The Tempest

I have seen two productions of William Shakespeare's The Tempest in my life. The first was the school play at McDougle Middle School when I was in eighth grade. The second was in college. I was not involved in the first; an early childhood audition trauma scared me away from middle school involvement in theatre. Had things happened differently, I may have become an actor, changing my life path so far.

But that is neither here nor there. The subject at hand right now is The Tempest at the McCoy Theatre. In short, there were very good things about the show. As a matter of fact, it was an excellent production. It was a different type of Tempest than that with which audiences might be familiar at other theatres. Cookie Ewing's production was at once modern and true to Shakespeare's original, both innovative and traditional. It opened with an interpretive dance. Most of the audience members were confused by the opening. I certainly was, and I saw it at least a dozen times. However, after that confusing opening, the performers were able to fold together an engaging, human story with remarkable nuance and dedication. Erin McGhee was particularly excellent in her role as Prospero. Watching the play was an exhilirating experience, and although very different from the plays at Hanes Theatre, The Tempest had a similar moving effect upon me, at least the first few times I saw it.

It was great to be back in the high-pressure environment of a play. There's something wonderful about being crucial to the production because you are the critical thunderbolt which punctuates Ariel's sentence. This is what drives me toward the live theatre and keeps me going once I'm there.

The Tempest did have a major flaw, however. The action was staged primarily toward the front, but the audience was seated on all four sides. Half of the audience saw almost nothing but the backs of actors. This problem held for the lighting, too. It is difficult to light a set as large as the Tempest set for four audience angles with the inventory the McCoy Theatre has at its disposal, and so these seats were neglected in this regard, too. For me, this was a serious oversight, and the play would have seemed a lot more professional if the staging and lighting matched the physical arrangement of the theatre.

The set was also a nightmare to build. Now, this doesn't necessarily reflect poorly upon the production. It was a huge round circle with four finlike projections, and the whole shebang was tilted about 7° toward the "front." Slight rakes are difficult to build, and 7° is a very slight rake. Not only this, but three of the finlike projections were tilted in different directions. Because of imprecise measurement on the part of the original carpenters, the set kept falling apart. By opening night, it was a patchwork of shims and makeshift legs to support its uneven weight. And once the set was in place, it was nearly impossible to continue working on it, because much of it was only inches above the floor. The set was a technical problem, but the show turned out well.

It was my first real college show. Hanes Theatre at my high school was a phenomenal place to work and learn. It was a large, well-equipped theatre with state-of-the-art technology. I knew when I graduated from high school that my college theatre would probably be somewhat more primitive with respect to theatrical technology. And it's true. By most measurements, Hanes Theatre is better equipped than the McCoy. I had trouble adjusting to this, since I am first and foremost a technician. However, it's clear to me that the people in the McCoy Theatre refuse to let their circumstances limit their artistry. There are good things happening at the McCoy.

Although I've moved away from theatre at Rhodes in terms of my academic specialization, I will continue to be an active audience member and technician.