University of Virginia Library

STAGE

'A Cry Of Players' Portrays Incipient Genius Of Young Will

By PATRICIA PRINZ

It must have been the daring
of youth and his own longing
for "fellowship in a cry of
players" that led William
Gibson to write A Cry Of
Players early in his career. The
play deals with the moment in
time when the young William
Shakespeare struggles to leave
home and friends to cast his lot
with the roving band of actors
who were to become the Lord
Chamberlain's company, and
ultimately, the celebrated
King's company. No doubt the
young Gibson strongly
identified with the struggles of
Will, the blossoming
playwright, who was to
become the towering genius
of drama.

Perhaps the very subject
matter itself assures that the
result could be no more than a
qualified success. Mr. Gibson's
play is marred by many of
those faults inherent to early
dramatic efforts. The dramatic
construction is often faulty,
issues and problems are not
clearly defined, and there is
often a preciousness about the
dialogue and the play, that is
occasioned, no doubt, by the
principal character. After all,
how does one effectively
portray incipient genius? Mr.
Gibson, for example, seems to
want his audience to see the
young Will as an ordinary
human being, yet cannot
restrain himself from
constantly reminding us that
this man, by virtue of his
extraordinary wit and
imagination, is above the rest.

But in spite of its dramatic
weaknesses, A Cry Of Players is
an excellent vehicle for a
college production, and one
must commend director Arthur
Greene for his wisdom in
selecting it. The major parts are
well-suited to young, amateur
actors, and the director is able
to avoid the artistic pitfalls
necessarily posed by the
production of a "classic" in
favor of focusing his attention
on other matters.

Solid Production

This production by the
Virginia Players is certainly not
extraordinary, but it is a solid
and well-conceived one. Mr.
Greene moves his actors well
and utilizes every part of a
fairly intricate set to maximum
advantage. On Monday night
the energy of the actors
seemed to be low in certain
scenes, particularly in the
second act, and, as a result, the
pace lagged somewhat.

One also occasionally
wished for a bit more precision
in the handling of the crowd
scenes, but here again a lack of
energy and attention on the
part of the actors may be at
fault. But it is in the small,
intimate scenes of the play that
Mr. Greene's talent as a
director shines. The scenes
between Anne and Will, and
the short dialogue between Sir
Thomas and Will, for example,
are well-acted and beautifully
directed.

There were some technical
problems on opening night but
these will no doubt be cleared
up. The lighting by Lee
Hausman is generally subtle
and unobtrusive, with the
outdoor night scenes and the
more intimate moments
particularly effective.

At first glance Allen
Lyndrup's set seems
unnecessarily busy, but it does
play well. It might be
interesting to quiz the actors
on their feelings about the set.
Occasionally, actors seem to be
gingerly picking their way
around on stage, as if they are
unsure of their footing or the
amount of space they have to
work with.

Lois Garren's costumes
are splendid. The sign of a
thorough and imaginative
costumer can often be found in
the attention paid to the
costuming of the minor
characters. Ms. Garren
managed wonderfully to
individualize and differentiate

each of the townspeople, for
instance. I do have a single
cavil about one piece of
apparel of Sir Thomas. While
the rest of his costume suggests
just the right amount of
austerity and richness, his
breeches remind me of those
paisley Bermuda shorts so
beloved by tourists to Hawaii.

R. Parker Murphy's best
scene, as Will, is the
story-telling scene with
Susanna, and this is telling with
respect to Mr. Murphy's failure
and success throughout the
evening. As the young,
prankish, carefree will Mr.
Murphy is fine, but his
attempts to portray the
unhappy and uncertain Will,
trembling on the brink of
intellectual and spiritual
manhood, simply do not ring
true. One does sense tension,
but it is too often the tension
of the actor rather than that of
the character. Mr. Murphy
occasionally employs sharp,
jerky body movements to
suggest distress, and these
movements become
increasingly uncomfortable to
watch. Overall, however, his
Will is satisfactory, primarily
because of his physical and
personal attractiveness on
stage.

Kathy Hurley's Anne is the
outstanding performance of
the production. She invests the
character with just the right
balance of sexual earthiness
and maternal concern. Ms.
Hurley conveys, both in looks
and attitude, the maturity of
Anne that both attracts and
repels Will. One feels that Ms.
Hurley has, at all times, a
thorough grasp of her
character, a woman who is
blessed with intelligence and
cursed with a lack of
imagination. Any actress
playing Anne might be
tempted to constantly stress
her strength and hardness, and,
by doing so, smother the
humor and lightness that are
also so much a part of her
character. In Ms. Hurley's
portrayal, Anne's sense of
humor is properly exhibited
without a corresponding loss of
strength.

Of the secondary characters,
Ken Lambert's Fulk, Charles
Rittenhouse's limber Kemp,
and Pat David's austere Sir
Thomas are the most
noteworthy. Mr. David, in
particular, improves immensely
during the course of the play,
and his final interchange with
Will is one of the finest
moments of the production.

Extraneous Material

I do wish that more might
be made of the players
themselves. They too often
seem to be extraneous material
on the stage. It is absolutely
necessary that they be
enormously appealing, both in
their roguishness and their
underlying love of the theater,
if Will's admiration for them is
to seem more than mere
eccentricity. As it stands now
they are fairly lackluster. I
would also suggest that if Andy
Weisnet, as Ned, is to
accurately speak Tamburlaine's
lines, he read Marlowe's play in
order to get a better sense of
the epic warrior.