CSC's "Macbeth": A Tale of Two Plays

◊◊ 1/2 out of five.  2 hours, 25 minutes, including intermission.  Adult situations, violence. 

Chesapeake Shakespeare Company's director Ian Gallanar outlines in his note in the program, that Macbeth is one of those plays that directors like to put "their stamp on" and the result may be over-conceptualizing; therefore, his production would strip the Scottish play of all those trappings and "go back to the words and the characters in the play."  Well, I have to agree with Mr. Gallanar - I have seen a Macbeth that takes place on a space ship, the Wild West, and even one done completely in body paint.  But I think he misses a point about all of the conceptualizing, and that is Macbeth is so well-written, its themes so universal to the human experience, that it can be done any number of ways and still be effective. And that includes a barebones let's-celebrate-the-language version that he proposes.  If any local Shakespeare company could do it, CSC is who I'd expect to do so.  I would love to have been at the production meetings for this Macbeth, which opened last weekend, and continues after Thanksgiving in Howard County.  It would seem from the confused mess onstage that they have really produced two plays in one production, and neither is very compelling. 

What is good about this version of Macbeth is excellent - namely the performances of the principle females.  Tami Moon, as Lady Macduff does what CSC is famous for.  She is speaking the Bard's words, but with a clearly modern take, making everything she says full of modern understanding.  Her impassioned screams to spare her children are spine-tingling, and her literally five minutes of stage time make an indelible impression.  Santina Maiolatesi as Hecate (the Moon) and as a lady in waiting for Lady Macbeth also makes the most of her stage time in Act Two, giving a grounded and heartfelt rendering of the latter bit part, and a very eerie, sinister take on the former role.

Jenny Leopold, Jenny Crooks and Lorraine Imwold may very well be the best witches in Macbeth I've seen.  In keeping with Gallanar's no-frills approach, their voices have not been altered, and their chants, both in unison and in solo are creepy and yet very intriguing.  One could see why Macbeth would be drawn to what they have to say.

Lesley Malin is very good as Lady Macbeth, and her take on the role, while not revolutionary,  is unique in its approach - she has taken Mr. Gallanar's edict to heart - the words are more important than the deeds.  It is refreshing to see a Lady Macbeth that is intense but not only intense, and one that pushes her husband, though only when it's too late does she get caught up in the all of the greedy possibilities (think Laura Bush, not Hillary Clinton).  Several of her speeches are all the more poignant because Ms. Malin delivers whole sections in near whisper, really forcing you to listen to what she says.  This tact is particularly effective when she does the famed sleepwalking scene ("Out, out damned spot!"), which is both chilling and pathetic.

Of the male cast members, three do especially well under Gallanar's no concept concept.  Patrick Kilpatrick, in the smallest role I've seen him in to date, the hilarious Porter, proves again why he sets the gold standard for Shakespearean acting in the Baltimore/DC area.  Is there anything this man can't do?  His roughly three minutes on stage electrify the production at a moment when everything that surrounds his scene seems to be on the wane. The second he opens his mouth, you know he is 100% sure of the power of his words - the only comedy in a profoundly tragic play.  On the down side, the minutes after he is gone deflate like a punctured balloon.

Vince Eisenson, as Malcolm, the one who ends up leader of Scotland by the end, is excellent as well.  His youthful swagger gives his character a confident edge.  It also charges his speech that comes before he accepts that he must return and fight for his country.  You actually believe all of his macho posturing about sex, and then can believe him anyway when he admits he has never known the company of a lady.  When taking the sword, it transforms him instantly into a fearless leader.  Both he and Mr. Kilpatrick are on board with their director.  Their words certainly count; I can't remember a production of this play when those two roles made that much of an impression.

The other actor who fares exceptionally well is Wayne Willinger, as Banquo.  Willinger is the kind of performer you either love or hate.  He does exceptional work in supporting roles (his Edgar in King Lear remains the single best supporting characterization I've reviewed in nearly two years), and he is exceptional here, full of passion and bravery.  The look on his face when Macbeth kills him is both sad and powerful.  He is also very effective as Banquo's ghost, here a body-less head (more on that in a minute).  His Banquo is so good that one can forgive his shameless scenery chewing as an attendant of Macbeth's later in the play.  It would appear that he is looking for laughs (he is doing a dead-on impression of the simpleton characters of Jerry Lewis, big glasses, protruding front teeth and all) where there are no laughs.  Well, not true.  The audience did chuckle nervously.  Again, love him or hate him, Mr. Willinger does make an impression.

The actors that make less of an impression are Charles Coates, David Lemire and Frank Mancino as the murderers, who get hearty chuckles (I'm not kidding) when they enter dressed like the evil Emperor in the Star Wars saga, and belly laughs when they talk just like him!  (Mr. Mancino, in other smaller roles, looks both bewildered and like he is waiting to deliver a punch line - the kind where it is accompanied by a spray bottle of water to the face.)

In that same vein is the unfortunate performance of Charlie Mitchell, who does every line like he is Jason Alexander doing George Costanza.  Every one of his lines, up until his final scene, is spoken as if a laugh track will issue from the sound system and at any moment Kramer will come sliding on stage.  To be fair, his final scene, when he learns of the fate of his family is very good - his wails of despair are effective, and the man sure can weald a sword. 

Least impressive, though most important, is Scott Alan Small's polarized performance as Macbeth.  I give any actor taking on this (or Hamlet) task.  The role is monumental.  And I give him even more credit for going with the words-only concept.  But his performance is exactly why this approach probably sounded so cavalier in production meetings, and ultimately doesn't work on stage.  The majority of his act one speeches come across as strangely bland, like his Macbeth is on a mental vacation. In fact, his first big speech after the witches' prophecies literally sounds like he just memorized it.  Every word precisely spoken with no - and I mean absolutely no - character.  He warms up as the play goes on, but he is never in command, and you get no inkling of what his take is on the role.  (His "dagger" speech is a dreadful monotone.) Is Macbeth just letting all of this happen to him?  Does he want power?  Does he want to please his wife?  Who knows?  And more unfortunately, he makes us not care.  By the end, Mr. Small's speeches seem to have each been assigned a singular emotion and that's all you get per speech.  When he is sad, he makes Hamlet look like a happy go lucky guy.  When he is angry he yells his way through the sentences.  Hey, at least you know what he is feeling from moment to moment, even if that means zero inner-conflict.

The moments of this production, though, that are the absolutely most fun, thrilling and effective are those where the cast, designers and, one has to assume, Mr. Gallanar himself actually do something interesting beyond the words, words, words.  That is, when there seems to be a concept at work in this no-concept production. (Does Mr. Gallanar himself ignore the no concept rule with his sound design, which includes the now standard musical soundtrack of bizarre music to set the scene?  Should the words do just that?)

Laura Ridgeway's costumes are certainly a concept, albeit a poorly executed one.  Hers is a modern-dress Macbeth, where Macbeth's rise to power is marked by the amount of fur on his over coat (at his peak, he looks more like the Rum Tum Tugger in Cats than the King of Scotland).  And all of the men are wearing dark colored suits - think senior prom meets Guys and Dolls - making who's who nearly impossible to tell (I literally thought to myself I feel sorry for anyone unfamiliar with the CSC troupe of regulars).  Then you have Ms. Malin's first costume - 21^st century hair, Star Trek eye makeup, a top more at home on Aldonza in Man of La Mancha, and a skirt best worn by the girls over on the Block.  And those granny shoes… Perhaps Ms. Ridgeway didn't get the "no concept" memo.

Ginger Peloquin also missed the "no concept" boat - only she threw every concept up on the stage, maybe to see what sticks.  Nothing does.  Is she going for industrial?  The stage right pillar made of screen (lit from inside) and multi-purpose (and wholly distracting) scaffolding piece that moves around stage would say she is.  Is she going for abstract?  The odd piece of functional art center stage (including a cool scrim/screen) and a pillar stage left, open and full of twisted wire would say that's what she's going after.  Or is it traditional she's trying?  The Globe-esque pillars far stage left would suggest as much.

Dave Eske's lighting is equally enigmatic.  His concept (sorry, I can't keep up the "no-concept" charade) is to explore the darkness that pervades the play.  And dark it is, and in mostly the right way.  Some of his best lighting is where there is none.  The absence of light in places makes a chilling effect.  And then there are those damnable stage left pillars.  Each is separately lit, framed in perfect shape to each by blinding colorless light.  They never seem to go out.  Ok, they do, but they leave a flash bulb like impression on your eyes.  This can't be what Mr. Eske and Mr. Gallanar are going for - there are at least a dozen times when an actor is blocked to stand precisely where the light aimed at the poles ends and the darkness starts - and every time it looks like the actor is in the wrong place, with his or her body half lit with a line going down their middle.  If that was intended, it is extremely distracting.

And yet each of the design team has done nice work, too. The costuming and stylized movement by the witches suggests gypsies at their scary best.  They are fun to watch, and more than a little creepy.  The scenes where Macbeth sees the ghost of Banquo (and several other similarly scary apparitions) are brought to excellent fruition by the lighting that uses the scrim/screen set piece to make it appear as though Banquo's head is really floating.  It is so effective it gave me goose-bumps.  And Patrick Kilpatrick's fight staging is impressive.  In Act Two, when Macbeth and Macduff finally have their sword-fight showdown, their fighting was so real, more than a few gasps were heard in the audience and five rows back you could feel the breeze of their swords swishing through the air. 

I think it says much about this play and this production that these moments of glorious theatricality are making more of an impression than just the words of the script do.  And they point out the fundamental problem with this staging.  If not all of the actors are up to the task and challenge of the words, you have to give the audience more to hold on to.  A words-only, concept-bare Macbeth could very well work - but only when the director and his entire company are in the same production.

PHOTOS by Kitty R, courtesy of CSC.  TOP to BOTTOM: Scott Alan Small (Macbeth as Thane of Glamis); Lesley Malin and Scott Alan Small (Lady Macbeth and Macbeth as Queen and King of Scotland); The Witches; Lesley Malin (Lady Macbeth sleepwalks); Scott Alan Small (Macbeth as King of Scotland).

 

To post a comment, you must register and login.