In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:
  • Merry Wives of Windsor, and: Titus Andronicus
  • Dana E. Aspinall
Merry Wives of WindsorPresented by the Stratford Shakespeare Festival at the Festival Theatre, Stratford, Ontario. May 10-October 14, 2011. Directed by Frank Galati. Assistant directed by Heather Davies. Set designed by Robert Perdiziola. Costumes designed by Alix Dolgoy. Lighting by Alan Brodie. Music composed by Josh Schmidt. With James Blendick (Shallow); Christopher Prentice (Slender); Andrew Gillies (Hugh Evans); Ryan Field (Peter Simple); Tom McCamus (George Page); Laura Condlin (Margaret Page); Andrea Runge (Anne Page); Zachary Misener (William Page); Geraint Wyn Davies (Sir John Falstaff); Abigail Winter-Culliford (Robin); Dan Chameroy (Pistol); Michael Blake (Bardolf); Timothy D. Stickney (Nym); Randy Hughson (Host of the Garter Inn); Nigel Bennett (Doctor Caius); Janet Wright (Mistress Quickly); Steve Ross (John Rugby); Tom Rooney (Ford); Lucy Peacock (Mistress Ford); Trent Pardy (Fenton); et al.. [End Page 199]
Titus AndronicusPresented by the Stratford Shakespeare Festival at the Tom Patterson Theatre, Stratford, Ontario. June 23-September 24, 2011. Directed by Darko Tresnjak. Assistant directed by Varick Grimes. Set designed by Darko Tresnjak. Costumes designed by Linda Cho. Lighting by Itai Erdal. Sound designed by Lindsay Jones. Fight scenes directed by Simon Fon. With Sean Arbuckle (Saturninus), Skye Brandon (Bassianus, Tribune, Third Goth), David Ferry (Marcus Andronicus), John Vickery (Titus Andronicus), Paul Fauteux (Lucius), Josh Epstein (Quintus, Caius, Whore, Goth Soldier), Dylan Trowbridge (Martius, Sempronius, Goth Soldier), Cyrus Lane (Mutius, Publius, Bodyguard), Talen de St. Croix (Young Lucius), Amanda Lisman (Lavinia), Bruce Godfree (Demetrius, Tribune), Brendan Murray (Chiron, Tribune), Michael Spencer-Davis (Clown, Tribune, Goth Soldier), E.B. Smith (Alarbus, Bodyguard), Claire Lautier (Tamora), Roberta Maxwell (Nurse), Dion Johnstone (Aaron), et al..

Director Frank Galati's Merry Wives of Windsorrelied on several thematic contrasts, most significantly between order and disorder, in its burlesque of the burgher class's obsessions and insecurities. Set in a vaguely eighteenth-century milieu, Wivesopened before Master Page's country manor, where, over his fashionably adorned bar hung a chandelier ringed with horns—the only property on stage that disturbed an otherwise omnipresent normality.

As anticipated, these horns figured prominently in Falstaff 's final humiliation, but their subtle presence here called attention to the wildness that lurked at the margins of this stately home—and, in a broader sense, seems never to vacate the human psyche, despite our refinements and physical detachments from it. Falstaff and Master Ford illustrated this reality engagingly. Dressed in a red officer's overcoat and lodged in a gentleman's flat that featured a bearskin rug and luxurious furniture, Falstaff assumed the mannerisms of distinction—a class-conscious alternative, of sorts, to Masters Ford and Page. And yet this gentleman also sported unruly carrot-colored hair and often ridiculously mismatched the color schemes of his dress. His associates Bardolf, Nym, and Pistol also wore military habiliments, but their garb hung about them in tatters and betrayed a stubborn slovenliness—one which maligned Falstaff 's pose as a social superior. [End Page 200]

One of the more interesting nuances of this production involved Galati's conception of Falstaff as a schemer, intent upon negotiating for himself an easy movement up the social ladder. As a contrast to Ford and Page, Falstaff represented in this production a poison to the ordered, sanctioned, and "English" methods of social ascendancy. His attempts to lure Mistresses Ford and Page into sexual liaisons from which he could gain financial advantage as well as his agreement with Ford to seduce Mistress Ford, garnered him the salience of chaotic agency—a trickster or a wrench thrown into the machine. Until the end of the play, of course, Falstaff never overcame his impulses to "cony-catch" and "shift," despite his numerous setbacks at the hands of the wives.

Although Ford repeatedly revealed even less command over himself than Falstaff, most of his actions illustrated just how desperately he sought to re-establish his dominion. By nature jealous, Ford began unraveling when Pistol warned him of Falstaff 's adulterous intent and the disgracefulness implicit in wearing a "horn." As his obsession with Mistress Ford's infidelity propelled him toward a state he called "horn-mad," Ford provided the production's most satisfying...

pdf

Additional Information

ISSN
1931-1427
Print ISSN
0748-2558
Pages
pp. 199-204
Launched on MUSE
2012-06-25
Open Access
No
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.