Happy new Lear

Queens of the Stone Age

By Katherine Joyce

Queen Lear shows at the St. Lawrence Arts Center, in Portland, through May 26. Call (207) 828-0800.

SHAKESPEAREêS SISTER: Jeannie Sawyer leads a tremendous cast.

Over the past few years, A Company of Girls have covered a great deal of theatrical ground. They have performed Macbeth, Romeo and Juliet, (among others) and have developed their own show, Sticky Like a Frog, for which they were invited to New York’s well-renowned International Fringe Festival.

A program of the East End Children’s Workshop for girls in the greater Portland area, the company was developed by Odelle Bowman to engage at-risk, low-income girls. As former co-director of Mad Horse Children’s Theater and former director at the Children’s Theatre of Maine, Bowman was a first-hand observer of the positive impact theater has on the lives of participating children. However, she was concerned that theater seemed to be primarily available to upper- and middle-income children. So, she applied for grants, and thus began A Company of Girls. The Company is now funded in substantial part by the Office of Substance Abuse, the Department of Human Services, and the United Way.

Currently on the playbill for A Company of Girls is Queen Lear, particularly suited to the St. Lawrence’s castle-like confines. This billing brings to mind the potential for an angry, militant feminist adaptation of Shakespeare’s King Lear. Not so. Although certainly adapted from King Lear, its feminism is more subtle. The adaptations from Shakespeare are primarily made for one purpose: all of the roles are played by young women. And these young women are very special women.

King Lear is the story of an aging king who, with an eye toward retiring his crown, intends to split up his land between his three daughters. Vanity corrupts his decision, and he refuses to grant land to his favorite daughter. His other two daughters connive to keep Lear from exercising power royal power, and thus begins the story of intrigue, betrayal, and madness. Queen Lear is the same story, with the obvious exchange of the king for a queen.

It is striking to hear the language of Lear from all female lips. In the universe Bowman created by adapting the script, it is possible for women to be more than the conniving and greedy Goneril and Regan or the honest and goodhearted Cordelia from the original script. Women can own property, they are in positions of power, they are flawed, they go crazy, they are redeemed. These various complexities give Lear a special richness in the context of the history of gender relations in the Western world.

This adaptation celebrates not only females, but young females. As impressive as the script alterations — representing women in centuries past as complex and varied in character — is the performance itself, which displays several young people grappling with, and often mastering Shakespearian dialogue. Talk about surpassing expectations. Honestly, at first glance, the most notable thing about these young women is their age bracket. This cast ranges in age from approximately eight to 18. This is particularly notable in light of the choice of material. Professional actors struggle through Shakespeare, torturing themselves over making it comprehensible to both themselves and the audience. It is no small thing to see an 11-year-old performing Shakespeare with a great deal of self-assurance and expressiveness.

It was the obvious emphasis on process that resulted in a show that was a little bit difficult to follow, and a little bit too long. In spite of everyone’s best efforts, the most fatal flaws in the show are lines spoken too quickly and cues picked up too slowly. Particularly because the text is Shakespearean, these flaws mean that important parts of the plot are unclear, and the momentum is inconsistent. In the beginning, these problems are a minor distraction from the beautiful set, the innovative costumes, and the impressiveness of these girls as they take the bard by the horns. Once the story line is lost, however, it becomes less and less possible to fully enjoy what these girls are doing.

This presents a dilemma that is often debated in theater circles — is it about the process or the result? Of course, to some degree it must be about both. If one is married to a particular result, this precludes allowing the process to take one to unexpected places. For theater to be fulfilling, and to enhance the expressiveness of the players, it is important to focus primarily on the process. Less than breathtaking results are a hazard of process-oriented programs.

Let me make one thing very clear. These girls were great. They took extremely advanced material and broke it down for themselves, discovering its meaning. With very few exceptions, each girl was willing to own their space — their bodies were grounded, their posture was good, their voices were loud enough to be heard. They wore the costumes well, and dealt beautifully with difficult movement sequences. They were amazing to watch — unabashed, beautiful, intelligent young women, fully engaged in the process.

I hesitate to comment on whether there might be more appropriate material for the company’s age range available, because I get the impression that much satisfaction comes from tackling such advanced works as Shakespeare. Nonetheless, as an audience member, I can’t help feeling that there is equally challenging material in existence which might better suit the long-term process of developing the apparent and impressive performance skills of this company.

Katherine Joyce can be reached at ingliskat@aol.com.