"School for Scandal," which continues its run this weekend at Tufts, is simultaneously en vogue and out of style.
The show, first performed in 1777, has been adapted for the Tufts stage from Richard Brinsley Sheridan's original manuscript. The story centers on the relationships of two couples and explores the extracurricular activities of a group of gossips and high society members.
For better or for worse, subtlety is not the name of the game in the Department of Drama and Dance's production of "The School for Scandal."
In period costume, hair and makeup, this lack of subtlety proves to be a strong point. The powdered faces, faux beauty mark and fantastically elaborate 18th century costuming are perfect outward symbols of the flamboyance and ostentation of the main characters.
The play's set design adds an exciting touch to the production, with the word "SCANDAL" stretched across the stage and a floor plan meant to be evocative of a fashion runway. Furthering this concept, paparazzi-esque camera bulbs flash at the end of important scenes, capturing the characters on stage in fits of pride or ignominy. The runway struts from the cast are played out effectively and prove to be a clever touch.
Unfortunately for the play, anachronisms like these give the production a bit of an unsettled feel. This may be partly due to the script rewrites implemented for the Tufts production; this editing was done in part to dramatically shorten the play, which now runs for a tidy two hours. But the changes also include quips throughout the production that reference modern celebrities and present-day speech patterns.
Such references are too few to be effective, yet frequent enough to make the audience wish the concept would be dropped. Thrown in with the period-text, allusions to Harriet Miers, Britney Spears and the much-feared "party foul!" are more awkward than amusing. Although these references will evoke laughter every evening, ultimately they just don't fit. Amusement at these jokes may fall more on the side of confusion at the silliness of the idea rather than true comedic value.
To be sure, modern adaptations of classic tales are not doomed to fail. The commercially successful onslaught of William Shakespeare remakes in the past decade ("Ten Things I Hate About You," "O" and "Romeo + Juliet") demonstrate that updates aren't inherently problematic. But such revamps must be done with a bit more finesse than is evident in "Scandal." The competing forms of modern and Restoration humor ultimately cancel each other out.
Even with a large ensemble cast, a few performances particularly stand out. Senior Lauren Murphy, playing the oft-silent yet always present ventriloquist Snake, captures the smarmy qualities of her role and manages to consistently remain in character while the action of the play takes place around her. Murphy's character is best set up to bridge the gap between original script and modern edits, and she does so skillfully and delicately.
Junior Jessica Bauman perfectly inhabits her role as the philanthropic and wise Aunt Olivia. As her character differentiates herself from the rumormongers of the show, so too does Bauman stand out throughout the production with a strongly projecting voice and a well thought out approach to the role of the long-lost aunt. Bauman's scenes in the show prove to be some of the most enjoyable and easy to follow of the evening, due to the actress's effectively over-exaggerated portrayal of the character.
Many of the other cast members also turn in noteworthy performances. Junior Kasey Collins, playing the sometimes confrontational yet ultimately likeable Lady Teazle, excels as usual in her comedic role, and the portrayal of party boy Charles Surface comes across effectively with junior Nick Jandl's charismatic demeanor.
The idea behind "Scandal" is that the dangers of gossip and nosiness will ring true to today's audiences. There is the sense, however, that the audience is being over-satiated with theatrics in the hopes that it will hold their attention. If the play's message is so relatable, this should come across in the actions and interactions of the characters, not in quirky modern quips and unnecessarily explicit asides.
This is in part a reflection of the play that Sheridan originally wrote; it presents caricatures of society, last names blatantly reflecting the insidious nature of the characters, and excessively obvious dialogue hammering points home (e.g. the not-so-subtle, though histrionic line "To love him I will sacrifice anything"). In this particular interpretation, if the tale is indeed a timeless one, it should rely on its merits without bringing J.Lo into the mix.
