Arcadia 3-16-2011

---

There's something special about seeing a play for the first time. Knowing nothing about what is going to happen, having the surprises and intricate plot details unwind before you. Experiencing the wonderfully crafted words and exploring the complex characters with no preconceived notions. How I love those times. And how I wish I could remember the feeling I had the first time I saw Tom Stoppard's Arcadia. How I wish I could recapture the sense of wonder that I must have felt May 10th, 1995 when I first saw Arcadia. But unfortunately I can't, because time moves on and I know the plot of the play and the surprises can no longer surprise. Now, all the joy has to come from how the play unfolds and how the actors perform.

Part of what makes knowing nothing about a show before seeing it difficult if not impossible is the existence of the Internet. From the first rehearsal to the final performance of closing night, there are always people posting their opinions about a show and pointing out difficulties they had with the show. Sometimes I agree with those posts and sometimes not, but the fact that they exist cannot help but color my perceptions. One of the common complaints about this production is that people have been finding the actors difficult to understand. Fortunately, I was able to understand everything that was being said, but I wonder if that was due to my familiarity with the text rather than the work of the actors.

Arcadia takes place in a country house in England in the early 1800's and the present. The current day plot line revolves around two rival researchers (Hannah Jarvis and Bernard Nightingale ) exploring events of two hundred years ago while the 1809 story line shows the events as they really happened. This is one of the things that I love about the play, the way it shows the interconnection of events and how perception and truth can differ. But this is only one of the layers of this dense concoction. Thomasina Coverly (age 13 in the first act of the play, age 16 in the second), is an 1800's math prodigy, bewildering her tutor, Septimus Hodge. Their conversation ranges from Fermat's last theorem to Lord Byron to the waltz. The mathemetical inclinication of the Coverly family is seen in the present day section in the person of Valentine Coverly, who while seeming a bit flippant is in fact a dedicated mathematician who finally realizes what Thomasina was trying to do. It is heavy stuff, but Stoppard peppers it with enough personality that the words themselves never get in the way of the core of the play.

But while the words are wonderful, the acting in this production leaves a bit to be desired, and the enunciation of the actors even more. Tom Riley as Septimus Hodge scores highest in my estimation, playing both the humor and the drama well. And he was understandable for the bulk of the play. This is also true of the supporting actors in the 1800's section, David Turner as a poet Ezra Chater, Byron Jennings as the Coverly's landscape gardener, Edward James Hyland as butler Jellaby and Glenn Flesher as Captain Brice. Margaret Colin as Lady Croom carries herself well, but I had difficulty hearing her. Worst among this lot is Bel Powley as Thomasina. She sounded like she was yelling, not projecting, but even with that attempt at volume, she was often incomprehensible. And I never really accepted her as a 13 year old, she seemed too old from the beginning.

Of the current day section actors, it is the women who come off best. Lia Williams as Hannah Jarvis nails the role and Grace Gummer is quite enjoyable as Chloe Coverly. Raul Esparza is fun as Valentine Coverly, but his accent seemed to veer from upper class English to American as the night went on. I was disappointed in Billy Crudup, who I remember enjoying as Septimus way back when. His Bernard went beyond irritating to downright grating and I felt he was overacting the role. Noah Robbins in the dual role of Gus and Augustus Coverly (the only actor spanning both time periods) acts quite well, but is ill served by the UGLY costume he is saddled with in the Regency period.

Another problem I had with this production was what seemed like a lack of faith in the text. Jokes that were downplayed in the original are overplayed here, even to the point of contradicting stage directions in the original version of the script.

The set is functional rather than pretty, and some people have commented that the set itself is contributing to the sound issue. I was a bit disappointed by the view through the rear windows of the set, instead of giving some kind of hint of the parklands that the house is said to be set in, it look like a blank wall. The costumes fit the time periods well (except for Gus's as mentioned above), with Margaret Colin's wardrobe being especially stunning.

I think that I was lucky to remember as much as I did of the play, because from conversations I overheard at intermission, information that was important to the ultimate payoff of the play went over the heads of some of the audience members.

The show is only playing a limited engagement, but I hope that the actors settle into their roles a bit more and that someone teaches Bel Powley how to how to project correctly before she ruins her voice.

---

Comments

[Brendan Carroll]

Wow
You write wonderful reviews of these things. You know, I was thinking as I was reading this about a trip I took down to the Galveston 1869 Opera House a few years ago to see Mozart's "Die Zauberflote" and I was thrilled to be there, but the set was ultra-modern renditions of the originals and not what I had expected or hoped for at all. The orchestra was marvelous and the singing/acting was great, but I was somewhat disappointed at the sets/props because I found them too stylistic. They only hinted at what I think Mozart intended. The worst part was der Voglefanger's costume. Here is a link to what I expected, but it was nothing like that in Galveston. I hope I can go again someday. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4y3mfqMBPU