patching...
Update: Like Webster Groves Patch on Facebook and Follow Us on Twitter @WebsterGpatch
Welcome back, Patch Blogger!

The Rep's 'Macbeth' Is Theatre at Its Finest

Shakespeare's shortest tragedy is long on talent and big on entertainment.

 

There are many superstitions in theater, but no play is more steeped in mystery than Shakespeare's “Macbeth.” The bad mojo comes with the play regardless, but saying Macbeth in the theatre is doubly bad, and so it is referred to not by name, but as the Scottish play.

Real events have occurred during productions of the play that feed the superstition, everything from an actual murder on stage to audience riots in which people were killed. Add to that belief that the witches incantation in the play is partially real, and you get the stuff that legends are made of.

These days the curse is not taken so seriously, but it's still observed more as preservation of theatre lore and custom rather than actual superstition.

The supposed curse was held at bay on opening night of Macbeth, mostly, as the Repertory Theatre of St. Louis presented a compelling production of the Shakespearean tragedy.

In the play, Macbeth (Timothy D. Stickney) and Banquo (Jason Cannon) are returning from victorious battles when they encounter three witches, who prophesy that Macbeth will be named Thane of Cawdor and eventually become king. When King Duncan (Jerry Vogel) actually names Macbeth Cawdor, Macbeth wonders if the rest of the witches prophesy will be true and he will become King.

Lady Macbeth (Caris Vujcec) prods Macbeth into murdering Duncan. Macbeth has doubts, but Lady Macbeth—in an early representation of the nagging, emasculating wife—questions his masculinity and pushes him into the deed. Macbeth commits the foul deed and immediately becomes King.

What follows is Macbeth's increasingly desperate attempts to maintain his position. He dispatches assassins to murder Banquo, whom the witches have said will beget kings. That evening Banquo's ghost appears at a dinner, which frightens him enough that he returns to the witches who warn him to beware the nobleman named Macduff (Michael James Reed), but further say he has nothing to fear from any man born of woman.

Macbeth—taking no chances—sends his assassins to murder Macduff, and though Macduff himself is not present, they murder Macduff's children while forcing Lady Macduff (Nancy Bell) to watch, and then murder her as well in one of the most effective and horrific scenes of the play, though no stage blood is utilized.

Macduff vows revenge and when armies are raised to challenge Macbeth’s forces, Macduff confronts Macbeth on the battlefield. Macbeth is stricken with horror when Macduff informs him that he is not of woman born, having been ripped from his mother's womb, or by what we would now call Cesarian section.

Timothy D. Stickney as Macbeth delivers a compelling, natural performance that belies his skill. He's an otherwise normal man who is swallowed by his ambition, even as the stage will swallow him—literally—at the end of the play, like the maws of hell clamping shut on man who has become the personification of evil.

Equally strong is Caris Vujcec as Lady Macbeth, whose descent into madness and suicide is expertly acted, especially where she tries to wash the blood that isn't there from her hands. Jerry Vogel is strong as gregarious and kingly Duncan, who inspires loyalty among his men. Jason Cannon in the role of Banquo is strong as Macbeth's friend and charming as a father to his son.

Macduff and Lady Macduff, played by Michael James Reed and Nancy Bell respectively, are both exemplary, and Bell manages in one short scene to give a complete picture of the character. It is her performance when her children are murdered that gives the scene such horror.

There are too many great performances to list them all, but there isn't a weak link. Each actor had a command of Shakespeare that will allow anyone to follow the story. Simply put, they know what they are saying, and so the audience knows too.

Set designer Michael Ganio gives us a simple but effective set that allows the play to be the star with the language and the story as the focus. The lights by Kenton Yeager and sound by Rusty Wandall are both without flaw, and costumes by Dorothy Marshall Englis are superb and, like the set, colorless, until Macbeth and his wife enter in their stately red robes. The space lights up in a remarkable transformation.

The curse of Macbeth was not in evidence backstage, according to Jerry Vogel, who plays Duncan, but there was a minor mishap on the stage. In a scene where Macbeth jumps on a table, the dinnerware was scattered to the extent that some pieces landed in the audience. One lone silver bowl came to rest far out on a walkway, clearly visible. The bowl drew the attention of the audience. Macbeth simply walked out during a speech, picked the bowl up, used it in his monologue, and took it back to the stage, as though it was supposed to be that way.

That is what makes live theater exciting. Things happen, and actors compensate and adapt on the spot. It would take a mighty curse indeed to hurt this fine production of “That Scottish Play.”

Related Topics: Arts, Macbeth, Review, Theatre, and repertory theatre of st. louis
Do you enjoy Shakespeare? Tell us in the comments.

Tristan

3:37 pm on Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Why do reviewers insist on RUINING all possibility of surprise by giving a complete summary of a play without warning readers of SPOILERS? How will a person who has never read or seen this piece of theatre get the experience of it with all of the details printed in black and white? ARGH.

Reply
Patch_comments_icon

Christopher Reilly

7:18 pm on Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Thanks for commenting, Tristan. My apologies. Shakespeare's Macbeth is a rather famous literary work and most people know the story and its outcome, and yet they still go to see it performed. I think you will find that being familiar with the plot will enhance your enjoyment of the play rather than hinder it. I hope so anyway. You must let us know how you enjoy the play. Thanks.

Reply

Steve Austin

11:04 am on Monday, February 21, 2011

I must agree with Tristan on this. I have written reviews for major daily newspapers, and in my opinion the primary rule of reviewing is NEVER reveal crucial elements of the plot or, for that matter, punchlines. It's fine to give readers an idea of what they can expect, but summarizing the entire plot or storyline is just lazy writing. Not everyone has a background in theater like the author. I consider myself well-read, and I enjoy the theater. But I haven't read Shakespeare since high school, so this would have been "new" to me too. You don't want readers afraid to read your reviews for fear of having the show ruined for them do you? Also, I feel your response to Tristan had a hint of an "I know better than you" attitude. You were wrong -- take your lumps and try to do better next time.

Reply
Patch_comments_icon

Kurt Greenbaum

3:53 pm on Monday, February 21, 2011

Forgive me, but I disagree with your characterization of Christopher's comment. He apologized in the second sentence! That said, I don't think he could "spoil" the plot of a play that's been around for 400 years.

Reply

Mooner Garcia

11:00 am on Tuesday, February 22, 2011

So if everyone knows this play and the ending, why does the author feel compelled to spend half of his review on plot summary? How about more specifics about performance vs. gushing about "exemplary," "without flaw" and "too many great performances to list." Please. I'm sure the Rep did a nice job, but there is little substance here for a reader to build upon. And shouldn't that be the point of a review, to give the reader information to use when deciding to attend future performances or a mirror to reflect their impressions of a play?

Reply

Mike Smith

12:32 pm on Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Kurt: Is this the first leave-a-comment "cat fight" in Patch history?!?! And it's over Macbeth at The Rep! Let's get it on!

Reply
Patch_comments_icon

Christopher Reilly

1:47 pm on Wednesday, February 23, 2011

The only thing I feel “compelled” to do is write things as I see them, inform the reader whether or not the play is worth seeing, and write well. I can assure you had I not fulfilled those three requirements, my editor wouldn't have run the story. As for recounting the plot, it is more than that, and, including the elusive “SPOILER ALERT,” it's nothing the Rep did not do themselves in the program handed out to everyone entering the theater before the play began. One thing I never feel compelled to do is insult someone else in public in order to elevate myself.

Reply

Laura Peters

4:17 pm on Wednesday, February 23, 2011

What? You go to see "Romeo and Juliet" and get mad because the review or the programs spells out that [SPOILER ALERT] they both die? How do you do a plot summary for "Jesus Christ Superstar" or "Titanic?" Macbeth isn't a murder mystery or some other genre of play that requires the audience to be shocked or surprised at the ending. When Agatha Christie wrote "Witness for the Prosecution," she asked the reader/viewer not to share the ending. OK. In a case like that, it's cheating the audience of something to know the ending before they see the show. But "Macbeth???" I'm with Christopher Reilly on this one.

Reply

Craig McCallister

6:37 pm on Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Tragedy: 1. A tale typically describing the downfall of a great man. 2. A serious drama typically describing a conflict between the protagonist and a superior force (as destiny) and having a sorrowful or disastrous conclusion. 3. Calamity.

It's titled "The Tragedy of Macbeth" for a good - and very simple - reason. The same applies to "Othello" and "Hamlet." Uh-oh. SPOILER ALERTS!!!

Reply

Murray McKinsey

10:15 pm on Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Please. Oh, come on. Just stop. Anybody who is surprised by the ending of Macbeth is better off saving money at a Mel Gibson movie.
Murray

Reply

Paul Sagan

2:39 pm on Thursday, February 24, 2011

I checked the rules: after the first 400 years, "Spoiler Alert" isn't required.

Reply

Gregor Newland

7:57 am on Friday, February 25, 2011

In the history of Western Civilization, the only book read more than Shakespeare plays is the Bible (spoiler alert: at the end Jesus is crucified, raised from the dead and his disciples form a church). I can't decide which is more tragic, that some of these people don't know basic Scottish history or that they don't have a working familiarity with Shakespeare's plays! I would encourage the reviewer to continue his good work and ignore the comments of those who want to drag him down to the lowest common denominator. In the meantime, let's all lobby our legislators to spend more on basic education, obviously some people are out of the loop on some pretty basic stuff...

Reply

Leave a comment