This Blog Does Not Eat Breakfast In The Morning

August: Osage County. Oh where to begin you fabulous beast, you?

Well this play is amazing. The only reason Language Archive beats it for the top spot for me is that Language Archive has a much more hopeful ending, and a lighter heart, which I have a liking for as a happy person. August: Osage is a really gritty play. But fantastic.

I have to start with a rave review of the woman who played Violet. Oh my goodness, she could not have been more prefect. I was told by some frequenters of the festival that she used to be the adored ingenue, and held onto that role for a bit too long, until the new artistic director came in and stop casting her. She then embraced the older roles, and let me tell it paid off. To be that mean and genuinely believe you are only telling the truth is astounding. Apparently she and the actress who played Mattie Fae actually went to Osage County to see what it was like (Mattie Fae was also brilliant).

I have to talk about the acting because it was the best part. This play is really written for the acting, as Tracy Letts wrote it specifically for the company at Steppenwolf because he thought they needed a piece like this to really show off their chops. The design was nice, a realistic house, but its much more of backdrop for the acting then a lot of the sets.

I think if anyone had a doubt about the quality of actors they get at OSF this would definitely put their qualms to rest. Barbara was a total “ball buster” as Susan Felder once put it. Karen was ridiculous up until her last monologue which was just stunning, and Ivy was clearly just so tired of everyone. I just can’t. This.

So, if you happen to be in Ashland, check this out. It’s a full 3 and 1/2 hour run, but it goes fast, and you just sit there looking forward to the next scene, because you can’t wait to see these brilliant actors deal with their lives falling apart.

Number 3, The Imaginary Invalid by Moliere. More correctly, a liberal adaptation. The writer took the plot by Moliere, and added a lot of modern commentary (including a repeating joke about health care reform that I throughly enjoyed). The director is a student of Commedia dell’Arte, which I appreciated and I thought was a smart thing to incorporate into a story that was, at its core, pretty silly.

I really enjoyed the silliness after seeing 2 pretty heavy Shakespeare plays. A lot of people I talked to about the shows were very haughtily above it (and I will give them that there was an excess of bathroom humor, but it was there for the kids and they liked it) but there was also a lot of clever stuff. It really went through all levels of comedy, which was the right move in a festival that doesn’t do much comedy.

It was really a spectacle. They set in it in 1960s Paris, in an apartment I would kill for, even though it was decorated in a pretty whacky way. The costumes were phenominal, there were song and dance numbers, and the actors were funny. There is no greater joy then watching a bunch of people who aren’t afraid to look stupid.

The only actor I really had a problem with was the woman who played Argan’s (the hypochondriac referred to in the title) wife. She was the stereotypical gold digger wife, but she had an awkward way of holding herself, as if she was trying to emphasis her bottom, but it read more as if she had broken a hip and was uncomfortable walking. She was the only actress in an impressive cast that fell short. (Funny side note, she and the actor who played Argan are actually married in real life).

I heartily recommend this, but you need to be in the mood for some good old fashioned silliness.

The second play I saw was Julius Caesar.  I got all the Shakespeare out of the way early.  I should probably put a disclaimer on these posts that I am not a huge Shakespeare fan.  I mostly like comedies, and I like some of the history plays, but I am certainly not a buff. I have issues with the dramatic structure of the tragedies. They follow the same line, eventually the protagonist is left all alone and a lot of depressing soliloquies follow. Plays are more interesting when they build up, instead of being stripped down. And directors play into that. Most tragedies I have seen have spent a lot of time adding texture to the first act, and then leave the second act alone.

Julius Caesar fell into this trap. The director decided to explore the whole idea of guerilla uprisings.  Outside the theater and in the lobby there were banners with the pictures of leaders who have been assassinated, some of whom have been ruled martyrs, and some who have been deemed tyrants. The actors were outfitted in modern guerilla clothing. In the first act, there was a lot of action, and they even created a warzone feeling with crash boxes and people running from bombs.  But those sorts of ideas seemed to run out by the second act. Even though there was a battle raging on, they didn’t include any atmospheric elements. They lost a brilliant opportunity to add realism and keep the audience’s realism.

The one element I did like in the second act during the battle scenes was the use of long wooden poles as weapons. The loud sounds of the rods crashing made it chaotic.  I really liked the woman who played Julius (a woman, oh my) and that they didn’t try to pretend she was a man or treat her differently for being a woman. And she managed off the “glorious leader” air well. My only disappointment because of this was that they cut Caesars wife as a result. I wish they had just made them lesbians and not made a big deal about it.

The ensemble was great, since they had to play about a million roles throughout the play.  It did get confusing have the same 5 people constantly switching sides, but the actors had conviction.  There was a great diversity in gender and race in the chorus, which I wished had carried over the main roles.  Caesar was a woman, but Brutus, Mark Anthony, and Cassius were all middle aged white men, and I sometimes couldn’t keep them straight.

I thought this play was a wonderful experiment in atmosphere that just feel short. I don’t know if the director just ran out of time or just didn’t care about the second act, but in my opinion, Shakespeare needs contextual elements added, or the play becomes too distant from the lives of the audience. 

The first play I saw was Measure for Measure. It was unfortunately probably my least favorite, but that had everything to do with the writing and nothing to do with the production itself.  Which is a little sad because Loyola is doing this play next year, but hopefully they will add a lot to spice it up.

OSF took inspiration from the fact that this in one of Shakespeare’s most urban plays, and set it in the inner city in the 1970s.  They brought in a huge Hispanic element, which was undoubtable the most delightful aspect.  There was a 3 woman Mariachi bland who were very talented, and were well incorporated.  They appeared in many different costumes, starting out as cleaning women, and appearing at one point in long red dresses that were absolutely stunning. One of the characters spoke only Spanish and had to use a translator. It added interest to a play that can become stale.

Measure for Measure was Shakespeare’s last comedy, and as a result it really wasn’t a comedy at all. It is darker then most comedies, has more severe social criticism, and doesn’t quite end happily. It kept my attention, mostly because of the additions, until the very end, where I thought the writing really fell apart. Without giving too much away, a character who could have come in and cleared everything up, creating the expected happy ending, decided to spend about a half hour complicating things more before clearing them up, merely for his own enjoyment. It made me really hate the character, and Shakespeare.

If you happen to be in Oregon, see it. The acting is wonderful. It was definitely the most entertaining way to possibly do a play that is one of Shakespeare’s weakest.