Displaying items by tag: Tom Stoppard

The Player (Lorenze Rush Jr) has just run into Rosencrantz and Guildenstern with his troupe of players. As he explains how the players operate, he announces:

“Every exit is an entrance someplace else.”

As soon as he recites the line, his troupe jumps into action. They move with quickness as they prepare the stage to put on a show for Rosencrantz and Guildenstern – the willing audience they happened to run into on their travels. The line offers an opportunity to perform, and they are excited to take it. The ensemble is strong – particularly in their physical comedy, and they heighten the moment with ease.

On another level, The Player’s line offers the perfect backdrop for the play. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern find themselves at the top of the show unable to remember anything – including where they are or why. As the play moves forward, the anxiety only increases, and it’s clear that the Player’s line rings true. Every turn of events offers another possibility, and it’s unclear where the duo’s story will end.  

(left to right) Lorenzo Rush, Jr., Rob Lindley, Nate Burger, Erik Hellman.

Written by Tom Stoppard, the play follows Rosencrantz (Nate Burger) and Guildenstern (Erik Hellman) – the famous duo from William Shakespeare’s Hamlet. We catch a glimpse into what the two friends were navigating in the midst of Hamlet’s crisis – before, after, and during their visit with the Danish prince. As they battle questions of identity, loss, and fate, they meet the Players – the very same troupe that puts on the play in Shakespeare’s tragedy, exposing King Claudius as the murderer of Hamlet’s father. As Rosencrantz and Guildenstern struggle to put the pieces of their story together, they start to get at the root of what it even means to be alive. Burger and Hellman drive the play with spot-on comedic timing, as well as a chemistry that is exciting (and at times heartbreaking) to watch unfold.

Directed skillfully by Charles Newell, the production is fast-paced, and offers a deconstructed adaptation of Stoppard’s piece. If you are anything like this writer and familiar with Stoppard’s play, you may find the approach almost shocking at first. The adaptation is certainly different, and much is cut away to allow this more nuanced view of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern’s journey. However, upon finding your bearings, you may also discover that the approach immediately thrusts the audience into the chaos of what the duo is feeling as they navigate their story. As the piece quickly jumps through space and time, you may find that the approach almost creates an immersive experience for all witnessing.

Newell’s artistic team leans into the theatricality of the play – particularly in the scenic and lighting design. Scenic Designer John Culbert takes advantage of the vast openness of the stage itself. The furniture primarily includes benches that move about as needed, and the emptiness allows full view of the back wall that clearly states, “Court Theatre.” The story focuses heavily on the group of players, and exposing the stage in this way allows that meta story element to fully take form. Lighting Designer Keith Parham utilizes shadows, playing into the eerie, almost frightening themes of the play – especially those that offer questions around death and existence. 

You might find that the striking design allows for the surprises of the script to hit even harder – starting with the entrance of the players. At the beginning of the play, we meet Rosencrantz and Guildenstern almost at the foot of the stage – with a big red curtain draped behind them. As they start to hear whispers of others in the space, we see large shadows take form on the curtain. The darkness aids in this moment, and we can feel the duo’s fear as they search around, wondering what might attack them. Then, all of a sudden, the red curtain drops to the ground with a bang – shocking the audience with the reveal of the Players backlit in silhouettes. The gesture at this particular performance was met with a mix of gasps and applause as folks overcame the shock and absorbed the staging before them.

Stoppard’s play has been around since 1966, but you might find that Charles Newell brings a fresh take that even leaves long-time fans wondering what twist or turn may happen next. Along with a standout cast and stunning design, Court Theatre’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead is one to remember.

RECOMMENDED

Running through April 28, 2024 at Court Theatre – 5535 S. Ellis Avenue.

The Chicago premiere of a Tom Stoppard play is one of the most hotly anticipated events of this season. We’re never short for great Stoppard productions in this town, but The Hard Problem was Stoppard’s first new play in nine years when it debuted in 2015, and since Court Theatre’s Charlie Newell can be trusted to mount a strong production, the author is undoubtedly the main draw. Some of his best-known plays, such as the recently produced Travesties and Arcadia, were extremely complicated, sprawling works which required the audience to have a sizable pre-existing knowledge of artistic movements and the interplay between culture and technology, but The Hard Problem, as the title states, zeroes in on a single issue which, depending on which side of it you fall on, might not really seem to be a problem at all. Whether the mind is a function of the brain or has an ethereal quality is not something Stoppard attempts to answer definitively, but the degree to which this play interests you will largely depend on your investment in the debate.

Chaon Cross owns the part of Hilary, the only fully three-dimensional character in the play. A young psychologist whose path in life has had some unexpected hiccups, Hilary is dependent on Spike (Jürgen Hooper), an evolutionary biologist, to help her fake the mathematical credentials she needs to get a job with the Krohl Institute, a research lab dedicated to solving the mind-body problem. She doesn’t even particularly want to work there, but it was the only place she applied to and heard back from. Spike is an utterly noxious, self-justifying proponent of evolutionary psychology, but it seems to be more than just a need to be perceived as good at data processing which causes Hilary to keep inviting him into her bed. Anyway, it turns out that Leo (Brian McCaskill), the man running the part of the Krohl Institute Hilary’s interested in, shares her preference for psychology over neurology, and she gets the job on her own merits.

The Krohl Institute was created by Jerry Krohl (Nathan Hosner), a billionaire hedge fund manager, to help him gain an edge over other traders. Krohl himself doesn’t really care whether the brain is a meat computer or a conduit for the sublime; he just wants to eliminate uncertainty in practical matters. Early on, we meet Amal (Owais Ahmed), a mathematician who holds the position that the soul is flesh and whom Krohl later punishes for publicly predicting the 2008 crash instead of keeping it close to the vest. Amal’s growing disillusion with humans’ capacity for rational thought is driven largely by what he sees happening in the stock market, but he’s reluctant to fall into line with Hilary’s belief that this leaves us with no alternatives but belief in some kind of divinity.

The plot concerns Hilary’s struggle with a job that was never a good fit for her while her entire field appears to be in jeopardy. But Stoppard’s interest seems to be in how nobody really wants to acknowledge the true implications of their belief system, whatever that happens to be. Hilary is a less forceful arguer than Spike, but Newell’s centering of her on stage almost throughout the show and Cross’s commitment to her full range of emotions prevent us from dismissing her. Stoppard has also made her opponents repulsive Thersites-like characters, while Hilary’s on-stage ally is the kind-hearted, idealistic Bo (Emjoy Gavino). John Culbert’s scenic design doesn’t give them very many hiding places, which is perhaps why they resort to vicious verbal, and eventually, physical confrontations to make their points.

If Stoppard’s goal was to show how the debate over the hard problem spills out of sealed realms such as universities and think tanks to strike at peoples’ deepest vulnerabilities, the flatness of the other characters prevents him from quite getting there. However, he does a good enough job of illustrating his point for us to understand it. A great many people love Stoppard and Court Theatre simply for having these conversations, with no expectation the problem will be resolved. Pointing out how divorced from real life rationalism and rationalizations are is enough to make a fruitful evening, and getting to experience it being put so eloquently by fine actors is a bonus.

Recommended

The Hard Problem plays at Court Theatre through April 9, with performances on Wednesdays and Thursdays at 7:30 pm, Fridays at 8:00 pm, Saturdays at 3:00 pm and 8:00 pm, and Sundays at 2:30 pm and 7:30 pm. Running time is one hour and forty minutes with no intermission. Tickets are $48–68; to order, call 773-753-4472 or visit CourtTheatre.org. For more information, see TheatreinChicago.com.

There is an expectation when one sees a play that they will be taken on a journey. Audiences want to get lost in a story line, lose all sense of time enjoy the escapism. When an audience is reminded that they are watching a play, however, and that play goes on seemingly for ages, it ceases to become escapism and becomes a classroom lecture. “Arcadia” is just such a play. Written by Tom Stoppard, it is not an easy play to describe in brief. It confusedly intertwines the past and present with multiple story lines following intellectual theories that verge on the point of being arrogant and difficult to grasp in a play like setting.

The play bounces between the early 1800's and the present day in a stately manor in England. At the core of play, the present day is trying to uncover what took place at the manor in the 1800's. In the past, a gifted 13-year-old girl, Thomasina, delves into deep theoretical analysis of higher mathematics and physics, jotting down her theories and equations, unknowingly for the future to see. Paralleling that story line is her tutor, Septimus, who cheats with the wife of a visiting poet while pinning for the master of the manor’s wife, and who was somehow-possibly-connected to the famous Romantic poet, Byron. Flash forward to the present day where an academic hopes to uncover if the tutor, Septimus, might have had some involvement with the death of that visiting poet, and that his possible connection to Byron might mean that Byron was involved in this death as well. But wait! There’s more! Paralleling that story line in the present day, one of the family members of the estate combs through old hunting logs and notes to see that the young girl, Thomasina might have been a genius on the brink of an intellectual breakthrough, and seeks to dive deeply into her notes to potentially uncover her genius and the work during her young and short life.

Underneath all of these story lines is the running theme of “Arcadia,” named for a pair of 17th century paintings that picture shepherds around a tomb with the words “Et in Arcadia ego” on it. The incorrect Latin phrase translates to “Here I am in Arcadia” but it’s more accurate translation is “Even in Arcadia, here I am” the “I” being death. Stoppard is quoted by his biographer as saying he “wanted the presence of death in the title.” Spoiler alert, death does happen and is one of the core subplots, a sort of “who-done-it,” but it is just another element to this complicated play. Another reach for the “intellectual stimulation.”

Cliff notes would have a tough time summarizing this play. The play has witty, smart, and biting dialogue, well delivered by an articulate and charismatic cast. But look away, or miss a line and you might miss an introduction to a key character, or their relation to the other characters, or their purpose of being in the play at all. If not for the clothing change and syntax you might get lost in which time period you are in. The audience is obligated to follow along with every line and process all the information rapidly in order to keep pace with this play. With a run time of 2 hour 55 minute and only a brief 15 minute intermission that is a tall order for an audience, and even tougher story to convey for the actors. But the new multi-million dollar Writer’s Theater wants just that, for the audience and actors to meet as one, to journey together and become fully immersed with the story. The immaculate theater is nestled in the cozy tree lined streets of downtown Glencoe, and will be a wonderful location for future high-quality theatrical productions on the North Shore.

Overall, “Arcadia” would be better as a novel, where a reader can pause to examine the characters, read internal monologues and gain an understanding of the characters’ motivations and thoughts. It would be easier to follow the time changes and carefully consider the many complex theories being presented and explored. I think the length of such a book would rival a Tolstoy novel, though nothing would be lost to the wings. A play that requires such rapt and intense concentration from an audience for such a long duration makes it unapproachable to someone looking to get lost in a story. Watching “Arcadia” audiences do get lost, but for all the wrong reasons. “Arcadia” runs through May 1st. Tickets are available at http://www.writerstheatre.org.