“Amadeus” pits two musical rivals against one another in a production that also seems to fight with itself.
by Mary Burruss
The plucky Mozart (Mike Hamilton, left) is besieged by his rival composer Salieri (Andrew Hamm) in Richmond Shakespeare’s “Amadeus.”
Richmond Shakespeare’s production of Peter Shaffer’s “Amadeus” is a two-and-a-half-hour lesson in inconsistency. From the costumes to the acting, the show carries the audience through noteworthy highs and lows.
“Amadeus” is the fictitious story of the plot of composer Antonio Salieri (Andrew Hamm) to destroy his rival, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (Mike Hamilton). The action takes place in the 1780s but you might not know that by watching this play. Half of the cast assume the appropriate manners and nuances of the period, while the rest stick with modern behavior. Several of the costumes by Rebecca Cairns and Ann Haskins have similar inconsistencies: painstaking execution in the design, but in the case of Constanze (Liz Blake), a lack of attention to, ahem, temporally appropriate undergarments for when the skirts go flying.
The show opens with Hamm delivering a monologue explaining Salieri’s motives for ruining Mozart. But in Hamm’s scene setting, he rushes through moments that would give the audience an opportunity to sympathize with Salieri -- a key factor to the moral conflict of the play. The sinister complexity of Hamm’s Salieri really emerges toward the end of the first act as he begins his seduction of Constanze. But Hamilton’s Mozart is the master of this conflict.
Hamilton captures the maddening, childish charm of Mozart through his impish giggle and teasing tones. He and fellow Virginia Commonwealth University student Joseph Sultani (playing Baron Van Swieten and Kapellmeister Bonno) clearly understand how to conjure realistic characters. Hamilton carries the show on his talented shoulders -- at least until the middle of the second act, when the pace slows at times to tedium. But there are bright spots throughout, such as Cynde Liffick’s stately treatment of Joseph II, Emperor of Austria -- her repetition of a single line drew laughs throughout the show.
Once the appropriate undergarments get put on Constanze, “Amadeus” will be appropriate for ages 13 and older. Salieri’s conflict of faith is fine food for conversation as part of the Acts of Faith Festival.
“Amadeus” runs through March 8 at Second Presbyterian Church. Tickets are $15-$26. Visit www.richmondshakespeare.com or call 866-227-3849.
Saturday, February 28, 2009 12:54:27 PM by A. Wiles
I'd like to offer an alternative opinion of this production, for whatever it might be worth. Please visit my site to read my review:
http://tinyurl.com/rsamadeus
Respectfully,
A. Wiles
Tuesday, February 24, 2009 9:05:05 PM by Anonymous
I would have to agree with the latter comments however, there is only so much innovation that can be accomplished with an alleyway theatre. I think the staging was appropriate, with the unavoidable sightline problems.
As far as Ms. Blake's undergarments, if worrying about that sort of thing keeps you up until 4 in the morning, I might suggest Ambien.
Amadeus, as staged by Richmond Shakespeare, is a flawed show. Andrew Hamm seemed, as Ms. Burris pointed out, to have missed connections with the character that would have proved helpful to the audience. Posing, yelling, and changing hairpieces does not constitute "acting." One wonders if, in fact, he did little more than memorize his lines.
And perhaps we should also acknowledge that the script isn't all that easy (I've read some of it and found it tough to digest), and that RS has probably done the best they could.
To get back to the original point, if the first anonymous poster has that much attention to detail so early in the morning, perhaps they should apply to Style Weekly to be Ms. Burris' fact-checker, so that we don't run into these sorts of problems again.
-Anonymous Richmond Theatregoer
Tuesday, February 24, 2009 10:13:54 AM by Anonymous
I was actually amazed at how generous the reviewer was with this production. I found it terribly acted and shoddily staged. As for undergarments accuracy, I can't imagine anyone really cares. It's theatre afterall. There are no rules.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009 9:49:20 AM by Anonymous
Note that this review is one person's opinion. And not one that I disagree with. That only one historical detail could be so solidly contradicted says a lot. It was a rather nice review considering how glaring the inconsistencies and that she did find good things to note as well, as it seems she often does, at least in the reviews that I've read of hers.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009 3:53:05 AM by Anonymous
So I was curious as to what bee flew up into Ms. Burruss' bonnet, and had to discover the facts for myself. Surely, I believed, she had done copious amounts of research before placing such negative emphasis on Richmond Shakespeare's costume ladies inattention to temporal detail. Two minutes later I had my answer. Easily found were pages and pages echoing the following:
"In the 1700’s petticoats and panniers would be worn over that, though during the Regency this was slimmed down to one petticoat—and only if necessary. Drawers would not be invented until 1806. Until then, women walked free of any other undergarments."
I would agree with the company's decision to allow Costanze to break a tiny bit from the fashion of the times and wear a pair of undies. To put bloomers on her would have leapt her fashion 20-40 years. Richmond theater goers have seen much more than a tiny bit of thigh in local productions. I'm always surprised by this city's conservative streak – Maybe Ms. Burruss is of an older generation than I, but those with whom I was sitting were easily 20 years my senior. They greatly enjoyed the show and thought it was one of the best productions they’d ever seen in Richmond. Perhaps the Style Weekly has someone more knowledgeable they could have sent?
I've seen the production and thought it wonderfully executed. I still find myself quoting lines from the play as it was very charming. I'm disappointed that Ms. Burruss was permitted to be so inaccurately "cattivo" instead of paying more attention to the incredible acting on the stage. I'm surprised that the Style Weekly doesn't check the facts before publishing so kindling-worthy an article.
