The
Scarlet Letter
is currently in Chicago as adapted and staged by GreyZelda, a young company headed by Rebecca
Zellar and Chris
Riter. This
company is dedicated to "work that is explorative sociality, personally, emotionally,
and artistically while emphasizing unconventional methods of staging, casting,
and storytelling". While all of these dimensions are present in this
current production, this particular piece does not yet hold together as an
integrative whole.
A
story round up for others who (like me) may have forgotten their American
literature classes from secondary school. Our play begins part way into the
story as Hawthorne wrote it. Hester Prynne (Elizabeth Styles) is about to be released after
her imprisonment for refusal to name the father of her child Pearl (played as a
youth by Meredith Rae Lyons), borne while Hester believes she is unmarried. We learn
from dialogue (and I actually had to look up some clarifying details) that
Hester had arrived in American from England some years before ahead of her
husband, to locate a house and set up shop. Time had passed, her husband is
presumed dead, and Hester has a secret affair with Reverend Dimmesdale (Toby
Minor). Hester
becomes pregnant, refuses to name the father, and for both crimes (unmarried
procreation and refusal to bow to authority and "name names") is
imprisoned. Upon release, we learn that Hester's missing husband is indeed
alive, now goes under the name of Roger Chillingworth (Ron Kuzava), and has moved into
Dimmesdale's household while seeking to identify and ruin the life of the man
who has in his mind ruined his and Hester's lives. Cruel intentions do not win
out -- Dimmesdale eventually admits to his daughter and to the town that he is
the father, and promptly dies. Evil and redemption and social conventions all
in one tidy package, complete with heavy lurking symbolism.
The
story provides intriguing themes for the modern sensibility. A woman's voice as
source of power - Hester's refusal to name the father of her child is one of
the few sources of power she has as an "outsider" and unmarried woman
in the world of the play. The command by those in power to name names resonates
for the post-HUAC 1940s and 1950s witch hunts in America (and of course
"The Crucible"'s metaphorical use of precisely those events) as well
as our current post 9-11 world of Homeland Security rationales for incursions
into personal privacy. A female witch character beseeches Hester to meet with
her group (a coven?) at one point, suggesting another dimension to women's
roles in the world of the play. Pearl is a very modern and empowered female
child of a single mother, proclaiming at one point "I am my mother's
child", also refusing to name her father or to even acknowledge a role for
another human being in her world.
In
this production we have strong elements and not quite a coherent whole. The
inspirations for the current production are clearer than the combined
effectiveness of all the moving parts. We have words by Hawthorne of course; we
have the themes highlighted by Rebecca Zellar's adaptation; we have movement by
way of Martha Graham and Twyla Tharpe; and we have set design and light
elements by way of Josef Svoboda and all of his progeny (e.g. draped material
that is moved as needed and through which light and shadow project). The design
is familiarly modernistic, yet this at times conflicts oddly with the costuming
and the oratorical styling of many of the actors. The performances themselves
range from consistently moving (Elizabeth Styles as our Hester Prynne) to
snarling (Ron Kuzava as Roger Chillingworth) to oddly petulant and sometimes
simultaneously strident (Meredith Rae Lyons as Pearl).
Some
elements should be applauded. For example, selected set change sequences were
choreographed in smooth and interesting ways. In particular, a pivot of a large
central table at one point by cast members before Hester and Pearl enter to
talk with the Doctor was smoothly done, and this table then becomes the podium
from which Dimmesdale delivers his final sermon and the emotional resolution
between Hester, Pearl and Dimmesdale occurs. Moments like this integrate
beautifully the modernist impulse with the period text in striking ways.
There
is a palpable passion that informs this play that is occasionally but not
consistently evoked in this production. You want to understand the story, but
not all of the actors are quite up to the dialogue and its dialect. You want to
understand the juxtaposition of modernist theatrical techniques with realistic
set pieces and period costumes, but the integrative vision is not fully
realized. You want to go along on the ride but the pieces don't quite come
together. And yet, as noted, there are elements in this production of which
this company can rightly be proud.