The production is great. Stoll and Bowers are great. Fun, brutal, and true. A play for our times.
1
MacB is a short play (relatively speaking), but an hour 40?! Must be cut to ribbons. Sounds like an energetic and straight telling of the story though (my favorite brand of Shakespeare production).
1
@Jonathan Smoots
This is off the subject, but I recognize your name. Were you not a member of my all-time favorite theatre group American Players Theatre?
I watched this play last Saturday and frankly I did not enjoy it. The set is simplified enough, then there is a grandma king, modern outfits on actors, mis-matched double roles and random mix of inter-racials, all of which takes away originality of the play. I did not find any re-interpretation per se, it was just a re-enactment of unharmonious bits.
3
@Noa...A random mix of inter-racials?! Oh my.
3
Regarding "A random mix of inter-racials" - it's like when I like a certain work in a certain genre I tend to work hard to say "catalog musical" and compare to to "Singing' in the Rain" -and when I think it doesn't work then "jukebox musical" somehow slips out. I see it when I look back at old comments and I cannot blame hard-working well-meaning Spell Check for that. When it works, it's "color blind casting," when something doesn't work, it's random - though a needed advance. (An example: I saw a beautiful "Morning's at Seven," where an old friend played Homer opposite a glorious actress who was everything the role needed but happened to be African-American. My friend who played Homer shocked me since I'd only seen him do musicals before. At intermission, such buzz on the bathroom lines about what brought Rosemary Harris there that afternoon, and who knew the author dealt beautifully with a family so accepting of an interracial couple way back then? BTW, Ms. Harris was/is in great shape, as she sprung up to lead the standing O faster than many of us 30 years younger than her could; not that we were watching her reactions, that is.)
I know that gender is supposed to be fluid nowadays, but how exactly does having a female Duncan benefit the play? Theater directors make strenuous efforts to be different in some way, desperate as they are to appear original. I once saw a production in Chicago that had Lady Macbeth played by a topless black female. It was more of a distraction than anything, and certainly didn't improve the play.
7
Please explain why one of the actors folded and also hung up the blankets during his monologue.
4
Recalling there was lots of discussion in the Theater section a while back about paper programs vs. digital, and last time I went to CSC, they'd emailed a program you could print out, and a shorter program you could easily bring with you. But when I went to buy, they let you have the program now even before buying a ticket. (or I guess without, what are they going to do, take the program back if you don't actually buy a ticket?)
It's here if anyone is interested, I think this works for anyone. http://classicstage.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Macbeth_Digital-Program.pdf
But this is an advance I'd enjoy if it catches on. I didn't see this idea coming, but thinking about this, it doesn't cost them anything extra. (Does it?)
I didn't see this idea coming
It sounds like a very good production. The family MacBe(a)th wears the tartans of the clans Macbean, MacDonald, and MacLean. The tartan shown in the photo is none of these. It would have been an interesting, if unnoticed, touch to have used the "correct" tartan.
4
I saw this excellent production last week and have to agree with this review- it was incredibly powerful and effective. And what better time to stage a classic play about tyranny and corruption then our present, the fall of 2019, when it seems every day we've entered a new low of horrible things coming from a certain presidential administration... meanwhile this production was, for me, a riveting, in-your-face experience that I'd recommend highly.
14
@Michael Skliar, the blurring of life and art is real. Sometimes it's hard to say where real life ends and pouring in a show begins, if they haven't melded since fall 2016, and a major era of theater being relevant as the quickest way for artists to express dismay and horror seems to be the stage, even if at times done with comedy.
I find myself thinking often where the heck would we be if not for the NYTimes and (though less powerful by historical factors) the Washington Post weren't able to use resources, talent and readership to keep the watchful eyes open that the Senate balance keeps Congress from doing. And I can't help but notice that key among the people imho helping save us are stalwart Times Theater journalists from earlier in the decade, Patrick Healy of course always at the Times of course, and (while now at the Post) Catherine Rampell, who once told us in the Times where "Spiderman" budgeting and economics was leading theater commercially (got that right, look where Away has come to match DC influence: if you have money, you have access, but if not, they don't notice or care you've left the audience and are trying to appeal to you any more).
So eerie when you look back at the roots of premium, and see the people openly saying that money gets you access, that they're "selling access." Not a VIP - if you have money, presto, you are. Off-Bway is no longer an affordable alternative even. (And there I g, up against the comment box limit again., LOL)
1