Go to 15 Bytes Home
go to page 8
Subscribe to 15 Bytes For Free
Facebook page PAGE 6 PAGE 7
PAGE 8
PAGE 9
PAGE 10

Twitter page
July 2012
Utah's Art Magazine: Published by Artists of Utah
Page 7   
A scene from the Utah Shakespeare Festival’s 2012 production of Titus Andronicus. (Photo by Karl Hugh. Copyright Utah Shakespeare Festival 2012.)
0 | 1


Culture Conversations: Theatre
Have We Done Aught Amiss?
Vengeance at the Utah Shakespeare Festival


Gang rape, murder, cannibalism; the chopping of heads, hands and tongue; the unjustified stabbing by a father of both a son and a daughter. Titus Andronicus is not an easy play to watch. Staging it is no less difficult (which may explain why, in its fifty-one year history, the Utah Shakespeare Festival has only done it once before).

One of Shakespeare’s earliest plays, Titus is by far his most violent. Murder is common enough in his tragedies and histories, but nowhere else does so much of it happen onstage and with so little reflection. From start to finish Titus Andronicus is an unrelenting revenge play, with few sublplots or comic interludes to alleviate the unforgiving and bloody march through cyclical violence. Any theatrical team that decides to stage the play (and what option does a festival that has promised to put on all 38 plays in 12 years have?) must decide how. Whether to do it straight or slanted. The first is difficult, since Shakespeare’s somewhat disjointed plot, outlandish action, and mostly undeveloped characters, provide shaky ground for a serious tragedy (plus, when the onstage maimings and murder have been played realistically, blood flying, audiences have been nauseated and even stormed out). But play Titus slanted and different problems ensue. Treat this gory and harrowing study of vengeance and madness lightly and you risk making life as cheap in our hearts as it seems in the play.

In Shakespeare’s tragedy, triumphant general Titus Andronicus returns to Rome bearing the spoils of war: the defeated Goth queen, Tamora, her consort, Aaron the Moor, and her three sons, are all his captives. To appease the people of Rome, Titus sacrifices the eldest Goth prince, despite the pleas of Tamora. He then becomes kingmaker when he names Saturninus, one of two contending brothers, emperor. But made-king and kingmaker are soon divided by implacable enmity. The emperor, who has been given the captives as a gift, frees Tamora and make her his queen. She, with her two remaining sons and consort, secretly plans revenge on the Andronicus family – Titus aiding them when he kills his own son, who, he feels, has dishonored him. After two more sons and a son-in-law are killed, his daughter Lavinia raped and her tongue and hands cut off, and Titus himself tricked into cutting off his own hand, it is the Andronichae’s turn for revenge. The plot ends in a cannibalistic feast and a pile of bodies that includes the Goths, the emperor, Titus and Lavinia. This then, is the story of Titus that must be staged.

We usually remember a performance in terms of its actors, but the members of the artistic team that don’t appear on stage – the director and designers -- are always important to any performance, and here their roles become paramount, as the slant of the staging becomes an unsettling and unsettled visual narrative. The props of the play are a mix. To the relief of weaker stomachs, the bloody stumps of Lavinia and Titus are symbolically suggested by red tissue, as is the blood the two Goth princes cough up when their throats are cut. But the blood staining the bags holding severed heads and a severed hand (the last of which Lavinia is told to hold between her teeth) looks real enough. The costumes, designed by Kevin Copenhaver, also seem to play two angles. They are an anachronistic hybrid, loosely associated with their Roman setting, and deployed in a purposeful manner to reveal character traits. Chaste Lavinia is clothed from wrist to neck in a dress that a Victorian matron would feel comfortable in, while the sensual and spiteful Tamora goes sleeveless. Titus begins in dusty but solemn attire befitting a general, but as he and brother Marcus, mad and distraught after the defiling of Lavinia, fight over the killing of a fly (a poignant but disturbingly comic moment) their casual wear calls to mind straight-jackets. But the costumes also hint that they might have been sewn with tongue in cheek. Playing on our contemporary connotation of the word, the Goths are dressed in black, feathers and incontinent eye makeup. The Andronicus sons, with their leggings tucked in black boots, appear something like Marvel super heroes playing Roman soldier.

The most stunning visuals of the performance are reserved for Lavinia. When, in the final scene of the second act, Lavinia is revealed, newly ravished, her bloody and bandaged body slung between the Goth princes like a taught slingshot, the image is as frightening as it is pathetic. Her white dress/bandage, almost feather-like, gives the impression she has been flayed. The way she gasps and sucks for breath through the bandaged bloody hole of her mouth, and is reduced to swinging her useless, bloody stumps, is wholly unsettling. And Melisa Pereyra, as Lavinia, in one of the staging’s strongest performances, continues to unsettle throughout the play, as she pitiably sobs and hugs her father, or flays about near her frightened cousin.

As they witnessed this scene in the first half of the play, the audience was rendered as mute as Lavinia. Appropriate to the pathos of the moment, and despite the prim nature of the symbolic presentation, they held their breath, some putting hand to mouth in an eerily mimetic gesture. Only after intermission, when the fly-swatting scene stirred relieving laughter, did this change. And the play itself had changed. With the help of her uncle Marcus, Lavinia discovers a way to communicate, and reveals the source of her tragedy, setting in motion a second cycle of revenge. And what seemed only hinted at in the play’s stylized costumes, a slight irreverence, becomes more evident and pathos turns to bathos.

In Act IV, when Tamora and her sons come, as the text demands, disguised in an attempt to fool mad Titus, they have become ridiculous. The boys wear oversized heads that look like bloated versions of the Anonymous masks. Possibly they are meant to nod at the ridiculousness of the scene itself – the three Goths think they can fool the supposedly mad Titus into thinking they are the actual incarnation of Murder, Rape and Revenge.

And while, in the first half of the play, the audience remained silent at the pitiable sight of Lavinia, when she rises on to the stage in Act V –- where the two Goth princes are now held prisoners by her father -- the audience’s response is anything but mute. When, dressed in sleek, powerful red, Lavinia turns to reveal the large blades attached to her stumps, they let out a cheer. And their revenge lust is rewarded, as Lavinia (not her father, as Shakespeare’s script would have it) cuts the throats of her abusers.

One scene remains to make revenge complete. Here Lavinia is dressed in a crimson outfit that calls to mind the wardrobe of Star Wars’ Queen Amadala; and her father, who is serving up the bodies of the butchered princes as pies to the Emperor and Emperess, is in a cook’s outfit of matching red, and one feels as if we have entered a scene from Sweeney Todd. And appropriately enough, the murder continues: with her consent, Titus kills Lavinia (to hide the shame of her disgrace) before dispatching his dinner guests, dying himself in the fight. His remaining son is declared emperor, and the play closes -- in a slight shift from the actual text -- with Marcus challenging the Roman masses with the refrain, “Have we done aught amiss?” And then, before the curtain falls, the actors make a funereal march across the stage, concluding with an orchestrated stomp of the feet and cock of the head, a gestural wink as if to say, “Wasn’t this fun?”

Marcus’ play-ending question might be that of the director, Henry Woronicz, to his audience. In the staging of the play, have we done aught amiss? If an audience gives itself over to the seriousness of this tragic story, should they feel cheated if it is played as camp?

And if that is what Woronicz has done, is he to blame? Had it been played straight, could anyone stomach the misery, or the gore? And is there anything else to be done with what the playwright has given us?

Considering the canon, Titus Andronicus is an intriguing play -- it carries the germs of themes, images and characters that will come to fruition in some of Shakespeare’s best plays (look to Cedar City this fall for a much more powerful musing on revenge, Hamlet). But as a play, it is not completely satisfying. The tenor of the words and the action are hard to untangle. Maybe that is because the play, as some have suggested, is the young Shakespeare’s fulfillment on a bet to outdo the bloody theatrics of his times.

Trepidatious about the sensibilities of a more refined, modern audience, scholars have made much ado about bloody Titus needing to be understood as a product of its time: when Senecan revenge plays were the staple of the Elizabethean theatre. But as this production suggests, we have no less an appetite for revenge-ploitation today (How else do you explain the success of the Stieg Larsson trilogy?). A contemporary audience nursed on the movies of Quentin Tarantino or Robert Rodriguez will find the stylized artistry of revenge in the Utah Shakespeare’s Festival’s Titus Andronicus readily familiar.



Artist Spotlight: Blanding
Problem Solving
Richard Russell's Costumed Art



Richard Russell takes satisfaction in problem-solving. It's one of the things, he says, that attracted him to painting. Whether he's depicting scenes from around his home in Blanding, Utah, or interpreting key moments from Shakespearean plays, he’s intrigued by all the choices an artist must make to tell the human story.

Russell grew up in the Salt Lake Valley and attended Brigham Young University. The sciences, with their own set of problems to be solved, fought with the arts for his interests, but he ultimately decided to commit himself to his brushes. He enrolled in the University’s illustration department because it was only there, with professors like Ralph Barksdale, that he felt he could learn the “painterly, academic style” he was interested in. After graduation he completed an internship with Burt Silverman in New York before returning to Utah and settling in Blanding, where his wife Josie, a native of nearby Monticello, teaches English at the Southern Utah University extension.

A small town in the remote Four Corners area of the state, Blanding is an inspiring place for his landscapes, says Russell, and it is relatively close to his Santa Fe gallery, where Southwest motifs do well. But living in the town of 2000 does pose a problem for an artist also interested in doing period pieces: costumes are hard to come by, and his New Mexico audience isn’t exactly lining up for paintings of Renaissance England.

Russell first got hooked on Shakespeare when at sixteen he attended a performance of Macbeth at the Utah Shakespeare Festival. Seeing the words performed on stage did something for him. “I said, ‘Wow, I get it. There’s a lot of depth here I didn’t get just trying to read it through’ . . . When you have the actor there you understand what they’re struggling with and it has a lot of meaning.” Because the words on the page became real human stories when Russell saw them acted on the stage, they also became material for his work. “When I do a painting I am trying to tell something. Like any artist, whether it’s a musician, a painter, an actor, . . . you’re trying to tell the human story.” So as Shakespeare’s stories settled in his mind, they began to develop as paintings. He completed a few Shakespearian-themed works, but soon found his desire to do more frustrated by a lack of models and costume.

Then, while attending the Utah Arts Council’s Mountain West Conference of the Arts in Salt Lake City last year, Josie ran into Scott Phillips, Executive Director for the Utah Shakespeare Festival. When she told him Russell had been painting Shakespeare scenes but had trouble finding costumes, Phillips said the festival could help. He also thought they could help with an audience: what would her husband think about exhibiting at the 2012 festival?

Problems solved. Sort of.

With the Colorado Plateau in the way, Cedar City was still more than a five-hour drive; and while the costumes were available, actor guild regulations meant Russell would have to find others to embody them. The festival eventually created for him a list of local volunteers who were willing to serve as models for his project. In Blanding, he studied their headshots, planning his scenes and casting roles. But for all his planning, once he got to Cedar City to shoot his source material he had to ad lib.

“It’s organic,” he says. “I definitely had a strong idea sketched out of what I wanted to attempt . . . but there’s something magical that happens when you bring the person and the costume together and you describe the scene and the emotions.” Like a casting director, Russell found himself shifting his models into new costumes, moving them into additional or different scenes, developing a groups shot where originally he had only considered a pair. “I can see how [a director] can go through a hundred people for a part before finally say, yes, that’s what I want.”


John Hughes' easel in the field, with a value scale painted on the box
0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7


Russell says his understanding of a play is sometimes an amalgamation of several performances, but other times a specific performance will stick in his mind. A few years ago he saw a performance of “The Taming of the Shrew” that finally made the piece come alive for him. “I was blown away. I had never really loved the play before that,” he says of the performance in Cedar City. “It’s the relationship that’s fun in that play. The ying and yang, the push and pull they have.” He represented that dynamic by showing Katherina and Petruchio from above, their bodies forming a diagonal across the picture plane as Katherina pulls away and Petruchio leans back laughing.

How to interpret the varied themes and characters in Shakespeare is no easy task. Russell says his paintings vary in how they solve the problem. They might focus on a specific relationship, like in The Shrew. Or they might focus on a theme: for The Merchant of Venice he concentrated on Shylock as a solitary figure, the firmly clenched dagger behind his back pointing to his obsessive passion. Or the painting might even be extra-textual: his image of Ophelia running along the river does no harm to the text, but isn’t actually in it.

Over the past year Russell made a total of four trips to Cedar City, experimenting with costumes, changing the lighting, collecting his source material. After getting the sketches fully developed he worked his themes in oil. The result is more than a dozen paintings, -- depicting a range of works from the comedies, romances, tragedies and histories -- that are on exhibit at the Randall L. Jones theatre in Cedar City for the 2012 season. His partnership with the Utah Shakespeare Festival festival has been fruitful: he has a number of paintings still on the easel that may be substituted in during the four months of the exhibit, and is already thinking through ways to tackle additional plays.



Become an Underwriter

Glass Art GuildBecome an UnderwriterUtah Arts FestivaldividerKevin GuzikGKimball Art Center

G
Become an Underwriter