By Patricia Morris Buckley
SDUN Theatre Critic
“King Lear” has often been called the Bard’s greatest tragedy, one where all the main characters are dead by the end. It’s filled with dark themes, one of history’s most dysfunctional families, bold deceptions and—worst of all—foolish actions that lead to an ominous ending.
On the other hand, “The Taming of the Shrew” is a lively comedy where no one perishes, true love prevails and everything ends on a festive note. Of course, there is that pesky problem of it being misogynistic to the extreme, as the title character is starved and bullied into submitting to her new husband.
As different as these plays are in tone, the two productions vary in success as well. “Lear” has a few inspired moments, but they are few and quite far apart. While the show comes in at just three hours, it feels like a full five-hour production of “Hamlet.” On the other hand, “Shrew” is played for as many laughs as possible and the results are light-hearted and entertaining.
“Lear” is directed by the artistic director of the Old Globe’s Shakespeare Festival, Adrian Noble. Noble is best known as the former artistic director of the Royal Shakespeare Co. and as the author of “How to do Shakespeare.” So it seems odd that this “Lear” is so laborious to watch.
Part of the problem is that so many of the production elements are pushing the play’s subtext squarely in our faces. For instance, the set is a single platform surrounded by a sea of autumn leaves. And King Lear is in the autumn of his life—get it? Or that the storm in the third act is a snowstorm, when Lear is now in the winter of his life. Not exactly subtle. Neither are the costumes, which transition from the soft Georgian looks into WWI military uniforms as the different factions battle each other.
To Noble’s credit, he hasn’t neutered the play’s visceral elements in a way many theaters do. When the Earl of Gloucester’s eyes are removed, we get bloody eyeballs dripping from another characters hand—just as they would have been in the Bard’s time. When a character is pierced with a sword, there’s plenty of blood.
The performances are much more subtle, thank goodness. Robert Foxworth’s Lear is arrogant and entitled, then broken down to a bag of hollow bones by the end. This is one of the great roles in theatre and while Foxworth’s Lear isn’t a crowning performance, he captures many of the role’s nuances with admirable skill.
Also worthy of mention is Bruce Turk as the Fool who is heartbroken in his love for the King, which ultimately leads to his character’s demise. As the Earl’s sons, Jay Whittaker and Jonno Roberts are both razor-sharp as opposing brothers, one the victim, the other a devious villain.
Roberts returns as Petruchio, the male lead in “Shrew,” and he certainly has the charisma, sex appeal and unflagging energy to carry the show. Director Ron Daniels keeps the lusty heat boiling between Roberts and his co-star, Emily Swallow (who also plays Goneril in “Lear”). Swallow gives Kate an Angelina Jolie air of strength, superiority and deep passion. Watching Roberts and Swallow in a courtship dance is like a heavyweight match. Highly enjoyable.
Daniels directs the whole thing as a wink-wink, nudge-nudge comedy, complete with bawdy turns, double takes and even pants that expose an actor’s behind. There’s definitely a feeling that the audience is in on the tongue-in-cheek as a few audience members are seated on stage and the actors include them in a few scenes. And before the show, actors mingle with the audience.
As most directors do with this comedy, Daniels has to deal with the “taming” part of the story. He puts the emphasis on Kate’s impulsive and belligerent behavior, as if she were a spoiled brat who must learn to treat others with more respect and dignity. And this fits the show’s light and bouncy tone until the very end, which is when every director cringes because Kate has a speech where she swears her undying obedience to her husband as lord and master. Yuck.
The problem of adopting the breezy tone is that the audience leaves feeling as if they just saw a rom-com film. It’s fun, but there’s no depth to it. But in the end, it’s the heat between the lead characters that makes the text’s message somewhat bearable.
The same can be said for Ralph Funicello’s set design, which is really more of a stage design. The stage is bare in both (except for the leaves in “Lear”) with a few small additions. “Shrew” has a large, lit sign with the title of the show attached to high scaffolding. The best feature of Deirdre Clancy’s costumes is the materials she uses, constructing tailored coats from leather and mixing periods in a satisfying fashion.
Alan Burrett’s lights in “Lear” are stark and glaring, which is a great idea, but tires the eyes over a three-hour production. But his rosy designs for “Shrew” fit the show’s tone perfectly. Kudos also to the team that created the stunning snowstorm in “Lear.” The image of Lear glowing as he stands in the torrential swirl of white flakes is one of the most memorable I’ve ever seen in San Diego theatre.
Theatre can show all sides of the human character and many of those faces can be seen in these two vastly different productions. It just depends on whether you prefer comedy or tragedy. Or both.
“King Lear” until Sept. 23
“Taming of the Shrew” until Sept. 26
Old Globe Theatre
Balboa Park
234-5623
TheOldGlobe.org
