REVIEW: Mobtown's Measure for Measure is M4M

One look around the lobby of Mobtown Players' theatre space in Hampden (The Run of the Mill Theatre) and you know instantly that this will not be traditional Shakespeare as shown on PBS. On the counters and tables are discretely placed pamphlets from "I Do Maryland" and a reprint of a Baltimore Sun article, "Derailing the Gay Marriage Ban". A quick glimpse of the director's note in the program confirms it – this Measure for Measure has been altered, recast and reshaped into a commentary on the morality of gay marriage, not premarital sex of the original. This could have been a nightmare – politicos nearing re-election might have taken this and run with it as yet another excuse to hate. Fortunately, this is not the case – the play is sound, well done, and presents its topic so gently and with such benign dignity, that the controversial aspect is nearly nonexistent. And that is a good thing – like Brokeback Mountain, where a gay love story is treated so beautifully that the gay part of it is the least of the issue, so too,this production is in its treatment of gay marriage as not only being alright, but just as natural a choice as straight marriage.

Of course, with Shakespeare, the play's the thing. This comedy doesn't disappoint on that front. Everything we love about Will's comedies is here: lofty upper class vs. the common folk (Midsummer has its Bottom, Measure has its Elbow), the easily corrupted clergy, willing to sacrifice tradition for the larger rewards of God's will, fun locales (here a gay/dyke bar, a whorehouse, and a police station complete with coffee and Entenmanns's), and of course, an important message cleverly hidden so as not to make the Queen look bad, but an entertainment with a point to be made nonetheless. And the Mobtown's notorious "twists" on the original are excellent. The pre-show message, usually as ignored as the emergency landing instructions on an airplane, is delivered by Sheriff Elbow and company that is at once funny, informative and even character developing. The most fun surprise of the evening are the interludes between acts where the cast, in Greek chorus fashion, sings hits of the 80's in a style best described as church hymn meets monastic chant. Even better, these songs, often maligned for being without substance, really help make the point. I may never hear "Tainted Love" the same way again!

Much of the credit for the success of this production (and a few of its ills) goes to frequent Mobtown director Ryan Whinnem. He could have easily relied on stereotypes, but happily that is not the case. The gay characters are presented as regular, every day folk, as most of us really are, thus making a case for the fact that gays are actually like everyone else and deserve equal rights. Drag queens and prissy he-girls might have been the easier laugh, but would have definitely hurt the message. Thank you, Ryan! In his director's notes, this self-described "Shakespeare Geek" defends his choice of changing the time and the crime. Apparently, a colleague argued that no one in the 1980's would have been put to death for gay sex or a gay relationship. I strongly disagree with the colleague, and suspect this argument came from a younger man or woman. Those of us who lived and loved in the 1980's in this country know very well that you could easily have been put to death for it – it is called AIDS. And people were terrified, not complacent, and the government basically ignored the plight of the victims because of how they contracted the disease.  Gay marriage was on the back burner; staying alive was the most important issue. Perhaps this social/political undertone might have given this production the weight it needs at the end, which is really the only weak part of the play. As presented, the last scenes where truths and identities are revealed, and the Bard's message is clearly stated, the production seems a bit in a hurry. The arguments and revelations rush by so quickly there is no time to digest one point before the next is being forced upon the audience. Measure for Measure is not one of the more frequently performed comedies of Shakespeare, so a built in familiarity is not there. This isn't Romeo & Juliet where it could be done as a silent film and the audience would still get it. And the very last moment of the play, where politics meets religion, where the last coupling may or may not happen barely registers, as if the actors involved were improvising because of a missed light cue or something of that nature.

Oddly enough, the two actors in question, Diana Cherkis as Isabella (a nun) and Zak Jeffries as Vicentio (a duke) are two of this production's strongest assets. Both have a marvelous command of the language. When they speak it comes across with such passion that you never miss a nuance of meaning. With them, there is no barrier between Shakespearean English and modern-speak. Also quite adept are the appropriately chilly Allison Joyce as Angela (described in the play as having ice water for urine) and the largely comedic, commanding Reece Thornberry as Lucio. The supporting cast is uneven, though. As the Provost, Mark Squirek delivers an amusing take on the role of Vienna's executioner – he plays it much like a manager in charge of a warehouse, moving the goods in and out. And in the dual roles of the soft spoken, mousy Escalus (2^nd in command of Vienna) and the loud mouthed, vulgar Barnadine (death row inmate), Steve Beall shows incredible range. Less effective are the performances of Heiko (Abhorson/Friar Thomas) who stands out mainly for his mullet wig and a creepy penchant for staring at the audience, and Loandra Torres (Mariana) who, in the important, point-making role of Angela's lover/wife, is entirely bland and at times unintelligible. Again, this hurts the climax of the play. Where it should have registered as an impassioned plea for what is right, her pleas for understanding and acceptance from Angela land with a dull thud. Finally, and I think this is more a directorial choice than an error in character as played by the game ensemble, I find it contrary to the message of the production, and the basic story, that the Bawds, here equally reviled as the homosexuals, would boo and hiss in disgust as the women and men proclaim their love for each other. I am certain that, with their necks equally on the line these people would rally together, especially when it is revealed that the Duke himself favors same-sex marriage!

In the entire broad spectrum of the production these are relatively small faults. This production scores on other important points. Among them is the major political figure who removes himself from the public eye to secretly create policy that he wants, while admitting that others can take the fall if he is unsuccessful. Sound familiar? And the audible gasp from audience members around me who were verbally (and not quietly) agreeing when one character is philosophizing on the wrongness of being gay, then heard another character say (I'm paraphrasing here), "Hate the sin but not the sinner." I would not be surprised to find that those same audience members never quite thought of that as a possibility for compromise. I would be surprised, however, if the play changed their mind about gays and marriage rights. And while that may have been the goal of this production, it probably doesn't change minds, but certainly opened a few. That, in and of itself, is a major achievement. Your fellow "Shakespeare geeks" (myself included) salute you.

To post a comment, you must register and login.