A Guest Post by Daisy Lupa
Adapted from a series of LinkedIn Posts
I don’t often post on social media, and I’ve never posted on LinkedIn before. Yet, last night, when I found myself brimming over with thoughts I wanted to share with my fellow DC residents, this platform seemed like the best one to reach my targeted audience. I hope you enjoy this post, even if it doesn’t pertain to your, or my, particular career interests. Everyone on here, everyone in the world, is a fully fleshed out human being, with a wide range of hobbies and interests. Here’s one of mine.
One dark and stormy night, I went to see the Shakespeare Theater Company’s production of Frankenstein. On my way in, the air was tense with the electric expectation that precedes a live theater production. On my way out, the humid night air was filled with…mixed reviews. As I exited the theater I spotted some audience members smirking and laughing, while others grumbled and criticized the production. Large groups of high school and college students were engaged in heated debates over the characters we had seen on stage, while other audience members had disappeared after intermission. It was a divisive performance, and that division perfectly encapsulates the artistic decisions facing the Shakespeare Theater Company today.
But I’ll get back to that in a second. First, some context. I’ve been a lifelong Shakespeare and classic theater lover. It was hammered into me at a young age, and has stuck with me since. I believe that live theater can be incredibly powerful in a way most other media types, particularly those popular today, cannot be. I think classic theater, especially Shakespeare, can ascend through time and context, and speak to deeper truths about the human experience. I believe that in this time of great loneliness and distrust, people yearn to see these truths acted out before, live, in real time, emancipated from the barrier of the screen and its increasingly ultra-edited and engagement-engineered content. So, when I saw that STC offered a good deal on season tickets, especially for younger audience members, for a season that seemed particularly stacked, I jumped on the opportunity.
The first performance of the season was the Bard’s Comedy of Errors. I loved it. It’s a play I wasn’t very familiar with, and had heard that, of all Shakepeare’s comedies, it was a bit confusing and inaccessible. However, STC expertly demonstrated that through skilled acting, adaptation, production, and directing, a centuries-old story of confused identity, shipwrecks, and mysterious golden chains can be just as hilarious and accessible as any modern comedy film.
Next came Babbitt, a disappointing production. Although well acted, with the likes of Matthew Broderick and Ann Harada expertly delivering witty lines adapted from Sinclair Lewis’ original novel, the play fell flat politically. Premiering in October, with the 2024 Presidential Election looming, Babbitt attempted to make commentary on this country’s political situation. Without getting too deep into it, Babbitt, and its titular character, flip-flop all over the political spectrum, without ever realizing the greater issues that lie beneath it.
Thankfully, STC redeemed itself with Leopoldstadt. Deeply emotionally affecting, and expertly written, acted, and directed, Leopoldstadt reminded me that while classic theater tends to be stuff written long ago, it doesn’t have to be. Newer plays can tell us just as much about the human condition as those written in centuries past, and may resonate with future generations just as strongly.
STC hit it out of the park with Kunene and the King. It was an honor to see John Kani act on stage, delivering lines he expertly wrote. There was electric chemistry between Kani and Edward Gero, and deeply affecting set design and lighting that made me rethink how these elements can be used to tell a story. Kunene and the King was easily the best production STC put on this year, and skillfully showcased everything I want from STC: World-class talent working from relevant texts that illustrate deeply resonant and human stories.
In April, came Uncle Vanya. Hugh Bonneville starred in a well-produced version of the classic Chekhov play. The adaptation by Conor McPherson and direction from Simon Godwin resulted in a funny, easy to understand show. However, I felt that it sacrificed some of the story’s brooding drama for less impactful laugh lines.
Finally, the season concluded with Frankenstein. Fitting for its content, this production relied heavily on modern theater tech. Complicated lighting effects lent themselves to television-quality flashback scenes, and piped-in voice overs and music were creatively used to recontextualize the familiar story of a mad scientist, his grotesque creation, and the incestious relationship with his adopted sister. This was very engaging, grabbing the audience’s attention from the get-go in ways other productions failed. It was also…a bit much. While the adaptation of the story revealed interesting themes and ideas worth exploring, the line-by-line script was utterly of 2025. This choice did make the few uses of Shelley’s original wording stand out, and probably increased audience comprehension of the convoluted plot, but to me, it felt more appropriate to CW television shows than on stage. I have nothing against television style writing, and I’m happy to see any attempts to make classic literature more accessible, but in the end, I found it more cringe-inducing than relatable.
The pitfalls of this production were clear by intermission, but so were its successes. Audience members gasped and jumped at exciting action scenes, and the actors delivered amazing performances, especially Rebecca S’manga Frank in the lead role, and Anna Takayo as Justine. The greatest disappointment of the night did not come from anyone involved in the show, but rather from my fellow audience members. I was disappointed to see so many leave at intermission. Sure, this production lacked the hard-hitting messages of Leopoldstadt or Kunene and the King, but its rather incoherent plot fit right in with Comedy of Errors. While some audience members might have been turned off by the special effects and experimental structure, others obviously found it engaging. As I walked out of the theater, I overheard several groups of young student debating the play, exclaiming over the strange choices the characters made, and the unexpected places the script had gone. Regardless of whether the show was ‘bad’ or ‘good’, I think this is a meaningful success for the Shakespeare Theater Company. Sure, some of those people may prefer more low-key productions grounded in traditional theater practices, but others may be more interested in a flashy, ostentatious show that can compete with the content they see on their screens at home. And I think that’s ok. There are six shows in an STC season, and a multitude of other theater companies in the area. I believe that, as the mainstream classic theater venue in DC, it is STC’s duty to bring theater to everyday people. For too long, Americans have considered classic theater to be boring and inaccessible, filled with outdated language available only to those who can afford expensive tickets. STC seems to want to change that. By offering discounted prices for younger guests and a wide variety of offerings each season, the theater administration seems to be making an effort to make STC production more accessible to everyday people living in and visiting DC. This is a noble effort that I’m happy to see from such a leading organization. I only hope that STC’s donors can see the important impact this work is having.