 |
| A
horse is a horse, of course: (l-r) Slezak and Harrison
in Equus. |
Gods
and Monsters
By
Ralph Hammann
Equus
By
Peter Shaffer, Directed by Scott Schwartz
Berkshire Theatre Festival, Stockbridge, Mass., through July
23
In the great tragedies, a di vided hero struggles against
himself. In the greatest, he also struggles against and even
attacks his god or gods. Such is the case with the works of
the extravagantly gifted Peter Shaffer, who has spit in God’s
direction more than once and whose protagonists often get
spit at in return (for their hubris), and roasted in the flames
of their own passions.
While not a tragedy in the strictly classical sense, Equus
unfolds with the gathering force of the greatest. Shaffer
creates tragic heroes from a society that has reduced the
gods to the status of plastic figures attended by routinely
mumbled religious cant and seasonal store sales. In Equus,
Shaffer pictures a disconnected society that lacks awe and
prizes homogeneity and normalcy.
The protagonists in this frequently thrilling and disturbing
play are Alan Strang, a tormented young man who has blinded
six horses, and Martin Dysart, a psychiatrist who can return
Alan to normalcy and ease his pain—but at an expense to patient
and doctor alike. Through a series of flashbacks driven by
Dysart’s well-crafted questions, Alan’s past influences are
revealed: a religiously zealous mother, a strict atheistic
father who attends pornographic movies, a disastrous attempt
at sex with a stable girl, and Nugget, a horse who becomes
Alan’s god and through whom Alan becomes passionately connected
to life.
Much of the play’s success depends on Dysart, who, the violent
act notwithstanding, envies Alan his passion. While the chief
action may seem to be deliverance of Alan from his suffering,
it is really Dysart’s self-doubt that constitutes the dramatic
core. Dysart believes that his metaphoric scalpel cuts two
ways: It removes the torment, but it also destroys the parts
of a person’s individuality that are repugnant to society.
Above all, Dysart resents himself for sacrificing a patient’s
warmly felt gods to society’s coldly prescribed god.
The BTF is fortunate to have Victor Slezak playing Dysart,
and it is rewarding to see Slezak in a major role that tests
his mettle. As it turns out, Slezak has a spine of titanium,
and it is his journey from world-weariness to fierce self-laceration
that makes the production riveting. And while I don’t want
to imply imitation at work, there are times when Slezak’s
delivery is reminiscent of Richard Burton (who played the
role on Broadway and in the film), so richly does Slezak savor
his lines.
A strong performance almost emerges from very handsome Randy
Harrison, at least what we can see of him. Despite his eventual
equine eye-gouging, it is really unnecessary that Alan wear
blinders. But with locks of his blond hair constantly obscuring
the left side of face, including his eye, that is precisely
the effect. Consequently, we are never fully drawn into Alan,
and he remains more a cipher than desirable.
Pamela Payton-Wright’s Mrs. Strang strangles some lines, and
Roberta Maxwell’s magistrate seems embalmed in her suit. However,
John Curless is powerful as Mr. Strang, and Tara Franklin
is natural, sensual and seductively supple as Alan’s would-be
lover. She and Harrison endow the play’s famous nude scene
with a raison d’être somewhat lacking on the printed page.
That Shaffer’s dialogue remains the star of the show and that
the action is frequently arresting on Beowulf Boritt’s threatening
set, is sufficient reason to recommend the play.
Unfortunately, there is one god in the theater who can have
a corrosive effect on even the mightiest of plays: the director.
Scott Schwartz’s concept, abetted by Jess Goldstein’s costumes,
transforms a play about the universal into the merely specific.
Because the six horses are, as is customary, played by athletic
young men costumed in abstractions of horse features, a homoerotic
or homosexual subtext is often implied. However, implication
is different from specification. Shaffer’s critique of normalcy
may carry an implicit defense of homosexuality, however, the
play is about something larger than sexual preference. But
with Schwartz’s strapping horsemen garbed in black leather
straps adorned with studs and rivets, a homosexual S&M
dungeon is blatantly referenced, with Alan kneeling in submission
to a hooded master rather than an abstracted god. The image
is a kick for a bit, but it soon resolves itself into silly
horseplay.
|