'Rich': a third original, two thirds chaos

There's something that I think you should know: I have never seen or read William Shakespeare's Richard III. So, after having just sat through Gerard Passannante's, BK '00, version of Shakespeare's famous play, it's especially interesting to note that I can say with good reason that I've still never seen or read this play.

KATHERINE ALDRICH/YH Amber Gross, BK '00, and Roya Shanks, BK '00, show Apostolos Zervos, TD '01, that 'Richard' is really dominated by women.

Believe me, such a feat is entirely possible. Passannante's representation of Shakespeare's play is far from traditional. In fact, it goes so far as to eliminate and repeat various scenes, as well as utilize only three actors. The director calls it "a meditation on rereading Shakespeare," an examination of not only the relationship between the actors' characters, but also the actors themselves. How does a shifting point of reference affect the manner in which we interpret these characters and their actions?

Can one actor's interpretation of Richard, for example, conjure up totally different emotions from the interpretation of another? The answer, unfortunately, is no less complicated than the question, and a lack of familiarity with Richard 3 only makes an attempt at such an answer that much more difficult. The three actors (Amber Gross, BK '00, Roya Shanks, BK '00, and Apostolos Zervos, TD '01) are veritable Scott Bakulas (of Quantum Leap fame) as they portray at least a dozen different characters, often trading places in mid-scene. Absolute chaos which, as a result of this "experiment," often seems inevitable, is avoided only because the actors manage to shoulder considerable self control in the face of a disordered performance that Shakespeare probably never envisioned.

Still, Richard 3 stands its ground. The elegance of the play's set, co-designed by Passannante and Nathaniel Hodes, BR '00, stems from its austerity, such that very subtle decoration (nothing more than scattered branches, dangling picture frames, and a mirrored rear wall) occasions striking contrasts of light and shadow. Still, it is Hodes' masterful lighting design that holds the set together, as he surrounds the stage with lofty, back-lit screens, brilliantly Mondrian-esque in their patterned exposure of light.

The set is clearly the perfect backdrop for a group of actors who continually step in and out of their characters' shadows. Zervos' accent is the most refined of the group, and its combination with the perennial sneer that lingers on his face for all but 10 minutes of the play greatly elevates his delivery. Unfortunately, the chutzpah with which he voices each line rarely changes from character to character, and I often found myself struggling to determine whether or not he had again switched identities (here, once more, did my unfamiliarity breed confusion).

Nevertheless, the women make it clear that Richard 3 is their play. Shanks' early scenes with Zervos may pave the way for later analysis, but it is her confidence that grounds us in the play's rather confusing opening minutes.

Still, it is Gross looking absolutely radiant in a costume designed by Rachel Rush, ES '00, who steals the show at the onset of the second act, performing a scene in which she must act opposite stuffed animals, for whom she also provides the voices. Her ability to boomerang from character to character (hers are often the most expressive) is highlighted well here, the inflections in her voice changing from that of a quaint English queen to a southern debutante at the drop of a hat (or in Richard 3's case, the drop of a king).

Theater

Richard 3 Written by William Shakespeare Directed by Gerard Passanante Fri., Apr. 7, 7 and 10 p.m. Sat., Apr. 8, 8 p.m. Berkeley All-Purpose Room

This opposition of Shanks' skillful restraint and Gross's unbridled enthusiasm drives the production. To see the two switch roles and perform the same scene is truly a sight, and its success demonstrates both the actresses' talents and the fact that Passannante's experiment actually works. Reevaluating a scene an hour later from the perspectives of different actors/readers may add a totally new dimension to the performance. It also has the potential to alienate those most familiar with the play, let alone those who struggle simply to figure out exactly what the hell is going on anyway.

As Passannante notes, "sometimes the difficulties in reading the originality of another are not barriers to the other but paths towards it." Of course, he seems to forget that sometimes difficulties can stem from originality itself.

Back to A&E...