The Cavalier daily :: Friday, February 5, 1971 :: University of Virginia Library

NEW YORK — The theatre has
traditionally been a writer's
medium and, seeing it as such,
ambitious, power hungry directors
have fled to the land of cinema,
where the possessive name in front
of a work can be theirs. This has
been the trend for decades now,
but I have a sneaking suspicion that
directors are beginning to realize
that in the theatre they need not
always play second fiddle to the
author, that with imagination and
talent they can make themselves
heard, that they can dominate.

Two current productions which
bear this out are Peter Brook's
unique treatment of "A
Midsummer Night's Dream" and
Paul Sills' "Story Theatre." Both
represent directorial genius and are
welcome oases in a slow, dry
season.

***

Mr. Brook exploits the romantic
hijinks of Shakespeare's "Dream"
by ripping into and completely
overpowering the play's gentle
fiber. It is a broad, physical
treatment with slapstick overtones,
pratfalls, a stark white, brightly
lighted three wall set with ladders,
swings, trapezes, ropes, and two
groups of musicians. The aura is
carnival-like with feats of balancing,
flying, and the throwing of
projectiles. The first half ends with
Bottom, that egotistic weaver, on
the shoulders of his comrades,
proclaiming his sexuality with the
help of an outstretched arm
symbolizing a giant phallus amid a
storm of music, paper plates,
streamers, and assorted debris.
Wild, just plain wild.

New Life

How much of this frenetic
staging is unsupported gimmickry is
debatable; I tend to think quite a
lot. But it works. It makes us laugh,
it gives the play a fresh new life.
Except for the last, anti-climactic
half hour (which, to an extent, is an
inherent failing of the play), Mr.
Brook keeps us entranced. And if
ribald antics such as Demetrius
being tackled by Helena while
trying to escape her consuming love
suggest Chaucer more than
Shakespeare, so what? It evokes a
bigger laugh than any line in the
play and corresponds visually to the
spoken dialogue.

Brilliant Performances

All of the members of The
Royal Shakespeare Company turn
in brilliant performances which are
beautifully underscored by their
sincerity. It's a shame that the
evening is slowed down in the
homestretch by Shakespeare's
anti-climax, for otherwise it is, if
you'll excuse the pun, a dream of a
production.

***

"Story Theatre" is an evening of
Grimm's fairy tales told in
imaginative theatrical terms,
conceived by Mr. Sills. With no
props and only a large screen for
soft projections at the rear of the
stage, the actors both narrate and
act out stories such as "The Little
Peasant," "Henny Penny," "The
Master Thief," and "The Fisherman
and His Wife."

Much Movement

Sounds like a huge bore, doesn't
it? That's what I thought until I saw
the simplicity and verve and subtle
humor with which the tales are
presented. Mr. Sills has wisely
blocked much movement and many
entrances and exits into the show
to keep it from merely being a
reading of stories. He has also
smartly arranged for a folk-rock
group called The True Brethren to
enhance portions' of the evening
with music.

The actors — Peter "Joe" Boyle,
Linda Lavin, Hamid Hamilton
Camp, and Melinda Dillon among
them — are a joy, and, restricted to a
short sub-two hour length, "Story
Theatre" has its rewards—abundant
for children, considerable for
adults.

One of the most significant
aspects of both "A Midsummer
Night's Dream" and "Story
Theatre" is their appeal to the
youth market. I saw both at
matinees at which there were
hoards of youngsters, most of
whom seemed to be having a great
time. Remarks such as "This is
cool!" were easily overheard from
the younger set. And, when we
consider the future of the theatre,
their enthusiasm is more important
than any critic's.