Casey Barter
Dr. Adrienne Macki
Drama 1101
10/17/2016
A Descent into Madness:
Reviewing the Connecticut Repertory Theatre’s Performance of King Lear
Depicting the works of William Shakespeare can be a somewhat daunting task. The famous playwright’s sometimes enigmatic use of language and lack of stage directions (save the basic exit and enter stage prompts) can be interpreted and subsequently presented in a wide variety of ways. The ability to represent a single Shakespeare in a so many ways can actually pose a challenge for director. How does one create a unique vision, while still remaining true to the original ideas Shakespeare presented? Not knowing how the director would choose to present the show, I focused on keeping an open mind as I walked into the Connecticut Repertory Theatre to see their performance of Shakespeare’s King Lear.
Being my first experience with the Connecticut Repertory Theatre, I was pleasantly surprised to find the atmosphere of the theatre was quite intimate. During the performance, I grew more and more impressed with the show’s quality, especially as the play progressed. I use the word intimate because the stage felt extremely close and the actors could be heard clearly – even from my seat only a few rows from the back of the audience. The set design struck me as simple as the wooden double doors were the only static piece of scenery, and was on stage for the entirety of the show. The simplicity of the set though, in my mind, was a perfect. It drew more attention to the performers and allowed them to move freely around the stage. Moreover, it gave an opportunity for the lights to shine making the lighting influence the mood of each scene almost forcing the audience to feel a particular emotion. In fact, it seemed that entire show was an expert use of space, lighting and stage craft overall. At one point Edgar flees in fear for his life through the audience, and one could truly feel him exuding terror as he sprinted by. The performance’s mastery of space was solidified when I saw the empty space between the actors during the titular King Lear’s rants. The distance between the actors emphasized the King’s isolation as he descended into madness, making him appear alone despite being physically accompanied on stage. Lear’s rants not only used the theatre’s space effectively, but used the lighting and sound as well. The lighting always matched the mood on stage. At the beginning we see very warm, yellow colors blanketing the stage before any strife has occurred. As the play progressed, though, what I assume was sunlight, fades into night, leaving the theatre dark and eerie. These melancholy hues, coupled at times with fog emphasized the fact that the show we were watching was a tragedy, and its titular character and his family were descending into chaos. The most aesthetically powerful part of the play, however, took place during a storm. Thunder booms, lightning flashes, and the lighting used to create the effect of rain on stage was not only extremely believable, but beautiful as well. The theatre seemed to personify itself through the storm, responding with cries of thunder as King Lear shouted at the maelstrom, daring its lightning bolts to strike him down. The stage itself seemed to be acting. So convincing was this scene, in fact, that the actors’ performing seem to be enhanced, and the Fool’s pleas for the King to seek shelter were unsettlingly genuine. The stage craft didn’t stop there, however. The menacing nature of the scene was boosted by the presence of fog, enveloping the feet of those on stage. The stage itself wasn’t the only facet of the show contributing to the various aesthetics, though. A professional show always considers costumes carefully, and frankly, King Lear wouldn’t have been as impressive without the specific costumes each character was wearing.
Also enhancing the show was the costume selection. The use of clothing – and lack thereof, which I will address – is used as effectively as the theatre space is. The dresses of Regan and Goneril began to enhance their sinister aura, especially Regan’s crimson dress. However, to truly show just how effective the costumes were used, we must return to King Lear, and the scenes leading up to his episode in the thunderstorm. Before the aforementioned scene, we see the King dressed in noble garb with various furs adorning his shoulders and a luxurious robe. Appropriately, as the play moved toward the storm, his noble clothes began to disappear. When we see the King in the storm, though, his shirt is unbuttoned, crown askew, and boots removed, his very outfit is presented in such a way to mimic his deteriorating sanity. Amazingly, this scene has another instance where the lack of clothes suggests moral insanity. Edgar, who, as previously mentioned, had fled for his own safety reappears, but is now under the guise Poor Tom. Acting rather unstable, Poor Tom further solidifies the fact that a lack of clothes denotes insanity and instability. His outfit consists of tattered rags and a loin cloth, with no shirt, and a shows a pattern in the representation of insanity through costume design. Not only did the costumes effectively depict a character’s insanity, they also encapsulated many of the character’s spirits at times. The Fool, for example, wore bright colors, with hints of yellow and orange, and actually has a dialogue centering around his hat when we first meet him on stage. Cordelia, in stark contrast to her two sisters is clad in a flowing white dress, giving off correct the impression of kindness, as opposed to her sisters’ previously mentioned sinister nature. The costume and set design definitely contributed positively to the show’s presentation and performance, but a crucial part of any show is the audience. And while the show was without a doubt aesthetically pleasing, it would all have been for naught if the audience weren’t receptive.
That being said, a lack of reception from the audience was, fortunately, not a problem at all for the performance. In fact, the audience was enthralled from start to finish and actually appeared to acknowledge the events happen on stage with genuine enthusiasm. Examples of the audience’s involvement came when the Fool was on stage. There were a handful of times when the character made a clever quip, causing bursts of laughter from nearly everyone in the theatre. But it wasn’t laughter that made me realize how invested in the play the audience really was, but instead it was a moment of fright. The scene in which Gloucester’s eyeball is removed by Regan and Cornwall, in which we see his eyeball flattened by a boot on stage. In this moment, the reaction of the audience was telling. I heard several repulsed groans and, most importantly, from my position towards the rear of the audience could see heads turn away in horror. The audience was so involved emotionally that they felt real emotions of fear, disgust, and horror in that moment. The length of the show itself can be cited as further testament to the audience’s participation. An extremely long first act can often leave an audience anxious for an intermission, but in this case I saw no anxiety. The quality of the play drew the audience in and locked us in – we didn’t want the performance to end it seemed. The audience was so invested, in fact, that when the show concluded people were leaving their seats with looks of somberness after witnessing the plethora of deaths occur. The large amount of enthusiasm coming from the audience gives rise to a question, though. Why were we so drawn in? In other words, what makes King Lear remain relatable enough to connect to audiences 400 years after its penning?
One could start with the cliché answers, I suppose, by saying how Shakespeare’s plays are simply timeless. Or maybe it is that academia has latched on to his works with constant study and reverence that has kept his work important. But I think the real reason his plays, specifically King Lear, has remained relevant is the playwright’s unique ability to delve into the human condition, especially when refused access to love, power, or family. In the case of King Lear, he is refused both love and family, after relinquishing his power. The need for love and family and the fear of what would happen to us without them is a very real concern in modern society, emphasized by the popularity of social media. We crave care and recognition, and without those things we would deteriorate much like the way King Lear does. Obviously it is a melodramatic depiction, but is still frightening to see happen nonetheless. The man loses everything we as humans cherish, and eventually dies of heartbreak. The relevance this play has in our society cannot be understated, and the themes Shakespeare explores as well as the believable characters he creates to represent those themes are what make his writing timeless.