Capital Region Performance Gallery

by Dick Frantzreb

On Friday, February 22, I attended the final of three “preview performances” of Sacramento Theatre Company’s (STC’s) production of Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream. I should have expected something special from Sacramento’s oldest theatre company (74 years and counting), which is our only professional theatre company committed to staging one of Shakespeare’s plays every year. But what I experienced was way beyond “special.”

For most of us in the audience the evening began with a “prolog” given by STC’s Executive Producing Director, Michael Laun in the lobby of the organization's Main Stage. Laun gave us a brief preview of the production and summarized the potentially confusing plot ― in informal language. Then later, with the audience seated and the show about to begin, Laun gave a welcome to this larger group and made a few announcements. With that, the theatre went dark and the play began.

(Click here to open the program in a new window.)

Director Casey McClellan had decided on a “launch” ― a brief bit of action that Shakespeare hadn’t imagined and that gave context to the play to follow. A young boy (in this double-cast play, performed on this night by a girl, Miriya Yeung) fell asleep in a bed before us and was transformed by a mischievous Puck into a changeling ― becoming the Indian Child that is referenced in the play, but not part of Shakespeare’s dramatis personae. As the Indian Child was whisked away by 4 fairies, the main story began to unfold.

It had been a long time since I’d read and studied this play, so before attending last night, I went online and read a lengthy summary. As things worked out, it was completely unnecessary. The thoughtful staging helped clarify the plot development, and the excellent acting made Shakespeare’s language more understandable. Of course, a play like this can be analyzed in terms of themes, structure, contrasts, etc., and that all may contribute to the subconscious pleasure it gives. But for me, any temptation to analyze was lost in focusing on the spectacle that immediately grabbed my attention and never let go.

A Midsummer Night’s Dream is, strictly speaking, a farce, and the comedy was continuous, much of it inherent in the plot itself and in Shakespeare’s clever writing. But this company took the comedy to a new level, with physical comedy and contemporary references. For example, I don’t think Shakespeare (or any director before the late 20th century) could ever have imagined Hermia kicking Demetrius in the groin. Indeed, the staging itself brought a lot of laughs, and the “cat fight” between Helena and Hermia was simply hilarious.

I would like to acknowledge the contribution of each individual actor, but it’s impossible because each of these 14 people was brilliantly, seriously farcical in his or her own way, bringing out every bit of the potential humor in their role. Much of the text of this play would appear simply banal, if all you did was read it. But this director and these actors gave intensity and spirit to the words through their gestures and intonation ― and other techniques in the actor’s book of tricks. More than that, though, were the “extras” that went far beyond directions in the bare script. When Lysander was under stress, he pulled out an inhaler. The “mechanicals” (the workmen who stage the play-within-a-play) entered the dark forest with flashlights (anachronism being one of the many comic devices used in this production). There were so many more of these creative touches, but I was too entranced to make note of them as the play raced forward.

Occasionally I noticed the actors having fun changing the pronunciation of words. For example, there was one point where the words “death” and “breath” were pronounced “dee-ath” and “bree-ath.” It went by so fast that I didn’t quite get the implication, but I bet if I saw this production again, I’d get that and so many more of the subtleties that came through the inspiration of director or actor. And when they didn’t have words to play with, actors filled in other delightful effects: whenever the 4 helper fairies appeared, they made little sounds to emphasize their presence. And Bottom’s braying while delivering his lines adorned with an ass’s head was an hilarious enhancement of his character.

Something else I noticed about this production was the continuous movement. Often I felt like I was watching choreography rather than the execution of stage directions. I recall the 4 helper fairies standing in place one behind another, each moving in a distinctive way while the dialog and action of the scene proceeded downstage in front of them. There was explicit choreography, too, such as the appealing fairy dance with recorded music that put Titania to sleep. But overall, if you watched the action in silence or in translation to a completely unfamiliar language, much of it would look like modern dance ― and I believe you’d still be able to follow the plot and get the comedy. Sometimes the actors even came up with movements that were actually gymnastic.

Of all the many innovative touches that added to the pleasure of watching this play, I have to add one more. A key plot point involved anointing the eyes of sleeping characters with a potion. As this was being done, there was harp music, and the character’s arms and legs rose as if being lifted by invisible marionette strings. It amounted to an intriguing leitmotif.

By the end of Act IV, Scene 1, the plot of the play had essentially been resolved with the reconciliation of the young lovers. That would make the play staged by the mechanicals an odd postscript. But I guess this is the genius of Shakespeare. It gave generations of directors and actors the opportunity to achieve a climax to the ongoing comedy. And this director and these actors produced a wonderful bit of silliness that evoked non-stop laughter in the audience.

A Midsummer Night’s Dream was written around 1596, and in 420+ years it has no doubt been staged tens of thousands of times. I dare say that none of these productions were exactly alike because the essence of Shakespeare’s longevity in the popular culture of any era is that his plays invite interpretation. Clearly this present interpretation has been crafted to appeal to a modern audience. And though I’ve seen the play performed numerous times since my first experience many decades ago, on my way to the theatre last night, I never imagined that this classic of English literature could be so much fun.