, and the hanging sort), flanked by stylized trees - deconstructed trees, one might say. It is one of the more creative low-budget designs I have seen, and worked perfectly with the play.
As a side note here, while I appreciate a good high-budget set - I’ll call out Omar at the San Francisco Opera as a recent favorite - there is something particularly impressive about what small local theaters are able to do on an absolute shoestring.
The director, Cathy Henry, is part of the knitting group my wife is in, and has decades of experience in theater. Her role My Fair Lady some years ago was part of one of the best local productions in my memory. What she did with The Crucible was equally impressive. The pacing had momentum but was never rushed. The diction was always clear and understandable. The vision for the story really came through.
There are a lot of parts in this play, and every one of them is important in some way. I was pleasantly surprised that I can’t really think of a weak part - even the child parts were well acted.
I won’t mention every part in this post, but for any of you who might run across this review and don’t see your name specifically mentioned, I am sorry about the omission, and props to you for your fine job.
The central character, of course, is John Proctor. As part of the liberties Arthur Miller took with the actual facts, he is portrayed as a young farmer, married with children. In history, he was actually nearly 60, and on his third wife by that time. (Dang maternal death rates.) His paramour in the play, Abigail Williams, was 11 or 12 in real life, not 17, and the affair which Miller writes into the play is a pure fabrication for dramatic purposes.
John Proctor was played by Nick Ono, who has become jack-of-all-stage-trades these days - he acts, he sings, he dances, he choreographs, and several other things I have forgotten. I have been watching him for a number of years now, and have seen his growth as an artist. This role was a demanding one, with an absurd number of lines, a full range of emotions, and the central conflicts of guilt and integrity and the navigation of impossible situations. The performance was excellent and compelling. Ono truly inhabited the character, and owned the stage whenever he was on it.
I hadn’t seen Petra Garibay on stage before, but her portrayal of Elizabeth Proctor was another highlight. It is also a challenging part, because it is all too easy, given the script, to see her as either the innocent wronged wife, or as the cold fish unable to love John. To see her as both of those, and neither of those, and hold it in tension requires a vision for the character. Garibay made Elizabeth sympathetic, but in a realistic way. She is not the saint John claims she is, and has her own inner demons, but her underlying love and loyalty to John combined with great chemistry with Ono truly sold the idea that they still loved each other.
The role of Abigail Williams is another complicated one. On the one hand, she is a lying, manipulative psychopath as written in the play. Unlike the real-life young girls who were caught up in lies to escape punishment only to see the moral panic escalate to absurdity, the fictional Abigail is pretty clearly a major player more than willing to murder her lover’s wife and eventually him if he refuses to be with her.
But it is equally important that her relationship with Proctor be plausible in order for the frisson to work. If she is just a skank who manipulates him into sleeping with her, he either has to be a weaker character than he is shown to be, or his genuine conflict between the women who love him and his hesitation to ruin her rings false.
Lindsay Pearson is a veteran actor in local theater, and, looking back on my previous posts, her style is definitely tightly wound, with a sharp edge. This certainly brought out the psychopath side of the character out - you could feel her willingness to kill to get what she wants. I was a little less convinced about the chemistry between her and Proctor, for the same reason, but that may just be a question of taste.
One of the interesting facets of The Crucible is that, while there is a clear hero, there are many villains, each of which has competing and often mutually exclusive goals and motivations. The first one we meet is Reverend Parris, played by my friend from book club, Josh Evans, who has never fit in in his new job, and who is afraid that the revelations of witchcraft will ruin him. He is, perhaps, the most sympathetic of the villains - he is weak and spineless, selfish and grasping, but his villainy is self-protective, not malicious. Evans is always a pleasure to watch - his portrayal of Richard in The Lion in Winter was likewise excellent, and I loved his version of Parris, which captured all of his weakness and entitlement.
Although Miller doesn’t give him that much stage time, arguably the worst villain in real life was Thomas Putnam, who carefully used his accusations of witchcraft to murder his rivals and plunder their property. Ed French, who I have mostly seen in roles as a good guy, made use of his limited lines to seem appropriately slimy.
Gary Enns gave a good turn as Reverend Hale, the all-too-credulous witch hunter, whose enthusiasm at the beginning turns to horror as the town starts to feed on its most devout and decent citizens. He truly felt like a man with good intentions, but phenomenally poor judgment.
The arch-villain, though, the one who is arguably the most evil, is Governor Danforth. By the end of the play, he knows everyone is innocent, but, having gone as far as he has, he decides to complete the hanging (including of John Proctor and Goody Nurse) of innocents rather than admit he was wrong.
Danforth was played by my legal colleague Patrick Carrick, who memorized most of his lines before the audition, to get a head start in case he got the part. That’s such a lawyer thing to do, and the kind of professionalism Carrick always shows on stage. We had a fun discussion about the role afterward. His was a good performance, stuffy and self-important, arbitrary and inconsistent, and entirely believable. I mean, every lawyer has encountered at least one judge like that, although I am not naming names.
I’ll mention a few other friends. Sofia Reyes, another book club member, played Goody Nurse, and brought out the true surprise to be accused of things she would never dream. The real life woman is a demonstration of the truth that most accused “witches” were older women who had careers, often as healers and midwives.
Callie Stein-Wayne went to high school with my second kid, where they were first and second, respectively, in academic rank for their class. She got the part of Mary Warren, who tries to do the right thing, before fear for her own life (when Abigail turns on her) leads her to crumble. Placed in an impossible position, she does the all-too-human thing and sacrifices another to save herself.
And finally, Stephen Overstreet, who played Giles Corey. He is the closest thing this play has to comic relief, which makes his eventual death all the more devastating.
Again, great cast, great staging, great vision for the story. The Crucible is a brutal play, difficult to watch, and not short, but in this version, it was compelling from start to finish, and never dragged or lost focus. Everyone involved should be proud of themselves for bringing it to life. We have a great local theater scene here in Bakersfield, and this was another example of why.
The run is, unfortunately, done - we went to closing night. But definitely check out the upcoming productions at BCT and elsewhere in town.
No comments:
Post a Comment