University of Virginia Library

Hatred Of Parliaments

We learn all about Charles Stuart
the king (even though the play is
less built around Charles Stuart
than around the political situation
in England at that time), about his
hatred of Parliaments, his
restoration of order to the court,
his determination to get the funds
to support an army to fight the
invading Scots in the north, and his
reliance on the Earl of Stratford as
a political advisor. But we learn
virtually nothing about Charles
Stuart the man (or any other
character for that matter): what
type of person he is, what he enjoys
in life, his relationship with his
family - it is all ignored in favor of
squeezing in as much historical
trivia as possible.

All of the characters are
almost continuously engaged in
political debate over one thing or
another, and since we are not given
the opportunity to care about these
characters in any way (they are
such human non-entities that many
of their lines could easily be
interchanged without seeming at all
"out of character"), the whole
affair becomes deadly dull.

Thus, Mr. Pilkinton has written
a good documentary but a poor
biography. As such, it is doomed as
a stage play. The language is
beautifully handled, evoking a good
sense of period without seeming
too terribly stilted. But, here again,
it's inhibited: I kept wishing the
characters would drop their history
book facades and do or say
something human.

Director F. Roger Boyle has not
been able to do much to help
matters, though in many respects
his hands were tied by the
limitations of the play and the
Minor Hall stage. Even so, his
staging is awfully unexciting, in
many cases contributing to the
lethargic nature of the proceedings.
Characters continually just stand in
small groups and speak their lines,
with virtually no freedom of
movement. What blocking there is
seems unimaginative and restrained,
and soon becomes repetitive.