 |
| Michael Hammond as Sherlock Holmes; photo: Kevin Sprague |
|
|
On a shallow proscenium style stage at Shakespeare and Company in the expanded-seating hall of the Founders Theatre this company has opened its annual Autumn show which generally is a bit of a horror tale or mystery play. "The Secret of Sherlock Holmes," a British import from 1988-89 which starred TV’s Holmes Jeremy Brett and the TV Watson Edward Hardwicke as Holmes and Dr. Watson, has never received a professional production on this side of the Atlantic before. There may well be a very good reason for that. The play is a contrivance that might work for some people but somehow, for me, just didn’t. Two good Shakes&Co actors, Michael Hammond and Dave Demke play Holmes and Watson, but the chemistry that might kick-start the play doesn’t bubble up in the petri dish.
Director Robert Walsh, in his program notes, cautions us reviewers and you audience members with "...and remember, certain secrets can’t be told...." Out of respect for his wishes I won’t reveal what the play’s not-so-big secret happens to be even though this particular secret has been leaking out of many old-fashioned paper bags that have concealed it for a century.
Instead I will mention what I think is the real secret of the play and that is the mystery of male co-dependence. Paul, the playwright, has drawn much of the dialogue for this play directly from Conan Doyle’s own words in the many stories, novellas and novels about Holmes. He has used them, reconstructed them actually, in dialogue form, often juxtaposing early comments with late ones.
Near the middle of Act One Holmes utters a horrified sentiment concerning Watson and their friendship revealing what it really means to him. Emotional Holmes moments are hard to take. This one implies a need that goes well beyond his cocaine, morphine or even the eternal violin. Here is the true secret of the play. Even though no one ever touches on it again, in spite of a great need to do so, it is laid out on the table for all to see.
Instead the outcry of special need produces a lot of "sturm und drang" which has nowhere to go except to amuse its viewers. That’s us and that's us. The play amuses rather than engages us. The play is weak because it hasn’t the strength to go where its playwright was sending it in that Act One shout. Likewise, even though he has his Holmes play out that single moment for all it is worth, he never really give his Holmes a chance to physically express all that was voiced that once. There are plenty of places in Act Two where the two men have a chance to explore, somewhat, the emotions exhibited in that one moment. There would certainly be a more interesting play on stage in Lenox if that idea had been followed through to its obvious conclusion.
Michael Hammond has the perfect face for Holmes. Angular and distinct, more like Basil Rathbone than Jeremy Brett actually, he brings the look of the fine illustrations that are familiar to us. His voice is fine also, but his variations on the Holmes theme, his disguised self and his assumed self in Act Two (ooops, almost let that secret out of the bag) are not as well realized as his Holmes. Still he has the bearing to carry off the part if he'd had more specific direction or perhaps more time playing the role to an audience.
Dave Demke was rough on opening night, his lines still not secure and his accent uncertain. He has all the potential to carry off a beautifully rendered, highly emotional playing of a pseudo-intellectual colleague for Hammond’s self- centered detective. The role just wasn’t his yet, not entirely.
Paulo Seixas has created a fine set, moody, atmospheric and filled with all the elements both men need to define their spaces, home and medical office. Govane Lohbauer has created costumes that look good on the men but aren’t always the most easily manipulated. Matthew Miller proves to be a very good lighting designer here.
For all of director Walsh's concern about letting the "secret" out of the bag, he has not given us the pacing the show could use, or revealed the possibilities the script indicates. He has moved his actors through their individual sets and their interactions with care and diligence, but he has not allowed them to truly explore the relationship that the playwright, given a chance, would like to deal with. With no script available it is impossible to know what may or may not be on the page, so all such reactions are speculative on my part. Nevertheless it seems so obvious that original intent has been scrambled by someone somewhere.
Is The Secret of Sherlock Holmes a secret worth pursuing? I think the real secret is, but the revelations in the second act may not be satisfying for you; they certainly weren’t for me. But perhaps that’s all in the timing, for after all that that is a large part of what makes relationships work. Here, certainly, timing and pace could make a difference and that may come with playing before large live audiences. This certainly isn’t a simple play. It may just need time.
◊09/30/07◊
|
