After another delicious breakfast, we walked into town in search of gifts for people and dogs back home. I was surprised that with all of the cute, trendy, tourist-oriented shops available in downtown Ashland, there wasn’t any kind of store that specialized in gifts or supplies for pets. There’s a niche to fill there. A couple of stores had a few items for pets or pet owners mixed in with their other stuff, but nothing that was appropriate for Powder or Charley. We ended up buying them Dogranola biscuits at the Food Co-op. Before Kyle headed south to Mt. Shasta, we stopped for lunch at Brothers Restaurant where the food and service were good. I spent the afternoon doing exploratory shopping of the sort that Kyle hates. I didn’t buy much, but mostly just enjoyed browsing through most of the stores downtown. Around 5:00 p.m., I ate dinner at Sesame Asian Kitchen, a new downtown restaurant across from Lithia Park, and then headed back to the hotel for a little rest and relaxation before the evening show. Fortunately, my show was scheduled for the indoor Bowmer Theatre because a thunderstorm blew in around 8:00 p.m. Based on the number of people who arrived with wet umbrellas, I missed a downpour by arriving early at the theatre. I found out the next day that the show at the outdoor Elizabethan Stage (Don Quixote) had gone on, but it had been postponed by 30 minutes due to the rain. The thunderstorms continued most of the night. I watched the lightening from my balcony for awhile after returning from the play. It was pretty spectacular.

Equivocation
This is a new play by Bill Cain, having its world premiere at OSF, so I wasn’t sure what to expect. It was exciting to get to see a premiere of a new play, and it is an impressive show. It is exactly the sort of intricate and complex play I like, and it was funnier and more entertaining than I expected based on the synopsis. Not being very familiar with several of the Shakespeare plays referenced (including King Lear and Macbeth), I’m certain that I missed some nuances, but I caught enough to understand what was going on and the issues that the playwright was raising. Like many modern plays I’ve seen recently (e.g. Doubt, Proof), this play left a lot of ambiguity and room for both the audience and future directors/performers to interpret things in different ways. I like this because it gets you thinking about the issues involved, rather than presenting the answer. Yet this play did a really good job of referencing history and Shakespeare as well. It clearly incorporates elements from the three “genres” of plays that Shakespeare wrote: comedy, history and tragedy. It is based on real history, but takes substantial liberties, just as Shakespeare did. Most of the actors play multiple roles, sometimes switching characters multiple times within the same scene, but the actors did a really good job of keeping the characters distinct and avoiding confusion. The only aspect of the play that needs some additional refinement is that involving the character Judith, Shakespeare’s daughter. Because of her gender and her relationship with her father, she plays (purposely, I think) on the periphery of the action, sometimes assuming the role of narrator. Her contributions are essential to the success of the play, but her role is not yet integrated enough into the fabric of the play. That minor criticism aside, I thought this was a compelling play and an excellent production. It will be interesting to see what happens to the play in the future.

No Comments »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.