You know how the big movie studios, once they have a big hit, create sequel after sequel to milk every last bit of profit out of the franchise?
Well, this is nothing new. Four hundred years ago, a guy named Will found himself with a true franchise character, one audiences loved like no other.
Sir John Falstaff was, back in the day, the kind of superstar character that Batman is now. Put him in your play, and watch the money roll in.
This left Shakespeare in a bit of a bind. Falstaff was intended to just be the comic relief and the way of furthering the character development of Prince Hal, the future Henry V. He played his part, and that was it.
With such a massive hit, however, Shakespeare realized he had to milk the franchise a bit more, so to speak.
So, he wrote a second play about Hal and his father, Henry IV Part 2. Forget about historical accuracy, just have Hal have a little relapse into his carousing ways, hang out with Falstaff a bit more, and make some bank, right? Even better, focus on Falstaff in his own plotline! And it sold!
Why not go back the the well one more time? A third relapse for Hal would hardly seem remotely plausible, particularly since Henry IV is dead at the end of the second play. It really is time for Hal to grow up, defeat those bastards in France, and give one badass speech.
But maybe there was another way: give Falstaff his own play. And make it a comedy!
And that is how we got The Merry Wives of Windsor. Falstaff was still selling, Shakespeare needed a comedy, and who doesn’t enjoy seeing a philanderer get a bit of a comeuppance?
I did a fairly detailed synopsis of the plot in my review of the online Globe performance during the pandemic, so I won’t repeat it here. Pretty much, you have the obligatory young couple who must overcome obstacles to be together, combined with Falstaff’s ill-fated attempts to seduce at least one of a pair of married women.
Shakespeare is, fortunately, not considered such an untouchable god that his plays have become a museum. These days, all kinds of different takes can be found, from the reverent period pieces to the loose adaptations for modern pop movies. It remains a living and relevant art form because it can be made fresh for each generation and performance.
The Empty Space has done Shakespeare since its inception, but as with its productions generally, it has a different flavor from other local theaters and other Shakespeare companies my wife and I have enjoyed over the years.
The Utah Shakespeare Festival is creative to be sure, yet its Shakespeare is largely professional and true to the original to the degree any modern version can be. (Nobody does the full 5 hour lengths with all the recaps and repeats.) Likewise for The Old Globe in San Diego. Expect long lengths, and most of Shakespeare’s speeches and dialogues.
Theatricum Botanicum can be relied on to flip scripts, address our own social issues, and utilize the outdoor setting to perfection. Bakersfield College is all about introducing the next generation to Shakespeare, which means creative changes to the setting and casting, and physical humor to bring out the bawdiness that those unfamiliar with the language might miss.
For The Empty Space, the small stage and intimate venue has meant an emphasis on storytelling and character acting, with more of the dialogue and length cut. This does not mean a dumbed down version, just a bit more reduction to the essence.
I will also mention that this performance was dedicated to the late Bob Kempf, a huge figure in local theater, and still, after all these years, the person I most associate with Falstaff and Sir Toby Belch.
The setting for this production was Mardi Gras. The set had masks everywhere, and most of the costumes were in line with that classic New Orleans vibe. (The exceptions were meaningful, of course…) One could very much feel the Carnival celebrations in the background - something Falstaff would have been down for, for sure.
There were so many veteran stage actors in this version, it really felt like an all star cast. Since many of these people are friends, I found it even more fun. I’m totally partisan when it comes to people I know doing what they do, and I had a great time.
First, who played Falstaff? I think I may have seen Adam Fernandez elsewhere, but not in a major part like this. And Falstaff is not an easy one. He has to be funny, of course. But he also has to have a sense of wounded pride that is just believable to be sympathetic, but not so much that you truly feel bad for him when he is punished. Fernandez did fine, and created his own version of the character. He deserved all the laughs he got.
As with other productions, I found myself particularly intrigued by the two main female characters. These are Mrs. Ford and Mrs. Page, the married women who are the targets of Falstaff’s seduction attempts. He needs money. They have it. And just maybe if he tries both at the same time, he can score with one.
In this case, the older Mrs. Page was played by the always-delightful Julie Gaines, most recently seen in A Murder is Announced. Paired with Josh Evans as her husband - the one who laughs the whole thing off, knowing his wife is just having fun - she was so much fun. Opposite her was Angela Poncetta as Mrs. Ford.
Their conspiracy was the show-stealing core of the story. I loved the way they (over)acted their parts for Falstaff’s benefit - it was hilarious and perfect.
John Spitzer, whose use of Shakespearean language is superb, was the jealous Mr. Ford, who also gets his comeuppance from his wife over his jealousy. He is always so intense, so a good fit for the part.
For the other plot, I’ll note Anne Page and Ryan Sagan as the young couple. They didn’t get many lines in this adaptation, unfortunately, but they have promise as young actors. The real fun of the subplot, though, is always the reverend, Sir Hugh Evans, the doctor, Caius, and the bumbling Abraham Slender. As hapless suitors for the hand of the lovely Anne, they are able to create unique characters in every production.
Joey Bedard as Slender played him as a guy who isn’t even interested in Anne - or women at all. He is at the mercy of his uncle Shallow (Ian Sharples) who sees the match as having political and economic advantage. Slender is preferred by Anne’s father.
Sir Hugh is ostensibly Welsh, which in the original involves some jokes that go way over the heads of us Americans - and even perhaps modern audiences in general. In this version, Sir Hugh is instead the wild west gunslinger parson sort, fu manchu and hat included. Geographically, this is a great fit, and Scott Deaton is another stage veteran with excellent Shakespeare chops.
Finally, there is Doctor Caius, the Frenchman preferred by Anne’s mother. Played in deliciously haughty manner by Claire Rock, this was a show-stealing part. For some reason, mockery of the French never gets old, and works just as well in 21st Century America as it did in Shakespeare’s time. (No personal animus toward the French, but the jokes write themselves…)
I also want to mention another wonderful and hilarious touch in this production. During intermission, there was a good bit of furniture to move and sets to re-arrange. This was done by Cory Geurtsen and Shelbie McClain as the maids. They did it fully in character, bickering by pantomime. I’m glad I didn’t have to pee and got to watch it all, because it really was delightful to watch.
The Merry Wives of Windsor runs this coming weekend, so see it while you can. You can get tickets online here.
No comments:
Post a Comment