Mary Stuart

In 1587, Mary Stuart (more popularly known as Mary, Queen of Scots) lost her head. In 1800, Friedrich Schiller dramatized the events leading up to her death focusing on her relationship with her jailor, Queen Elizabeth I who also happened to be her cousin. Over 200 years later, a London production of the aforementioned play crossed the Big Pond to appeal to American audiences on Broadway.

Now that I have the exposition firmly in hand we can get down to the nitty gritty.

This production opens with an awkward flurry of activity as men in three piece suits enter a barren room, pull out a wooden trunk and hack at it with an ax. Objects are pulled from the trunk to the verbose objections of Hanna, the title character's nurse. Sadly, this is the first of only three major physical activities employed during the course of this production. Mary Stuart is a chatty play, to which I have no specific objection except that there is a danger in letting actors simply talk. In most instances, an actor allowed to talk without some grounding physical activity can make for some boring, masturbatory theater. Luckily, Mary Stuart features some fine performers who can, and do, imbue their speeches with depth and meaning without being self-indulgent.

Janet McTeer's Mary is a fiery queen; passionate, dignified and commanding despite her low position as one imprisoned for suspected crimes against England and Queen Elizabeth I. Harriet Walker's stately Elizabeth is at once a contrast to Mary's fiery, engaging personality while also playing a mirror image of desperation as she struggles to hang on to the power of her crown. Both women give this text their all, highlighting the all too human insecurities of these two queens without wallowing in them. These two women navigate in masculine waters, using their sex to their advantage. The men in the play are then forced to respond with almost feminine machinations to achieve their personal aims. Most notably, the Earl of Leicester (played coquettishly by John Benjamin Hickey) who toys with both queens' emotions at first to save Mary and finally to save himself.

The play between male and female is of great modern interest in this play, which makes me curious to know what changes to the original Schiller text were made by Peter Oswald, the writer credited in the playbill for this "new version". Both the direction and the design seem fixated on making a statement about the balance of power between the sexes that strikes me as somewhat dated. It feels like a feminist piece of theater from 20-30 years ago- almost relevant to today, but not quite.

First I will address the costume design. At first, I found myself confused by the choice to dress the male characters in grey three piece suits while the queens were dressed in period attire. Queen Elizabeth sported a period hairstyle while Mary Stuart had short, modern locks- until her death scene, that is. I had assumed that these were choices made to accommodate a budget of some kind. My instincts were confirmed as I read about the choice in the playbill: "To have the men in suits reminds the audience that this is a modern phenomenon too, one in which the women are usually the weaker partners." This would satisfy me in a small, black box production. However, I was sitting in the Broadhurst Theatre on 44th Street and this holdover from a shoestring-budget, West End production rang a bit false. Especially after it rained in the second act. Literally rained with wet water and everything! In general, any style choice you have to explain in a playbill is not a good, clear choice.

While I will concede there is still sexism in the world, this production seems to be a response to sexism as it was- not as it is. What's worse is that the text seems to be saying something slightly different than the production. Once again, I wonder how much of the original Schiller text was altered to support the views of this production. Queen Elizabeth I was (according to this production) swayed by the counsel of her male court, but they still feared her. She still had ultimate power, whether they wore suits or not. To beat a dead horse, the suits are trying to make a statement about a "modern phenomenon" which is not supported by the text and the world of the play. Perhaps in relation to Mary, the suits work. However, she was not imprisoned for being a woman. She was imprisoned for allegedly plotting to kill Elizabeth. This has very little to do with either of them being female. Or maybe it does... now THAT would be modern!

Some other directorial choices confused and grated on me. Much of the first act was delivered straight to the audience with all the formality of the drama portion of a high school speech meet. It was jarring and impersonal. Once again, the lack of any grounding physical activity seemed to have the actors "warming up" on stage. In addition, the direction to obey certain laws of courtly respect detracted from the interpersonal interaction on stage. Also, I saw a lot of back which made the staging feel somewhat petulant and immature. It reminded me of the conceptual "statements" that were made in certain arts school directing classes- fine in class, but not suited to the Broadway stage.

In general, I found this play enjoyable. The acting is quite good and it is always a pleasure for me to be in the theatre. However, I must admit to walking away wondering... why? Why THIS play? Why now? Why Broadway? When we are in the midst of some fairly large international and financial crises, why is THIS play important? What does it tell us? What do we walk away with? As a pure history play, I am afraid it leaves something to be desired as the pivotal moment in the text never actually happened in real life. As entertainment it is fine, but it ends in a beheading so you can't really call it the "feel good sensation of the year". If it is about the death penalty, it hardly provides us with any new insight beyond "wow, beheading is a bad way to go!". If it is about religious/ sexual persecution, then its message was completely lost on me. The long and short of it is, I don't know what this play, what this production, is ABOUT. It is a good production with a solid cast but it just doesn't feel good enough.