Much Ado About Nothing – Synetic Theater

synetic_logoAfter Synetic Theater’s wonderful production of Twelfth Night last year I was really excited to see what they would do with this play. Much Ado…is one of my favorite Shakespeare plays, easily my favorite of his comedies and Beatrice and Benedick are probably my favorite romantic couple (is it odd that the Macbeths are number two? but I digress) so I had expectations, which can be dangerous, but can I tell you how much I love it when my expectations are exceeded?

This show…this show is Synteic Theater doing what it does best at its best. It was fun, it was intense, it was laugh out loud funny, it nicely skirted along the edge of absurdity, it was poignant, it had perspective and it was beautifully choreographed and fantastically performed. What I’m trying to say is I really liked the show. One of the hardest things to do in Shakespeare comedies is to make them genuinely funny, mostly you realize “Oh, that’s funny, ha-ha,” rarer is it just to spontaneously laugh at a funny moment (not that it doesn’t happen.) In stripping the language out of the story Synetic allowed the humor to take center stage and then they just had fun with it.

MuchADo01Largely, the success of this show has always rested on the couple “too wise to woo peaceably,” Beatrice and Benedick, and I can’t think of performers more capable of bringing these characters to life than Ben Cunis and Irina Tsikurishvili. They have great on stage chemistry, this is a battle royale between equals in character and temperment and they portrayed the love/hate/love, nature of their relationship beautifully. I really liked the backstory vignette they created for the couple and I really like adding the PTSD factor to Benedick’s backstory, it makes sense, it’s topical and it lent some intensity to the story. Mr. Cunis gives a wonderful performance, with a distinct young Brando vibe (think The Wild One, 1953,) with a deadly combination of machismo, charisma and vulnerability, that is so unattractive in  a leading man right? Ms. Tsikurishvili as Beatrice is an equal to her Benedick and their scenes together are always entrancing and entertaining to watch. It would have been very easy for the romance to tip over into treacly territory but they balanced out the sweetness of genuine love with sufficient pride and stubbornness to keep the relationship interesting. Bravo!

But let me not diminish the rest of the cast, this was a wonderful collaborative performance and there was no weak link. The scenes where the actors are tricking Benedick and Beatrice in to falling (back) in love with each other are hilarious, and I’m mildly amazed at how well the narrative came a cross. There is a fantastic scene in between Don Pedro (Philip Fletcher) and his bastard brother Don John (Dallas Tolentino) where a struggle over a leather jacket becomes a phenomenal pas des deux and yet still serves to highlight the power struggle between the characters. Actually it would have been very easy for the individual performances to overwhelm the narrative but throughout the entire show the performances, the choreography all worked together to serve the narrative most effectively.

And I have to give special kudos to Vato Tsikurshivili, Zana Gankhuyang and Justin Bell as Doggberry and the Nightwatch! That was just flat out, straight up, comic genius. From the moment they came on stage they stole show, just a little bit, the facial expressions the, “driving,” the chasing, I was nearly in tears. Just really really well done!

So this is the point were I usually talk about what I didn’t like about the show…I got nothing. As I was watching it the first act break didn’t come where I expected it, but I was wrong, they put it in the right place. There may be flaws in the show (all shows have them) but the positives of the show are so thoroughly overwhelming they just don’t matter. I think, I might have to go see the show again, to see if there’s anything I really don’t like; yes that is the excuse I’m going to use to go see the show again. Actually there is a friend I’ve been meaning to introduce to Synetic and I think this is the show to do it with and if you haven’t gone to see them yet, this is an excellent place to start.

The show runs through March 22nd so there is ample time to go see this and I encourage you to go. I would rate if PG 13 for sex and drug content but it’s no worse than whats on Prime Time cable. There aren’t any videos of the performance but here’s a little behind the scenes.

Macbeth – Shakespeare’s Globe #44

macbeth01All Hail Macbeth! I know not why I love this play so much but I really do; I’ve seen it numerous time and I am certain I will see it many times more. It is a powerful story with complex character relatively simply told (compared to many of Shakespeare’s works.) And the play is kind of difficult to screw up, I’ve yet to see a production that has failed to be enjoyable (not that I’m issuing a challenge.) But as one would expect from Shakespeare’s Globe they do this show great justice.

I am assuming I don’t need to recount the story of Macbeth, it is the iconic tale of a man who initially bettered himself by doing the right thing, fealty to crown and country; then in attempting to achieve greatness started doing the smart thing and thereby ended up screwed royally, or royally screwed. It’s also a valuable cautionary tale about not taking advice from weird bearded women who appear to you out of the mist. That lesson is appropriate across the board.

macbeth03This is simply an excellent production, the cast is uniformly excellent, Joseph Millson, as Macbeth anchored the performance and give us a fantastic ride from erstwhile King to monomaniacal madman. One interesting decision in this production was the treatment of Lady Macbeth, played wonderfully by Samantha Spiro, toward the end of the 1st act, they portray her as a battered wife. There is a pivotal scene where Macbeth’s ambitions fully consume him and become self driven, they need no more encouragement and beratement from his dear love. It starts simply with a bruised eye and by her mad sleepwalking scene she is a battered husk of who she was. I assume this is symbolic of the shift in power in the relationship, her dominance early in the relationship is clear. The other character that was very well plays was that of Banquo. Don’t you hate it when an actor is so familiar but you can’t quite place them, well this actor was Billy Boyd, the Hobbit! I have to say complete transformation and phenomenally acted; he disappeared entirely into the character. I always love it when an actor surpasses my expectations of them. Not that I really had any, but playing a kick-ass Banquo is not something I would have connected to that actor.

macbeth05I am entirely enthused that Shakespeare’s Globe is diving full force into the screening trend, that will not however stop me from going there to see a show on my soon to be planned sojourn to explore the London theater scene. Also, if you have not heard of it they are launching Globe Player where you can rent or buy there previously recorded productions. I’m totally in on this!!

Indian Ink #43

indian inkI have an ongoing pact with a close friend to see as many of Tom Stoppard’s works as possible. A noble goal, all will agree, and not an undaunting task. Mr. Stoppard has been staging a play every 2-3 years since the mid ‘60s! And he’s still writing! Nevertheless, we are resolute and that is how we came to spend a lovely fall afternoon in a darken theater.

I really enjoyed the show, it was entertaining, well-acted, well written and even educational but at the end I’m not sure what the point was, or if there was a point. Being a work by Mr. Stoppard it possible that meaning is too subtle for me to discern or that the play is no more than it was, a snapshot of a person and a time. Which is entirely acceptable. Not to say that the play is irrelevant, there was conflict, and character growth and culture and history, but at the end none of it seemed to tie together, at least to me. Still, an enjoyable afternoon of theater.

IndianInk063rThe play takes place in two time periods and two places, 1930’s Royal India and 1980’s England and India. The story follows the adventure of a slightly known (and fictional) poet Flora Crewe who travels to India for her health. Her story is recounted from letters she wrote to her younger sister, Eleanor Swan, who as an old woman in 1980’s England is sharing the letters with an English professor who is attempting to write a biography of Flora. Flora has had minor success as a poet and is known for having a scandalous life, although she intimates that her life is less scandalous than most credit. Although there is almost certainly an affair with the artist Modigliani, which may or may not be the source of her illness. The majority of the story focuses on Flora’s relationship with an Indian artist, Nirad Das, who befriends her and asks to paint her portrait. He is the main conduit through which Flora experiences the culture of India. During this period of history British Expats in India had done a pretty good job of making India Britain, except for the heat and humidity. Flora is disappointed with the portrait when she sees it as the artist has rendered her in a continental style. “I thought you were and Indian artist,” she says; she quite clearly wanted a portrait in a “native” style, while he was attempting to please her by painting in a style he thinks she would prefer.

One of the mysteries that Ms. Crewe’s erstwhile biographer is attempting to solve is a reference to a nude portrait and her travels to India to find it. For some reason, not explained, both Flora’s sister and Nirad Das’s son conspire to keep this information from her biographer, initially independently of each other and them in collusion with each other. This is a curious point of the story, why does it matter to them now that this be kept secret when all other aspect of her life have been revealed. It’s not like in this day and age a nude portrait would hardly be shocking, it was barely shocking then. I suppose it’s a way to keep a piece of her for themselves or perhaps they are merely trying to protect Flora’s and Nirad’s memories from further exploitation for someone elses ambition.

The performances were all very good. Rosemary Harris as Eleanor was quite charming and funny. Firdous Bamji was excellent as the artist Nirad Das, I really enjoyed his performance very much as I did Romola Garai as Flora. In enjoyable and entertaining afternoon of theater and for 2-1/2 hour play very well paced.

A Streetcar Named Desire – NT Live #39

AStreetcarYes, this show is out of order but I just couldn’t figure out what I wanted to say about it. Every so often there are those shows that I really want to like but I just can’t seem to work-up any real enthusiasm for. I had heard generally good buzz about this show and about Gillian Anderson’s performance; I had heard especially good things about her recent performance in A Doll’s House so while I like A Street Car Named Desire I really was going to see this performance to see “what all the fuss” was about (plus I’m a Scully fan). I mostly came away feeling…fine. This was part of the NT Live series (which I am a HUGE fan of) so perhaps the performances just didn’t translate on screen but for me the show never really became engaging. So we’re going to keep this simple.

What I liked:

The acting was good, generally, I especially enjoyed Ben Foster’s Stanley, he seemed to properly encapsulate his bravado and insecurity simultaneously.

The rotating stage was a cool, especially when I realized it would sometime be rotating in the middle of a scene not just as a set change. It could almost be seen as a metaphor for the whirling dervish that is Blanche DuBois psyche. You know, if the second thing out of your mouth is “wonderful set design,” that’s not really a good thing. The set should always be in service of the actors.

Wow that might be it…nothing else was particularly note worthy.

What I didn’t like:

The southern accents just did not work for me. They did not at all bring to mind the languorous speech patterns of of the Deep South. It bugged just a little bit. Okay, a lot.

Minor anachronisms in the props; the play mostly seemed set in the 50’s – ish but then why are they using a cordless phone? It’s stupid but it really stood out and became a little distracting.

The penultimate scene, Blanche is descending a serious spiral of delusion, emotionally and physically. She’s a make-up smeared, drunken mess laying on the floor when Stanley comes in and this, this is the moment he decides it’s time to put an end to the “tension” between them? When Stanley rapes Blanche it is an act of dominance of bringing her down to his level, or more a confirmation that she was already at his level. The sodden mess he finds on the floor is most pathetic and hardly a challenge to his vanity or manhood.

I think the performance just lacked chemistry. Each actor did a good job but the performance never seemed to gel. The passion between Stanley and Stella, eh; the sexual tension between Stanley and Blanche, non-existent. I wonder if the rotating of the stage (it was relatively slow when they were in scenes) somehow made it harder for the actors to connect on stage. I can see it being disconcerting.

So this show falls into the “fine” category; it did not offend but neither did it excel. Never the less, still a huge fan of what Nation Theater is doing and I think my 2015 resolution is going to have to be a trip to the West End. I think it’s time I see some of these NT Live performances, live.

 

 

Galavant – A Fairy Tale Musical

Obviously ABC is attempting to cash in on the relative success of the “Once” franchise and the “Glee” trend of making musicality on TV acceptable. The more I watch this clip the more I want to see the show. It helps that they’re not taking themselves seriously at all, and that there’s a distinct touch of Python to the whole thing. I give serious credit to anyone who had the courage to pitch this show and to the people who approved it. It may be an abysmal failure, I mean has there been a successful musical TV series? “Glee” really doesn’t count, it’s not truly a musical; “Smash” started out strong but faded fast; even the star power of Hugh Jackman couldn’t save “Viva Laughlin;” anybody remember “Cop Rock?” Plus, it’s nice to see something new on TV that isn’t another CSI-esque drama or rom-com sit-com.  This could be the only good three minutes out of all 8 proposed episode but it looks just ludicrous enough to work, at least in the short term. Coming up with decent musical numbers week after week is going to be difficult; although, Mr. Menken is certainly prolific. I will be totally annoyed if there’s only one or two musical numbers per episode, that is not a musical; in a hour format, a minimum of 4 is what I would require.

The plot seems pretty standard, but then again it is a Fairy Tale, there are standard tropes one must hit in a good fairy tale. They have a handsome prince, check: damsel in distress, check; evil but not particularly dangerous villain, check; thwarted romance, check; galloping horses, check; but at the same time they’re poking fun at the genre as well. We will have to wait and see if this will be a fun bit of escapism or just bad. Either way I’ll be tuning in, assuming it doesn’t play against Sharknado III.

It starts January 4th, put it on your calendars.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HebCU8X34JE

A Thurber Carnival #41

Thurb-250x250I have a pretty strict policy of not reviewing community theater productions that I attend. It’s just not fair to compare amateur productions on shoe string budgets to the regional production or national tours. I have a great deal of respect for people who take the not small amount of effort and time it take to put on shows for often small audiences. That’s some serious love a performing. The Thurber Carnival is a series of skits based on the life and writings of author James Thurber. They were clever in the keeping the costuming and set design monochromatic. The feel of the show had a modern day Laugh-in feel to it, especially in the opening and closing numbers.

 

Sex With Strangers #40

sexThere is just something about really good piece of theater where all the elements, the writing, the directing and the acting, even the set design, come together to form this perfect  morsel of theater that is entirely satisfying and still leaves you wanting more. This is what keeps me coming back to the theater time after time; sitting through bad shows, mediocre shows, the merely good shows and the really good shows, every once in a while you find these tasty morsels of goodness that tip over into an exceptional piece of theater. Frankly, I’m usually happy to come out of a show entertained but occasionally you hit that wonderful trifecta of entertainment, talent and content that make a great show; that’s Sex with Strangers.

Ethan and Olivia meet on a dark and stormy night in a secluded retreat. Olivia is a talented writer who was traumatized by the unsuccessful launch and criticism of her first book years ago. Ethan is a bros bro who has gotten wealthy from turning his blog (about his escapades having sex with strangers) into a couple of successful books and a movie. These divergent people, both who are trying to escape what they have become and become what they would like to be, meet in the woods one night and the paths they choose makes all the difference. I’m not going to give too much away, the discovery of the characters and there action and motivations is part of the fun.

SexWithStrangers2The show does a wonderful job of maintaining this undercurrent of tension throughout the play about the characters feelings and emotions. There is always that soupcon of doubt about their true motivations. These are two people who are genuinely attracted to each other, have not insincere feeling for each other but who also find they may have a use for each other. There is this back and forth on which is the stronger motivator in the relationship. From the beginning you’re certainly skeptical of Ethan’s motives, at least I was, but at the same time you are really rooting for him to be the person he’s attempting to be as opposed to the person he has been or may still be. His persona, the one he mostly lets you see, is so damn likable and charming that you want to believe this is a person genuinely seeking change.

Olivia, well, you like Olivia from the beginning. She’s smart and talented with a droll sense of humor and aside from her fear of trying to publish again she is the epitome of the modern urbane woman but not in a stuck-up way (okay a little stuck-up.) Olivia secures the high moral ground pretty early on but there comes a moment in the play where the decisions she makes related to Ethan, spurred by the possibility of success, may be as much about his utility as her affection for him. The real tension blooms when what is best for each of their ambitions stops following the same path.

SexWithStrangersThe playwright, Laura Eason’s, writing is witty and insightful and very relevant to the hurdles of love and ambition in the digital age. In exploring these characters relationship we’re also exploring numerous modern day issues; the pervasive nature of social media and how it affects how we interact with the world, the on going objectification of women and their bodies for entertainment, women’s complicity in the that exploitation, the bros will be bros culture of men (to be fair, of some men.) All issues we see and talk about nearly daily and rarely have consensus on. Yes, social media is every where but damn if it’s not a useful tool. The bro culture isn’t positive but this is America and a bro’s got a right to be a bro. (But be careful, when you’ve decided you don’t want to be a bro no more, social media may object to that!)

This wonderful and witty writing is beautifully performed by Holly Twyford and Luigi Sottile (I’ll let you figure out who plays who.) For the tension in this play to work you really have to believe that these two characters are truly attracted to each other and Ms. Twyford and Mr. Sottile have on-stage chemistry that is simply off the charts. You expect a play with “Sex” in the title to be at least a little sexy and they deliver steamy passion. And if that isn’t enough they are also quite good in the parts of the play that require speaking. They’re equal to the witty intelligent dialog and bring these two characters to life and bring into reality their emotions and conflicts. You care about these characters and you can’t help but root for them but at the same time you must acknowledge that  life doesn’t always, actually rarely, allows for the perfect happy ending. Of course I’m not saying it’s not a happy ending, or actually an ending at all. Just like life there are always new decisions and new conflicts to be resolved.

One final nod to the set designer, I loved this set, I want to live on that set. Like the performance the design had wit and charm.

The show is playing through the first week of December at Signature Theatre and I really can’t recommend it enough.

Island of Dr. Moreau #38

dr moreau 2Synetic Theater first show of their 2014-15 season is right in their wheel house, H.G. Wells’ “The Island of Dr. Moreau.” What had me really excited about this show was the return of Paata Tsikurishvili to the stage. It’s been years since I’ve seen him on stage, I think I have to go all the way back to Macbeth. And I swear any day now I’m going to learn to spell his last name without looking it up (I came really close this time.) But I digress, The Island of Dr. Moreau, the tale of an “evil” scientist that has created his own race of man-(and woman-)beasts is just the type of gothic material that Synetic excels at producing. I put “evil” in quotes because Dr. Moreau is not evil scientist in the death ray/rule the world kind of way; he’s more of the sociopath who thinks he is misunderstood and his real aim is to benefit the greater good; therefore the ends justifies the means. His goal is to make a better man and to achieve that end he experiments on animals, the idea being that if he can get simple beasts to act civilized, and to put aside their base instincts for violence, then the same can theory can be applied to mankind in general. Dr. Moreau personifies the constant struggle to balance the ends achieved with the methods used and (similar to Synetic’s recent production of  “Jekyll and Hyde”) it explores finding a better or at least faster way for humans to evolve away from our baser nature.

It is no secret that I prefer Synetic silent productions, but their speaking production have improved significantly in recent history and while I enjoyed this show it is not one of their stronger performances. The production felt a bit formulaic, it’s a similar pattern that they’ve repeated several times, there is a back and forth between the spoken section of the show and the movement based  but not rally a cohesion between the two. I would like to see a more fluid transition and perhaps even see more choreography with in the spoken section of the performance. The stylized nature of Synetic’s work is their strong suite. Last years production of The Three Musketeers is a good example, that show had a much better integration between the two mediums.

dr moreau 1Having said that, I thoroughly enjoyed watching Mr. Tsikurishvili prowl the stage as our quite mad yet oddly likable Dr. Moreau. He portrayed Moreau with the empirical callousness of a scientist towards his subjects, they are just his lab rats, yet there is an under tone of affection for his creations, when they do well he is proud and it’s all neatly tied together with a massive God complex. He can fix the world, just give him a little time and a whole lot of ethical leeway. Dallas Toletino as Moreau’s equally sociopathic assistant give the best performance I’ve seen to date, apparently drunken brain eater may be a nice niche for him, it was a wonderfully eerie performance.

The show plays through the end of the month for those looking for a little Halloween-y creepiness to enjoy.

On The Town #37

1004141259I’ve decided I’m rather lacking in exposure to a lot of our “classic” musicals, think pre-1950’s. I’m pretty well versed in the Rodgers & Hammerstien/Lerner & Lowe/Gershwin Brothers oeuvres but there are many more musicals/artists that I only know peripherally.  So in an effort to beef-up my knowledge I decided to go see a musical about handsome strapping sailors dancing their way through New York City. smile.

On the Town, which originally open on Broadway in 1944, follows the misadventures of three sailors who have only 24 hours to make the most of the Big Apple. Our erstwhile heroes cling pretty closely to the archetypes of male friends: there’s Gabey, the earnest one, Chip, the geeky one and Ozzie, the ladies man; you can pretty  much tell their character traits by there names, right? Although, they all have the unlikely quality of be squeaky clean guys, for sailors. There really isn’t much of a plot to the story, Gabey spots his true love on a subway poster “Miss Turnstiles” and is determined to find this paragon of talent and beauty so that they can…well I’m not sure what…maybe, live a life time in a day? Being good buddies Ozzie and Chip are willing to cast aside their own plans to help their friend and so they subdivide the isle of Manhattan to try and find her. Totally doable in one day! Of course in their travels both Ozzie and Chip manage to find love, or least readily available sex. It’s actually a pretty high libido show despite it’s overall veneer of earnest goodness.

This is a really well put together production and I really can’t complain about anything, which I know does not come off as a ringing endorsement. This is one of those shows that equals the sum of it’s parts, and when you have talented actors, fun music, great dancing and a shiny lucite New York City that is not at all a bad thing, it’s an entirely enjoyable afternoon of theater. But I can’t give it a rave; for me it did not reach the same level as the 2011 revival of Anything Goes, that show tipped over into something exceptional and has set the bar for what I expect for revivals from that era of musical theater. I did see this relatively early in previews so the performance may have still been a little underdone; certainly Mr. Brantley’s recent review is a ringing endorsement, but tastes vary.

On the Town Barrington Stage CompanyI did really enjoyed the dance numbers, and yes there are several dance numbers; I say that because that seemed to be the consensus of the audience members around me. “Yes I like it. There’s a lot of dancing(with quizzically furred brows)” rather like they’d never seen dancing in a musical before. In all fairness the show was originally conceived of as a ballet by Jerome Robbins so it does have more than the usual numbers that are purely dance but frankly they were some of my favorite parts of the show. To cast Tony Yazback (as Gabey) in a show and not have him dance would be incredibly wrong. All three of the main actors, Tony Yazback, Clyde Alves (Ozzie) and Jay Armstrong Johnson (Chip), were excellent, fun to watch and had great chemistry on stage. Of their lady loves, Ivy, aka Miss Turnstiles, Hildy, the cabbie, and Claire, the apparent nymphomaniac, it was Alysha Umphress whose attempts to seduce Chip really get’s you attention. It’s not just the guys who are looking to bet a little something-something in this show. She put a lot of jazzy Umph in her two main numbers, “Come Up to My Place” and  “I Can Cook Too,” and the only one of the female characters I actually liked. Claire was just kind of annoying and Ivy had about as much depth as her poster. Granted none of these characters are meant to have depth.

on the town 2After the show you leave humming that damn earworm “New York New York” which was not entirely inappropriate as I crossed Times Square. I did have the thought as I listened to the lyrics of the song that, it is only the manner in which the song is sung that keeps it from being taken ironically. I wonder if anyone has every tried to sing this song satirically. Read some of the the lyrics:

New York, New York, a helluva town. (mhmmm…yep…helluv a own I tell ya’)
The Bronx is up, but the Battery’s down.
The people ride in a hole in the groun’. (hole in the ground is not an unapt description for some subway stops)
New York, New York, it’s a helluva town!

New York, New York, a visitor’s place,
Where no one lives on account of the pace, (well gee that’s positive imagery)
But seven millions are screaming for space. (and not inaccurate)
New York, New York, it’s a visitor’s place!

Manhattan women are dressed in silk and satin,
Or so the fellas say; (no exaggeration there!)

There has to be someone out there who can turn this on its head right?

Medea – National Theatre Live #36

medea-01For those who are not familiar with the play…it does NOT end well…for anybody. This may be the Greek-est of all Greek tragedies, the innocent are murdered, brutally; the guilty live, not entirely unpunished and everybody loses.

To understand the play, it helps to know the back story, so bear with me, we will get to the meat of the subject shortly.

Jason, our mythic “hero,” is sailing with the Argonauts in search for the Golden Fleece which is owned by King Aeetes, who happens to have a daughter named Medea. The King agrees to give Jason the fleece if he can complete three labors, which are obviously impossible, but Medea, having fallen in love with Jason, (or having had a love spell cast on her by the Gods) and just happening to be a sorceress as well (she is descended from the Gods after all), agrees to help Jason get the Fleece. Having achieved his goal, Jason agrees to take Medea with him and to distract her father while they make their romantic getaway they kill her brother and scatter his body parts around for her father to find.

Medea2So fast forward many years to the beginning of our play and Jason, after having lived with Medea as a devoutly in love couple and having had two sons together, has unceremoniously thrown her over for the King of Corinth’s younger, blonder and less witchy daughter. We join our characters on the day that Jason is to be married to his new bride. Medea in the days prior has made little secret of her displeasure, making threats both veiled and un-, to the extent that the King of Corinth, fearing for his daughters well fare, has come to banish her and her children into the wilderness. Tearfully and humbly pleading on bended knee for mercy Medea is granted a brief and most unwise reprieve by the King and uses the time less to plan a safe getaway but rather to determine how best to unleash her vengeance on those who have wronged her. Mostly Jason, but she’s okay with some collateral damage as well. In the end she uses her sons to murder her husband’s new wife and father-in-law and then uses her own two hands to slaughter her beloved two sons because she cannot find any other way that she can cause Jason the same level of pain that he has caused her.

I have been told by those whose understanding of this play is more learned than I, that this is a play about feminine empowerment. Of taking control when everyone is seeking to control you. And I get that but I am perhaps too indoctrinated in modern middle class morality to ever feel sympathy for a character that murders her own children.

3medea2207BAnd having said that we are finally at the meat of this narrative. I, at my core and in my most logical modern mind have no sympathy for Medea. She’s a bit of a lunatic and mean and petty to boot, and while she had numerous opportunities to get away and be safe she chooses to stay and seek revenge no matter the cost. But…Helen McCrory’s outstanding performance in this show had me entranced and in the end in tears. It is a powerful, gripping and incredibly intense portrayal that made me feel what she was feeling, her anger, angst, anguish and very true agony of killing her children.  Ms. McCrory portrays Medea as a proud, impressive and seemingly indomitable woman and you really want her to succeed and win out over the people who have abused her; I’m there with her (solidarity sisters!) right up until she decides, “No, I think I really need to kill the kids, that’ll really show him!”  Perhaps it helps a little that the children are little more than cut-out figures in the play and you never connect with them emotionally. Perhaps her actions are mitigated by the general callousness about human life that was prevalent at that time. Perhaps, being a descendant of the Gods, she has less natural human sympathy. Perhaps its just a cautionary tale about obsessive love and ceding your happiness to the control of someone else.

Regardless of which way you swing on  the Medea question, there is no question this was a powerful and emotive production and the largest share of that credit goes to Ms. McCrory and her electrifyingly chilling performance. Look for it and other interesting screenings  in a theater near you at NT Live website.