The Revolutionists, Showtimers

October 8-18, Showtimers Community Theatre, Roanoke, 7:30 pm, 2 hours run time including one 15-minute intermission.

The setting is Paris in 1793: Four women meet each other, talk about life and storytelling, and most meet their deaths; along the way, we laugh, we cry, and we think. The cast, crew, and director treated their audience to a very impressive production of a challenging script. Definitely, go see this one!

Lauren Gunderson's script was new to me, and honestly a bit hard to follow. Be warned that it's somewhat impressionistic - it's more about these historical figures talking about life than it is about an actual plot. The whole thing is probably a dream or a fantasy in the mind of the main character, Olympe de Gouges, a playwright. (I love that Showtimers is doing this somewhat-experimental and unusual script, rather than a straightforward classic or a shallow crowd-pleaser!)

The four characters discuss storytelling, and writing plays, and how the French Revolution is not going so great -- especially for women, and especially for enslaved people in French colonies. They each take their stand, and (most) face their deaths. Along the way, we learn of their historical struggles and we learn their wisdom. It's very funny, and very moving. 

It's the kind of play that sends me to Wikipedia during intermission, diving into Charlotte Corday (assassin of Jean-Paul Marat, an especially cruel leader of the French Revolution), Marie Antoinette, and Olympe de Gouges. The fourth character, Marianne Angelle, is not a real historical figure but represents those fighting for freedom in the French colonies in the Caribbean. 

Director Jamie Stewart did a fine job with this production. She cast strong actors and directed them well. They showed great chemistry on stage, keeping our attention with their movements, charisma, and rapport. 

The set was strong and simple, appropriate for the dreamy nature of the script. What at first looked like a large mirror in the center of the set is later revealed to be a guillotine, and the appearance of the blade was appropriately shocking. Every time the blade went down, the audience flinched. 

Stewart chose to clothe the actors in costumes representing several eras of feminism, rather than all of them dressing as women of 1793. One wore a period costume I assume was aiming at the 1790s (though to me it looked a few decades later, but that's fine), another resembled a 1920s suffragist, one echoed 1970s second-wave feminist, and one was dressed like a 1990s Riot Grrrl. These were very fun to look at, all of them, and I'll leave you to discover who got to wear what. While I enjoyed looking at the costumes, I did wonder if they added a level of confusion to an already confusing play; a sense of "what is even going on here?" There was not a high degree of visual harmony between them. Similarly, the music before the play and during intermission featured songs from all of these eras -- which did not harmonize particularly well.

The sense of the play was best articulated by the characters, who are the main focus. Let me tell you about these delightful actors who conveyed these four compelling characters. 

Monique Ingram as Marianne Angelle was the strongest actor - her stage presence was magnetic, her verbal delivery flawless. Her character is funny and wise, and I couldn't get enough of her in this production. I want to see this actress in more productions! She blew me away.

Kelly Anglim as Marie Antoinette was also very strong. This actor nearly stole the show in The Drowsy Chaperone over the summer and certainly shone brightly in this play as well. Her winsome balance of entitlement and sympathy, humor and pathos, was extremely effective.

Charlotte Corday was a smaller part, but Zoe Marvel brought a fierce sweetness to the role that made me delighted to see her again (she was so fun as Sammy in The Tin Woman last spring!). She easily won the audience to her side - we all wanted to see that Marat fellow bleed into his bath.

Carolyn Watson had the hardest part to play - Olympe de Gouges, the historical playwright and main character in this play. Clearly, Olympe is a stand-in for Gunderson, who wrote this play, which is humorous because Olympe liked to write herself into her own plays as well. It brings a level of self-referential neuroticism that provides some humor and some sympathy, which Watson conveys well. At the same time, Watson's halting delivery occasionally made me wonder if she was uncertain of her lines, and I wished for more charisma and less anxiety. There is something charming in the nerdy nervousness of Watson's portrayal, but I did not see the confident showmanship that Gunderson also calls for in this part. 

Yes, this production not only sent me to Wikipedia. I also looked up a bootleg copy of the script here. That's how I know what Gunderson was calling for in Olympe's part. I do think some of us might want to read the script before seeing the play. To some extent, this play felt like being on the outside of something, looking in, and not fully understanding it. 

Part of this came from the words. Most of the words were understandable by the audience, but there were some exceptions. The main character's name, Olympe, for example, was mispronounced by nearly everyone (it's Oh-LAMP, not Oh-LUMP). And whenever the word Olympe came out of anyone's mouth it was said as quickly as all the other words. It's a foreign word to us - it needed to be slowed down if we're going to comprehend what we're hearing. Similarly, a great joke landed flat because the actors did not adequately pronounce the French words - "liberté, égalité..." and then Marie Antoinette says "sororité" instead of the expected "fraternité." The audience seemed not to catch the joke at all. This is one example showing that foreign words need to be slowed way down and enunciated if we're going to follow along.

It also felt like we were on the outside looking in because of the confusing nature of the play itself. It's more about characters than plot, and even more it's about "what it all means" -- the power of stories, sisterhood among women, and other big themes. They clearly have great chemistry with one another, but they're not always letting us in on the conversation. There are major elements of experimentation in the script - singing, puppets (!), breaking the fourth wall, anachronisms, and more. So it's easy to feel a little alienated as an audience member. (I will note that the singing was a missed opportunity for sure. It was significantly harder to understand the words when the actors were singing - and the words are moving, so we shouldn't miss them. And this was an opportunity to demonstrate coherence between them - pitch, tone, rhythm, even maybe some accompaniment - which did not manifest on a musical level.)

So I want to tell you what I wish director Jamie Stewart had said in her introduction, by way of preparation, so when you go see this (you WILL go see it!!) you'll know what to expect: This play is "mostly a comedy" (as Lauren Gunderson writes) and you should let yourself laugh. Expect many jokes and please do laugh at them. It is also a play that's designed to inspire us, so let yourself focus on the beautiful words and stirring ideas coming from these astounding women. These women allowed themselves to experiment, to think new thoughts, and to dream boldly, so expect the unexpected. Come with us on a journey into the past, into our collective stories, and into our shared future. Open your heart, and you will leave moved and inspired.

I mean that. It's a very good production of a very good play. I'm glad I went. You should go, and bring friends.