‘Dream’ Production Teaches Valuable Lesson: Shakespeare Can Be Fun

Like many, I disagree with film and theater critics from time to time. Yet, realizing that theirs is but one perspective, I have never been inclined to write a contrasting evaluation. Jan Herman’s recent critique of Shakespeare Orange County’s “A Midsummer Night’s Dream,” however, begs a Siskel to his Ebert because Herman’s review may sadly discourage theatergoers from experiencing an extremely entertaining evening with Shakespeare (“A Silly ‘Dream’ Plays Shakespeare for Laughs,” Calendar, Aug. 21).

Herman appears primarily concerned with “the audience’s willingness to accept the staging as authentic Shakespeare.” Here I must question Herman’s expertise on the historical accuracy of Shakespearean presentation. I would argue that it has only been within the last century or so that performances of Shakespeare have been “highbrowed” to the point of numbing audiences to what was originally meant to have an intensely comedic or dramatic effect. Indeed, Shakespeare’s plays were often interrupted as Elizabethan audiences begged performers to repeat their outrageous acts of buffoonery or their striking recitations of the tragic. Ultimately, the point was--and is--to engage the audience. If the audience is not “willing” to participate in the theatrical experience, only then does the performance fail.

When I saw the show, the audience clearly embraced the production as mirroring the kind of raillery one might have witnessed in Shakespeare’s day. They applauded and cheered the many hilarious scenes and performances by actors such as Ron Campbell (Demetrius), denigrated by Herman by equating Campbell’s work to that of, God forbid, Jerry Lewis. Not only does Herman’s comparison read as a cheap shot, he simply fails to attend to the fact that there were actors in Shakespeare’s time who played a role for all it was worth and, thereby, received the audience’s inexhaustible endorsement. Which is exactly what Campbell secured.

Yet, the audience was also quite capable of grasping the urbane and ironic stance taken by the actors whose characters demanded a less ribald approach, such as Carl Reggiardo’s Theseus/Oberon. In this case, Herman slights Reggiardo’s performance as “stiff” and “stern,” but again Herman appears to have overlooked what was evident to everyone else who saw the same performance--the grace this actor brought to the text and the maturity Herman maintains he found absent in the production. Obviously the audience grasped Reggiardo’s sophisticated readings of the vernacular as they heartily acclaimed him at the show’s end.

Herman’s review seems intent upon edifying the audience with the lesson all too many of us have learned in the classroom: Shakespeare can’t be fun. Unfortunately, it is such a perspective that threatens to destroy the growth of new adherents to the Bard. Audiences will only be willing to grapple with the language of Shakespeare when there are performers of the caliber one finds in this company who encourage the viewers to see themselves, humanity, why, even Jerry Lewis, living in that text. SOC’s “A Midsummer Night’s Dream” is professional, clear, amusing, thoughtful and well worth an evening in the theater.