Reviews 2000
Reviews 2000
✭✭✭✩✩
by Timothy Findley, directed by Martha Henry
Stratford Festival, Tom Patterson Theatre, Stratford
June 29-September 30, 2000
“Queen meets Queen”
If I didn’t know from the programme, I would have thought that “Elizabeth Rex”, the new play by Timothy Findley written in collaboration with Paul Thompson, was actually a revival of some imitation Peter Shaffer play of 20 or 30 years ago. As in “Amadeus” the play is in the form of an old artist remembering an incident from the past—Salieri in Shaffer, Shakespeare in Findley. As in “The Royal Hunt of the Sun”, the focus is a frank but improbable discussion between a person in authority and a person without power—Pizarro and the Inca Atahualpa in Shaffer, Elizabeth I and an actor in Findley. In both cases the person in authority learns something important about life from the other. Both Shaffer and Findley write about the roles we inherit and roles we wish we could play. Both aim their works at a middle-brow audience by double-underlining any symbolism or allusions to make sure we get them. I felt not only that I was not seeing a new work but one that was already dated, since so much of the territory of the play had already been covered by others.
The conceit of “Elizabeth Rex” is that an already dead Shakespeare recalls an event from the past that he never had a chance to write about. The barn he is in reminds him of the barn where he and some of his actors took refuge after curfew was called following a performance of “Much Ado about Nothing” for the Queen. The Queen, whose former lover, now traitor, Essex is to be executed in the morning, joins the actors with some of her court seeking diversion from her unease. She falls into a discussion with the male actor who had just played Beatrice and who is dying of syphilis. She will teach him how to be a man if he will teach her how to be a woman. Famous passages from Shakespeare are quoted, the morning, Ash Wednesday, arrives, Essex is beheaded, the curfew is lifted, all leave except Shakespeare, who repeats his opening lines before departing.
Findley creates the character of Ned Lowenscroft in the belief that a mature actor must have played Shakespeare’s great female roles, despite all evidence to the contrary, including from “Antony and Cleopatra” itself, which is frequently quoted in the play. The central encounter is supposed to be between the manly queen and the effeminate man. The bargain which concludes Act 1 and is repeated at the start of Act 2 never is fulfilled. Elizabeth does not teach Lowenscroft to be a man—he seems already to be one. Lowenscroft’s idea of teaching Elizabeth to be a woman is to force her to recall lying between the sheets with Essex. Here we have the old 1970s cliché of sex as a defining moment. However, given the emphasized parallel with the homosexual Lowenscroft, it’s impossible to see why the sex act should make her aware of her womanhood instead of an innate manhood. In the notes, Findley states that the meaning of the play could be summed up by Polonius’ words in “Hamlet”, “To thine own self be true”. Setting aside the unreliability of Polonius as a moral guide, we are to believe that in recognizing her womanhood, Elizabeth finds a way to mercy, alas too late to save Essex. Besides the antiquated association of femininity with mercy and gentleness, the evidence of the play itself suggests the folly of pardoning a condemned traitor.
Given Elizabeth’s father’s habit of doing away with wives, only the most sentimental attitude, as we have here, would show Elizabeth torn with conflict about a lover who is now a enemy. Why should we think Elizabeth is not true to herself by placing the state above private affairs, unless we take the antediluvian view that womanhood and political power don’t mix? While Findley has written some potent scenes and two meaty roles for actors, the argument of “Elizabeth Rex” just doesn’t hold up to close scrutiny. In a play which quotes so heavily from Shakespeare, it is inevitable that the best lines are not by Findley. When Findley has Elizabeth don the costume and wig just worn by Lowenscroft who she knows has running sores, we know that symbolism not common sense is driving the play. The same goes for Lowenscroft’s tame bear and the union Elizabeth blesses between her Maid-of-Honour and an actor--hardly likely.
Despite these reservations, the production itself is near flawless. Martha Henry’s direction is clear and precise. She brings about one of the few example of real ensemble acting I’ve seen at Stratford in recent years. Allan Wilbee’s set instantly conjures up a heavy-beamed barn, though why there should be an arbour inside the barn downstage left obscuring some of the audience’s view is unclear. His costumes are lovely, giving the Stratford audiences a rare chance to see a play in Elizabethan dress. Elizabeth’s gown is magnificent. Louise Guinand’s lighting is highly atmospheric and gives an autumnal cast to the central part of the play. Todd Charlton’s sound design is fine, but, as is so often the case at this festival, largely unnecessary.
Unlikely as it is that Elizabeth would mingle with actors, then thought the lowest of the low, and allow herself to be insulted by them (and in a barn no less), Findley has created two fine roles for actors. Diane D’Aquila, with her low, hard voice, is excellent at Elizabeth, showing both her hauteur and despair, her outer persona and inner turmoil. Brent Carver as Ned Lowenscroft gives a soul-baring performance, looking very frail but showing great strength of mind beneath the frailness. Findley has also created two memorable minor characters--Percy Gower the clown and Kate Tardwell the wardrobe mistress. As Gower, Keith Dinicol gives a performance that for once is not over the top, a clown on stage and treated as one off it. Joyce Campion is thoroughly delightful as near-sighted Tardwell, concerned totally with the care of her costumes as if acting in them came second.
The role of Shakespeare ought to be important, but Findley gives him little to do or say once his memory takes shape on stage. Peter Hutt plays the part in a wan monotone which is supposed to suggest old age, but simply makes the character uninteresting. The list of the Lord Chamberlain’s Men is completed with Damien Atkins, Evan Buliung, Andrew Burr, Paul Dunn, Michael Fawkes and Scott Wentworth. So many are needed to suggest a troupe, but Findley finds little for them to do other than observe the Elizabeth-Lowenscroft debate. The same is true for the other court members played by Florence MacGregor and Rita Howell. At least Bernard Hopkins as the Queen’s Private Secretary, has important lines as the voice of the political expedience.
Findley gives us so little information about the background of the Elizabeth and Essex story that it is impossible for us to judge Elizabeth’s actions. Findley wants us to react emotionally not rationally, as he wants us to with Lowenscroft and Shakespeare. It is all supposed to be very sad but it is ultimately unmoving and unenlightening. What we are left with is that strange paradox of seeing two unforgettable performances in a forgettable play.
©Christopher Hoile
Photo: Diane D’Aquila as Elizabeth I. ©2000 V. Tony Hauser.
2000-10-10
Elizabeth Rex