Overacted ‘Arcadia’ Misses The Mark

“Arcadia” Friday, Sept. 17, Interplayers Ensemble

Eager anticipation can be a dangerous thing, as I found out in the Interplayers’ production of “Arcadia.”

The more anticipation, the more room for disappointment. While this production of Tom Stoppard’s brilliant 1993 play had its admirable qualities, it ultimately fell far short of its potential.

Stoppard’s words are certainly not the problem. This tour de force of a play is filled with intelligent themes and ideas, covering everything from chaos theory to landscape gardening to Lord Byron’s poetry to the momentous switch from rationalism to romanticism in the early 19th century.

At its core, it is a romance, in a comic-intellectual way, and a very funny one at that. In both the comedy and the romance, however, this production doesn’t measure up.

The comic problem is that the play was routinely overacted, in some cases, hugely overacted. What is wry on the page was too often blared in the manner of a British sex farce. Characters shout in exaggerated British accents and fling their arms about dramatically and prance around the stage as if they’re in “Noises Off.”

The biggest offender here is Christopher Zinovitch, who plays the key role of Bernard Nightingale, a pretentious literary critic. Zinovitch plays this character as if he is a ninny, and a stock ninny at that, when actually he should be self-important, bombastic but ultimately lovable and vulnerable.

I wish that director Joan Welch had remembered that there are at least two kinds of British humor, only one of which is the frantic sex-farce kind in which all the characters are high-strung and ridiculous. The other and much more satisfying kind is dry, intelligent, ironic British wit. This is Stoppard’s kind of humor.

When dry humor is overplayed, it sounds simply desperate. While this production of “Arcadia” started off with some good laughs, it tailed off quickly. The first act is long enough, but without the comedy to keep us interested, it becomes a long 90-minute haul. A depressing number of people left during intermission and didn’t come back.

And then, in the second act, the romance was difficult to take seriously because of some unfortunate casting choices. We are supposed to imagine that there are some romantic sparks between the academic Hannah Jarvis (Jane Fellows) and two different men, Valentine (Steve Barron) and especially Bernard. The age discrepancy seemed far too large, however, and it was hard to suspend disbelief.

Thank goodness the play’s problems were confined mostly to only one of its eras. This play shifts back and forth, between 1809 and the present. The 1809 scenes were much more enjoyable, mainly because the acting was superior. Erin Merritt did an outstanding job of playing the teenage girl Thomasina, who is touched with mathematical genius. Colin O’Connor is equally fine as Septimus, her brilliant tutor. Theirs was one budding romance that was easily believable.

Susan Mansefield was regal and powerful as Lady Croom, and I couldn’t help but think that the play might have worked far better if she had been given the much more important role of Hannah. Only Tony Mason, as Ezra Chater, was over the top among the characters in this era.

Among the actors in the present-day scenes, the best work comes from Barron, as Valentine, who hits the right balance of restraint and passion.

The set by Jason Laws is well done, serving believably as both an 1809 parlor and a present-day parlor.

Any viewing of “Arcadia” has its rewards, since the words of Stoppard are so rich and full of intellectual stimulation. However, the play that ran in my head when I read the material was funnier and far more believable than the one I saw Friday night. That’s not the way it ought to be.

“Arcadia,” continues through Oct. 9 at the Interplayers Ensemble. Call 455-PLAY.