Author, Historian, Storyteller

As many of you know, I’m a bit of a Shakespeare fan. Okay, that’s an understatement, I’m a huge Shakespeare fan, and have had the goal for a few years now to see his entire canon performed live. After this past weekend, I was able to cross two off of my list, leaving me with one left. ONE!!!! Technically, I could say that I am done right now because there is definitely a camp that claims “Two Noble Kinsman” is not actually part of the official canon, and that’s the only one that I’m missing. However, I’ve decided to include it in my quest, so I have one left.

This weekend’s boon was thanks to the Porters of Hellsgate theater company with their productions of Henry VI Pts 1, 2, and 3 which are running in rep. Parts 1 and 2 have each been condensed so as to be performed in one long act each. If you choose to attend one of their Sunday double-headers, as I did, you will see Part 1 and 2 in the afternoon, followed by an evening show of Part 3. It is hard to find these plays produced, it is rarer still to find the entire story told at once. Thank you to the Porters for undertaking this behemoth, it was a treat to get to see the entire thing in one go. Therefore, with simplicity in mind, I will refer to Parts 1, 2, and 3 as one big production from here on out.

Those who saw the Porters production of Henry V, much (if not all, I’m not 100% sure on this) of the casting carried over into Henry VI. This provided a lovely continuance of the story. History plays have huge casts, and as Henry VI covers the origin of the War of the Roses, allegiances bounce back and forth like a ping pong ball. For those who are unfamiliar with the plays, to help you follow this review, and the plays should you go see them (which you should) follow these links to read a synopsis of:

Henry VI Pt 1

Henry VI Pt 2

Henry VI Pt 3

Welcome back! As you saw, there are a lot of people and a lot of talk about who is related, how they are related and what those relations mean. Director and set designer Thomas Bigley addresses this issue from the moment you walk into the theater. Painted on the black walls is the royal family tree, clearly depicting the lineage of both the Yorks and the Lancasters. Arrive with enough time to give this a thorough once over. It will help. The costume design also tries to help the audience distinguish what side each character is on. In some respects it succeeds, but its inconsistencies make it fall short of the mark. The biggest obstacle is that the majority of the actors play up to three speaking roles and are in the ensemble. The main speaking roles are easier to distinguish because Shakespeare helps by calling people by their names on a regular basis. Even he understood that you need a scorecard to keep track of this many people.

L to R: Gray Schierholt, Timothy Portnoy and Sean Faye (notice Warwick’s red rose)

A costuming convention helps with the addition of red and white lapel roses – white for the supporters of York and red for the supporters of Lancaster. Even if you don’t know the exact name of the character, you can at least tell which side they belong to. This is especially helpful with Warwick who uses the line of allegiance like a jump rope. This convention goes further by adding accents of color to the Porters stereotypical all black base costumes – followers of York have accents of white, followers of Lancaster have accents of red and the French have accents of blue. Awesome!

L to R: Timothy Portnoy, Sean Faye (notice Warwick’s new white rose), Gus Krieger

However, the supporting ensemble members do not have any distinction. For the most part they are in all black, a highly utilitarian choice as several cast members fill in as ‘Third Soldier from the Right’ for all three camps at one point or another. Who can see the problem with this? There were several occasions where the number of characters on stage in all black, outweighed the number of characters with a color/rose designation, making it hard to distinguish who belonged to whom. Everything fixates on which side has the most supporters at any given point, so it was a little disorienting to not be able to tell where everyone stood. Especially in moments where you do discover who belongs where and then realize that there are crucial people standing with their backs to their enemies, yet are perfectly at ease.

There were also inconsistencies in the color distinctions that were present. Rivers, a York supporter, was wearing a red shirt with his white rose. One character, I didn’t catch his name, had on a blue shirt with a red rose, yet I don’t think he was French. The most confusing however was Prince Edward, the son of the Lancastrian King Henry VI. Edward was wearing a white shirt with absolutely no color accent or roses whatsoever. Henry VI is also wearing a white shirt, but despite the obviousness of which side he belongs on, his Lancaster affiliation is denoted with bright red suspenders. Therefore, by the color convention established, Prince Edward should be considered as part of the York camp. What?

L to R: Makeda Declet and Alex Parker

These oversights are understandable given that the production did not have a dedicated costume designer. With that knowledge, Bigley should be commended for providing the roses and accent colors that were present, given that he was also designing the set, acting and directing. It is a shame, however, that they did not have a costume designer to make sure that the costuming conventions were carried through to each character. My biggest complaint with the production was that it was difficult, if not impossible at times, to keep track of who was whom and what side they were on. Especially early on when you’re still putting faces to names, or when an actor would step onto the stage as their second, third or fourth characters. I intimately know these plays and I still had trouble. The family tree and the costumes take a huge step in the right direction to help this, however, if the costuming had been consistent throughout the cast, they very well may have alleviated my biggest problem, and added some needed clarity. Now on to what did work.

Christine Sage

The casting, which had to have been daunting, is spot on. Christine Sage as Henry VI is magnificent. Bravo to the gender-blind casting that made this possible. Sage’s milquetoast portrayal of this naïve, reluctant monarch makes everything else that happens believable. She is an utterly memorable wallflower, and that takes skill. Margaret, played by Liza de Weerd, is the perfect counter balance to Henry, right down to her height and formidable stage presence. De Weerd nails not only her more aggressive scenes on the battle field, but also her tender and vulnerable dealings with Suffolk, played by Christopher Salazar.

With actors playing multiple parts, it would be easy to slip into stereotypes for a lot of the characters. I applaud both the actors and director Bigley for avoiding this. Salazar provided great depth in his portrayals of both Suffolk and later Clarence. Matt Jayson was delightfully conniving as York, yet all of his bravado melts away when he learns of the death of his son. David Ghilardi as Talbot, and Gus Krieger as Richard join the ranks of the wonderfully nuanced. The one character that I wish would have been a bit more stereotypical was Joan de Pucelle, played by Makeda Declet. I question the directorial approach of her character, as it was disappointing to see this iconic, hot-tempered character be drug off the stage sniveling and begging not to be killed. This final act largely discounted her previous bold actions making her character hit or miss.

The fight scenes were also hit or miss . . . pun intended. Of the battle scenes some were sloppy, some were decent and one in particular was scary. From where I sat, it looked like Warwick got clipped in his final fight with Edward. Across the board, all of the fights needed to lower their targets as almost all of the hits were occurring at the head level or above. The fight director in me did quite a bit of cringing. That being said, the two slaps, performed by Matt Jayson and Alex Parker, were some of the best I’ve ever seen. They were blocked well, executed well and were totally appropriate for their scenes. Well done!

Behind: Liza de Weerd
Front L to R: Alex Parker, Matt Jayson and Thomas Bigley

Director Bigley also deserves props for capitalizing on the humor in Part 2. With all of the deceit and death going on, a sojourn into the light-hearted was much appreciated. John Cade, played by Timothy Portnoy, and Dick, played by Nick Neidorf, had a fantastic, almost slap-stick relationship that sustained through to the end, despite the fact that their relationship doesn’t have a happy ending. Part 2 can easily be told without the John Cade subplot, so the decision to leave it in speaks to the overall vision of the production as a whole, and the experience of seeing the entire story played out in one go. The adaptation of Part 1 and Part 2, by artistic director Charles Pasternak, facilitates this. The adaptation is fast-paced, yet feels complete. There are no gaping holes or questions left unanswered before the action picks back up in Part 3. All in all, the Porters of Hellsgate have once again delivered a thoroughly enjoyable experience at the theater.

For more information go to – Porters of Hellsgate

The show runs through June 5, 2016 at the Whitmore-Lindley Theatre Center, located at 11006 W Magnolia Blvd, North Hollywood, CA 91601.

Tickets and detailed show dates are available at: Brown Paper Tickets

It’s coming up on that time of year again – The Hollywood Fringe Festival! We’re talking more theater over the course of a month than you can shake a stick at. Trust me on this, you’ll get carpal tunnel if you try. Last year I managed to catch 30 shows, and I had several people ask me how in the world I was able to manage that while still working full time. For all of you who asked, and even for those who didn’t, here’s my process.

Step 1 – Look through the thumbnail poster and short description of every offering in the Fringe – yes I looked at every single one of them – and pull out the ones that spark a little interest. This first pass through is pretty broad. I select anything that makes me go, “Huh, cool,” any recommendations, anything with someone I know from last year that was good, anything historically based, all of the classics, and any and all Shakespeare.

A tangent on Shakespeare. I am a bit of a Shakespeare junkie. Below is what my desk looks like. But even more than reading it, I LOVE seeing his work performed. To date, I am three plays away from seeing the entire canon performed live, and if things work out as I have them planned, I will complete my canon by the end of the year. All you have to say is Shakespeare, and I’m in. However, as I am fairly well versed in all of his plays, I do get a little tired of seeing the exact same plays offered over and over again. Fringe participants I’m looking at you!

Here is my list of Shakespearean Fringe shows, not including those that are ‘based on’ his plays. In 2014, I saw “A Midsummer Night’s Dream,” “Twelfth Night,” “Hamlet,” and “Romeo and Juliet.” In 2015, I saw “Taming of the Shrew” and “Romeo and Juliet,” two different productions of each. This year for the Fringe, I can see “A Midsummer Night’s Dream,” Taming of the Shrew,” “Hamlet,” “Twelfth Night,” and “Titus Andronicus.” Is anybody else seeing a pattern? Come on people, there are over 30 plays in the canon, branch out! How about a little “King Lear,” or “Comedy of Errors,” or even, *gasp* a history play? There is only one show listed that hasn’t appeared in the previous two years. Winner, winner, chicken dinner to Titus Andronicus! You are the outlier my friend, and I applaud you. I applaud you even more, as you’re full title is, “Titus Andronicus, Jr.” because the show is geared toward children. I love it! I might go see it twice on principle alone! Let’s try mixing it up a little for next year, shall we? Thanks.

Step 2 – Read the long description of each play, check running times and pare my picks down to my Chance-Its – ie the ones that I’m willing to actually venture out to give them a chance. You may be wondering why I check the running times at this juncture. Simple, when you’re trying to show hop and squeeze as many plays in as possible, ain’t nobody got time for a three hour “Twelfth Night.” Seriously, what are they doing in that production that has stretched that play out to be three hours? Here is that list:

Step 3 – List the show times of each ‘Chance-It’ show on a calendar and start to figure out a schedule that fits in as many as possible. This is the first draft. There were many that came after. I’m guessing that most people would look at this step it find it akin to water boarding. I, on the other hand, find it to be a huge AWESOME puzzle! Yes, I’m well aware that there is something distinctly odd about me.

Step 4 – Look at my completed schedule and say, “Holy shit! I can’t see that many shows in a month. Am I crazy?”

Step 5 – Try to pare down the shows so the schedule looks more reasonable . . . but probably only give up one or two before calling it good and setting up camp in Hollywood for the month of June. This is obviously the step that needs the most improvement . . .

At any rate, these are my ‘Chance-Its’ for the 2016 Hollywood Fringe Festival. What am I missing? What are you excited to see?