The Northeast Shakespeare Ensemble, New Hampshire's newest professioinal summer theatre, has opened its fifth season with Shakespeare's comedy Much Ado About Nothing.
NHPR's Theatre Critic Kevin Gardner has this review.
Bad Shakespeare is like castor oil.
People take it because they believe it’s somehow good for them, in spite of its awful taste.
Whether they will continue to do this after repeated doses is a question the Northeast Shakespeare Ensemble seems determined to answer.
Their latest production is an exceptionally tedious and nearly incoherent reading of Much Ado About Nothing.
Much Ado may not be one of the great Shakespearian comic masterpieces, but it has its pleasures.
It’s a double romance, featuring on one hand the feckless young soldier Claudio and his innocent intended, the lovely Hero, and on the other that famous pair of bickering wits, the somewhat older and less naïve Benedick and Beatrice.
Along the way, complications and betrayals abound as the evil Don John, the inept constable Dogberry, and a host of others attempt to impede or assist the inevitable ending, a double wedding.
It’s a long, long trip.
John Goodlin’s direction is barely comprehensible.
It lurches from cliché to cliché with a stylistic disunity that reveals hardly any understanding of what is in this play or how it works onstage.
Much Ado is a comedy with considerable darkness around its edges.
Yet Goodlin presents almost all of it as though it were a Sigmund Romberg operetta, bumptious and cheeky and as shallow as a puddle in the road.
Actors declaim their lines into space, illustrate everything with fluttering, redundant gestures, and generally play cartoons instead of characters.
Relationships and chemistry, even among the leads, are non-existent.
Watching this kind of acting, one quickly forgets who these characters are, what they mean to one another, or what is happening in the play.
One forgets everything, in fact, except the agonizing passage of wasted time.
That’s too bad, because the Northeast Shakespeare Ensemble’s cast features a few very talented actors.
The versatile Dee Nelson plays Beatrice and the always-game James Sears and Michael Dell‘Orto, as Dogberry and his ancient deputy Verges, respectively.
But they’re in no position to save this production by themselves.
And most of the rest of the ensemble, from Benedick to Don John to Hero and Claudio, and even the family patriarch Leonato, is either miscast as to age or type, or misdirected out of any semblance of effectiveness.
In fact, actor Bernard Bygott in the role of Borachio, a minor supporting character gives the finest, most consistent performance in this production.
Director Goodlin must have run out of time.
When a production is misconceived as profoundly as this one, its errors tend to metastasize to every aspect of the performance.
That’s why Carolyn Enz’s Italian-villa set is so busily over-designed.
It’s why Rachel Kurland’s vaguely late 18th-century costumes reserve the least attractive dresses for the play’s leading ladies and cause the men to appear to be wearing Pampers under their riding pants.
It’s why William Ogmundson’s slight and hard-to-hear incidental music hardly seems to belong in the production at all, and why Ruth Mayer’s choreography merely lengthens an already much-too-long performance.
Northeast Shakespeare Ensemble’s Much Ado About Nothing w is scheduled through June 28 at the Lebanon Opera House.
Unfortunately, this is one time when the play’s title sums up the performance with uncanny accuracy.
The name of the company is The Northeast Shakespeare Ensemble
http://nesetheatre.org
Sorry about that. It's fixed.
I was surprised to hear so much negativity directed towards the NorthEast Shakespeare Ensemble's production of "Much Ado". Mr. Gardner, do you have a degree in Shakespearian Literature? Do you truly believe that you know the ins and outs of Shakespeare better than those around you? And do you deny the director of this show, or any other show, creative liberties? Next time, perhaps you should at least attempt to find the positives. You owe that to the many talented people involved in the production, regardless of whether or not you agree with their interpretations. I hope that others judge you more kindly than you judge them... Though you may not deserve it.
I saw Much Ado on Saturday, June 21st. Mr. Gardner's comments are accurate and warranted. He would have written positive remarks had the show deserved such praise. It did not. It is my understanding that Mr. Gardner is a well informed theatre critic and practitioner (actor, director, etc). Before questioning his credentials, take the time to read his many reviews for theatre throughout New England!
although this was not a great production, i did like more things than the reviewer. i lol'd a few times. also, lots of hot guys in the cast :)
overall: C+
Having reviewed theater for publications that insisted on the "positive," I find it refreshing that your reviewer can be upfront with his perceptions. The piece is scathing, but it's well-expressed, whether or not you agree with him. And hats off to NHPR for airing it.
Kevin Gardner's review of the NESE production of "Much Ado About Nothing" reflects the pernicious game of "Gotcha" that is becoming routine in American life. We're all superior judges who can find flaws in everything. If you want to go to professional theatre, why bother with local productions that provide the pleasure of direct experience with live actors rather than lazy TV watching? Imagine being exposed to others in a local audience -- and the ability to talk to a stranger in intermission!! Mr. Gardner must find that offensive, because when I saw the play, everyone was laughing -- and most left the theatre with smiles on their faces, The bottom line is that we are exceptionally fortunate to live in the Upper Valley: a beautiful environment, outstanding recreational opportunities, a wide variety of cultural choices, excellent public radio, and a world class hospital (where a brilliant surgeon saved my life in 1999). When one is lucky to be alive, every day’s a miracle to be enjoyed.
Roger Masters, Dept. of Government (retired), Dartmouth College
Roger, congratulations on your survival. Puts things in perspective. However, there is still a thing called "bad theatre". And it is not a reviewer's job to determine if a play is popular, but GOOD! Many of the folks who left the theater with "smiles" may also like those popular TV shows you so dislike. The show was bad, regardless.
I personally agree wih Rob people may be there only to deliver the popularity count but do not always potray tthe best in terms of quality !
Unlike your dyspeptic critic, I very much liked the verve and flavor of the Northeast Shakespeare Ensemble's production of MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING. Dee Nelson’s spunky Beatrice and Milan Dragicevich’s wired Benedick trade verbal jabs like sparring partners until they melt with love, but even then—in one of the night’s most powerful moments-- Nelson keeps the upper hand (literally) while driving Benedick to prove his loyalty to her. Elsewhere there is more to admire. Heather Murdock’s Hero is both winningly playful and convincingly stricken; As the masterfully semi-literate Dogberry, James Sears doggedly leads his men from one malapropism to another; the two chief eavesdropping scenes are adroitly staged for laughs and earn every one of them. This highly professional cast—including no less than a dozen members of Actor’s Equity—shows its strength even in minor roles. As a saucy, alluring Margaret, one of the waiting gentlewomen to Hero, Camille Troy nearly steals the scene every time she appears.
Whether or not you’ve ever seen MUCH ADO, you’ll enjoy this production. Pace Kevin Gardner, I recommend it warmly.
James Heffernan
I almost cancelled my plans to see Much Ado About Nothing based on this review. I'm glad I didn't. The play was funny, as it should have been. I think that the choice to play up the comedy and play down the villainy (or make it campy) was a good one. The last 2 Shakespeare plays I've seen, both in major markets, were done in a dark, modern, Fascist, miliaristic sort of way, and I certainly did not see the need to highlight to dark side of this play by the staging. I also think that the characters in this play are more ridiculous than dark, anyway. Adding physicality to Shakespeare is always helpful to understand 16th-17th century language (and is almost always done) and I thought the actors here did a fine job of it. I didn't have any problem with the set, but I agree that the costuming could have been better. Ultimately, I've seen bad Shakespeare, and Much Ado wasn't that, especially in a small market venue. I enjoyed the play, and walked out of the theater thinking that the reviewer and not the theater company, had made a mess of things.
Mr. Gardner's outrageously negative critique of the NESE performance in Lebanon was uncalled for. The opportunity for us in a rural community to attend a performance of Shakespeare and to enable our childen to experience such a play is a real treat. This play is a farce and was presented as such; oviously Mr. Gardner didn't understand this. By the way, we thought that the set was excellent.
After watching the production, I tried to describe to someone what made it so awful. I wish I had read this review before I had that conversation - I would have borrowed most of what he'd said. It seemed like a 1950's idea of what Shakespeare "should" be. Someone who decides to direct a play by Shakespeare should approach it as a play no one has ever seen before - not as a museum piece and certainly (God save us) not as "literature." It was written to be seen, not read. Please, someone save us from the notion of culture that is good for us. How about art that stimulates, provokes, entertains and . . . if it's not too much to ask . . . is minimally coherent.