Theatre Review: Mary Stuart @ Theatre 5
It’s the summer of 1567, and Queen Elizabeth I is maintaining her iron-fisted reign over England. In the dungeons below, her cousin, Mary, Queen of Scots, remains prisoner, biding her time while fighting advancing madness and haunting revisitings of her tragic past. So begins Mary Stuart, a collaborative production by Shiny Object Creative and Swimming with Sharks Theatre Group. Staged at Theatre 5 on King Street West, Stuart represents a large undertaking for the fledgling companies, relative newcomers to an already thriving theatre scene.
Mary Stuart is a period drama adapted by Italian playwright Dacia Maraini from the 1799 Friedrich Schiller original. The play illustrates the events of the summer of 1567 from the perspectives of Queen Elizabeth I and Mary, Queen of Scots. Not only does it present historical facts and intrigue, but it also examines the complex relationship between the two monarchs: one struggling with the pressures and expectations that befall a ruler, and one deposed and in the grips of sorrow and insanity.
The story is told in a series of interactions between the two queens and their respective caretaker companions, Nanny and Kennedy. Other times the queens interact with non-present characters—in Elizabeth’s case, she addresses Parliament and the House of Lords, while Mary speaks to the demons from her past, ghosts of her former life. Local actresses Jennifer Kenneally and Barbara Bell portray Elizabeth and Mary respectively. Minimalist casting calls for a doubling of roles, with each actress taking on the part of each other’s companion (Bell as Nanny, Kenneally as Kennedy).
Lettice Knollys, played by Leigh-Ann Bellamy, was an underused character, only appearing in a single scene in act two. Such a low presence raised question as to the relevance of her role to the play as whole.
While the performances were passable, the play suffered from a lack of solid theatrical material to work with. Playwright Maraini’s dialogue was occasionally impressive, showing vigour and promise, but at other times appeared rushed and muddled, combining anachronistic vernacular from too many periods to be believable or forceful. Kenneally was convincing as Elizabeth, portraying her as a tight-fisted woman who spurns the very notion of love and marriage as a mere foolish capitulation to the whims and wants of men. Espousing a great disgust for men, Kenneally’s Elizabeth sees them as suitable only for her to toy with. Kenneally’s performance provides enough depth to the character to grant the audience a glimpse of the troubled and love-starved little girl that lies beneath her strong-willed exterior.
Kenneally often appeared restrained, however, unable to commit herself fully to the wicked nature of the character and unwilling to throw herself entirely into the passionate anger required in many crucial scenes. Her delivery was also plagued by a disconnectedness from the character—it often seemed as though she was not comfortable as Elizabeth. When portraying Kennedy—-the prison companion to Mary Stuart—Kenneally was passable, but again did not assume the devoted and servile nature that the role called for, thus reducing much of the character’s believability.
As Mary Stuart, Bell was, at best, satisfactory. She never appeared at ease in her role, and thus never grasped the complexities of a character as troubled as Mary. Her moments of forceful dialogue appeared tired in their delivery and as if she were still running lines in a preliminary rehearsal. Moments of insanity, depravity and intense sorrow were all hinted at in the complex makeup of Mary’s character, but were never made believable in performance and instead seemed feigned and wooden. Bell’s tone and inflection remained the same during the performance, whether cowering from a particularly haunting memory or belittling Kennedy. Bell appeared bored, and this was apparent to the audience members. As Nanny, Bell was slightly more vibrant, taking great pleasure in witnessing an execution and in scolding Queen Elizabeth. However, her distanced approach to moments of subordination and servitude were difficult to swallow.
Mary Stuart attempts to explore themes of imprisonment: Elizabeth figuratively imprisoned by the demands on her time, her power and her womb; Mary literally imprisoned in her prison cell. It also addresses the themes of female empowerment, interconnectedness and religious tolerance, but so many thematic concerns that none is fully developed and the play becomes a mess. A moderately interesting lesbian allegory is advanced by Queen Elizabeth, but Kenneally’s lack of passion and the muddled script prevents it from being fully realized.
The play’s set did not compliment it well. The sparse set consisted of only two plain benches and two window cut-outs, with a black doorway located upstage centre. Two support beams located in full view on the stage soured the set’s effectiveness, and an attempt at masking them with the wooden cutouts was unsuccessful and detracted from any realism the set might offer.
Another hindrance to the production was the small stage space. The actors could move freely, but no set boundaries or dimensions could be established for the rooms that the actors inhabited. The placement of the windows was confusing, as they were never used in the play, yet the characters frequently glanced out a window that was assumed to be facing the audience.
Another sore point with the show was the poor costuming, and an attempt at period-specific costumes appeared sloppy and not well-researched. The dresses worn by both women were ill-fitting and did not add anything to either character, and rather served as drab reminders of the already dull dialogue. The absence of any footwear on both characters was confusing, and this absence was never explained. The light design, in keeping with the rest of the show, was minimal and showed little creativity: simple lighting on each side of the stage was bright for Elizabeth, likely symbolizing her bright future as Queen, and slightly dark and dreary for Mary in her prison cell. The brief appearances of sound effects in the play were very unimaginative and suffered from poor mixing, thereby sounding altogether unconvincing and predictable.
Mary Stuart attempts to explore a pivotal historical relationship with an interesting concept and approach. Unfortunately, this production only succeeded in providing a muddled and boring drama, riddled with difficulties.
All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s) in Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to eic@queensjournal.ca.