COMMITTED TO BRINGING SHAKESPEARE TO THE PUBLIC

WONDERFUL KING LEAR

Shakespeare speaks to theater goers in a timeless, universal way, but Shakespearean drama also provides a local perspective. Such is the impact of the NorthEast Shakespeare Ensemble's production of King Lear at the Lebanon Opera House. This very accessible performance brings together national, regional, and local talent, but it also serves as a springboard for Upper Valley action through a number of its outreach programs. Specifically, Sean Eastman, NESE's Educational Workshop Leader, spent a two-hour block of time with my Hanover High Shakespeare students working on movement and interpretation for the production of their own scenes. If that were not generous enough, NESE gave each of my students complimentary tickets to see the production of Lear. There is also the work NESE is doing with The Children's Literacy Foundation. As for the production itself, I strongly recommend going to see it and supporting this wonderful work. The show was accessible and clear, great for first time viewers, and boasted a dramatic, monolithic, multileveled set and evocative costuming. Performances were strong across the board, but I especially enjoyed the work of the Gloucester brothers, Edmund and Edgar, played by James Spears and Mark Irish. We are blessed to have access to good theater in the Upper Valley. It is important for us to acknowledge this through our support of that theater. So, go see Lear, support NESE financially, and, in return, get something good for yourself. As Lear reminds his daughter Cordelia, "Nothing comes from nothing."

NESE COMMITTED TO BRINGING SHAKESPEARE TO THE PUBLIC

After hearing nothing but glowing praise from the early audiences for King Lear at the Lebanon Opera House, I was stunned by Alex Hanson's review of the opening night performance in Saturday's edition of the Valley News.

In particular, I was mystified by his apparent lack of understanding of the play and what he saw. As a member of the Executive Board for the NorthEast Shakespeare Ensemble, I feel compelled to respond to some of Mr. Hanson's comments and observations, and to question some of his statements.

For instance, Mr. Hanson's remarks seem contradictory when he describes the production as "glossy" and the set as "lavish", yet says that the set design "has the unfortunate effect of suggesting Lear's England is a barbarian kingdom, one in which nobility seems out of the ordinary".

First, to be strictly correct, "England" did not exist until about 1,500 years ago. Second, Lear is set in what the Romans later called "Britannia," or Britain, in the pagan eighth century, B.C., a barbaric time when nobility was certainly out of the ordinary. Indeed, the primitiveness and barbarian quality of the set provide the perfect backdrop for the horror on stage.

Mr. Hanson's characterization of the play is also flawed. He says "King Lear is about how misunderstanding the nature of power, truth, freedom and lies can damage the body politic". He seems to have missed the key themes of virtue, wickedness and justice in family relationships, and the ultimate question of whether the world is indifferent or even hostile to humankind, or if individuals get what they deserve-good and bad.

Also, when Mr. Hanson suggests that audiences might find an analogy between King Lear and the "foolishness of the current American administration", it may say more about his apparent distaste with President Bush's policy than about any of the Bard's words.

I do agree with Mr. Hanson when he says: "The burden falls heavily on interpreters of Shakespeare to find what's most universal, most human, most powerful in his plays and impress those moments on the audience". Accepting and embracing this "burden" has been our company's mission for the past four seasons. Every production has been infused with this imperative, so it's ironic that Mr. Hanson should identify this aspect of the opening night's performance as a failing.

In fact, bringing meaning to the language, and making it accessible and understandable to modern audiences has been a hallmark of all of NESE's productions. It is uppermost in all the thinking that goes into each production, and is not in the least a failure of King Lear.

Of course, Mr. Hanson is entitled to his opinion that our production of King Lear "falls short of connecting the audience with the Bard", but he's at odds with numerous audience members who told us that they certainly felt the power of Shakespeare and the connection.

Finally, Mr. Hanson says that "NESE needs to make these plays essential, to bring Shakespeare to the public, rather than try to draw the public to Shakespeare". One of the guiding principles of NESE has been that Shakespeare is relevant [essential]; it does not need to be made relevant for modern audiences and, indeed, when the "outdated" language is presented with clarity and understanding, the relevance of the plays is clear.

Despite what Mr. Hanson thinks, NESE is committed to bringing Shakespeare to the public, and we do that with particular focus on the Bard's words, delivered with clarity and comprehension.

WRITER CONGRATULATES NESE ON AMBITIOUS, CHALLENGING PRODUCTION OF KING LEAR

I applaud NESE for taking on Shakespeare's monumental masterpiece in only their 4th season as a company and congratulate them on this ambitious, challenging production. I also commend them for not falling into the trap of playing "the nobility" of Shakespeare…Lear is not a "noble" king - he is a misguided man whose ego and judgment have been corrupted by pride and power. As a result, he is blind to the true nobility of his daughter Cordelia, whom he disinherits, and his loyal servant, Kent, whom he banishes for life upon threat of death.

Lear's court doesn't seem very noble to me either. Rather, it is a place where daughters scheme to emasculate and humiliate their aging father, where bastard sons steal land from their half- brothers, where fathers curse their loyal sons, where eyes are torn out of old men's faces ...the list goes on.

This play, ultimately, is about man's capacity for evil in an essentially amoral universe. Yes, we do have characters we can believe in - Cordelia, Edgar, Kent and Lear (after he has undergone his own odyssey into madness and then back to a childlike innocence) - but, in the end, everybody dies and we are left asking ourselves how we, in today's "modern" age, can avoid making these same very tragic - and very human - mistakes.

John Goodlin's Lear was intelligent and humane, as opposed to some of the more bombastic autocrats I've seen portrayed over the years. This only highlighted the tragedy of a king still capable of compassion and decency. I felt that Lear's two vengeful daughters were portrayed with cunning iciness by Dee Nelson and Donna Sorbello and contrasted compellingly with Nurit Monacelli's gracefully moving Cordelia. I also enjoyed the Dale Place's blustery Gloucester, James Sears' scheming Edmund and Andrew Clateman's playful fool to name a few. I thought the cast as a whole created a very compelling dramatic universe in which this tragedy could play itself out.