Blatancy never tops subtlety.
A lesson for today and this era of self-appointed reforming firebrands is a message that preaches, shouts, badgers, demands conformity, and insists it and it alone is right is bound to annoy more than it persuades, let alone convinces.
A play version of Bram Stoker’s “Dracula,” subtitled “A Feminist Revenge Fantasy, Really” by author Kate Hamill, clearly makes my case.
When it inculcates Hamill’s feminist point of view into conversation or a natural stream of dialogue it invites one to listen and consider the playwright’s argument or ideas. As performed by Princeton Summer Theater, a sincere self-revealing speech Katie Hameetman makes toward the end of the play as Dracula’s obsequiously slavelike minion, Renfield, works marvelously, demonstrating Hamill’s gifts as a writer, a thinker, and one who can movingly convey a character’s personal view of her life. It does because it’s honest and has a human, Renfield, expressing, her most telling experiences as a human, a female human, on Earth (or least in late 19th century Europe).
Oh, yes, the parts of Renfield and Van Helsing are played by women, not because of non-traditional casting but because that is part of Hamill’s design.
When Hameetman deftly delivers that speech, her last of the play, it creates understanding and empathy that lead to consideration of whether Renfield’s life is unique or typical to many women.
It’s both good theater and good literature.
Throughout Eliana Cohen-Orth’s production, scenes that involve individuals incidentally expressing their points of view make an impression, theatrical and intellectual. The second act, in which the plot has more direct purpose than the first, plays better because it’s freer of one element that mars Hamill’s script and undermines the better parts of Cohen-Orth’s direction.
Contrasting the more integrated dialogue, that which is written to be part of an everyday discourse, with opinions and attitudes that are declaimed and stated as if they were the only acceptable way to think and designed to ridicule anyone who disagrees or perceives overstatement, Cohen-Orth’s “Dracula” illustrates over and over how much more effective the simply said and personally expressed triumphs over anthems, pronouncements, and political cant that might be cheered by fellow adherents but has others rolling their eyes, or casting them heavenward in prayers for relief.
Hamill’s “Dracula,” or Cohen-Orth’s production of it, suffers from a split personality. When Stoker’s basic plot dominates or characters express thoughts, emotions, and observations within generally well-spoken dialogue, the play is fine, particularly because Princeton Summer Theater features some of the best and most assured acting I’ve seen there in the persons of Meg Moynihan, Jordan Kilgore, Meghana Kumar, Sophie Falvey, Teddy Fieg, and Hameetman.
When one of the characters launches into a harangue, lectures, mouths familiar complaints or slogans, or ridicules in a way that assumes superiority based on either gender, the play loses its way, seeming whiny and old hat at the same time.
No doubt women had much to complain about in mid-Victorian England and 19th-century Transylvania. They could be ruled by their husbands and even consigned to asylums by them. They could, in many places, not negotiate for or buy property (although they could inherit it), not sign contracts, and not act of their own volition.
This despite a powerful, influential woman occupying the British throne.
In Hamill’s “Dracula,” the identical issue could be addressed as part of a screed or as smug comment meant to elicit nods of agreement or other “amens” from the audience. These sequences played as cheap, self-conscious, and, frankly, boring (if not risible). They made a character’s view of the world into a battle cry.
Or that issue could be mentioned to explain why a woman could not fulfill an assigned task — law or custom wouldn’t let her — or take command of a sad situation. It could be related as a telling aspect among all that affected a woman’s life.
You see the difference? One approach bops you on the hand or hold you prisoner until someone has said her piece. The other is a human speaking about incidents and reactions that come from one being human.
The first mars good storytelling with a blatant dose of polemic. The second earns our attention and respect.
“Dracula” dishes out both throughout the play. The first act has more politics in spite of a strict, correcting Van Helsing (Sophie Falvey) holding forth regularly in the second.
Those politics may be the point of Hamill’s rendition, but they turn it into diatribe that can only be appreciated by those committed to the same sentiments expressed in that tone.
As noted, Hamill’s piece and Cohen-Orth’s production work better when the politics come out matter-of-factly in the course of an observation or speech.
Cohen-Orth sometimes exacerbates the thorny parts. In a scene in which a man is threatening his fiancee with his attitudes and power as a male in a male-favoring society, Cohen-Orth has one of the characters, Meghana Kumar’s Mina Harker, gag while he speaks. The gags, often accompanied by signs of retching, actually comment on the woman involved, Meg Moynihan’s Lucy Westenra, agreeing to the man’s pompousness.
The bit is supposed to be funny, extra commentary on the situation as Mina sees it.
The problem is all the side commentary is unnecessary. It is clear that Teddy Feig’s Dr. Seward is being patronizing to Lucy. It is clear Lucy is pretending to acquiesce for form’s sake but will do as she pleases when given the chance. Kumar’s gagging becomes overkill, showy, and disruptive instead of funny. A pursed lip or raised eyebrow would have been as effective and wittier.
Another awry assumption, this time on Hamill’s part, is that women and men can’t display the same behavior. Yet, within her play, characters of both genders indulge in similar tactics. A habit currently dubbed as “mansplaining” is definitely practiced by Seward, who is excoriated for it. Lo and behold, Van Helsing is later guilty of the same offense. Why not cry out against “womansplaining”? Also, in the long run, though Van Helsing is portrayed as a rabid feminist, one who can’t stand to be called “ma’am” when she has earned the title of “doctor,” most of what she does or says about vampires, customs, and fighting evil, would be just as credited coming from a man.
The point being made by having Van Helsing be a woman is negated when one analyzes the dialogue and how it would play if a man said the same thing when Van Helsing speaks of his anthropological studies and experience with vampires.
Princeton Summer Theater’s “Dracula” works best when it sticks to the basics of “Dracula.” It is the most successful when the famous Count Vlad appears, strikes, or is the subject of retaliation.
In the long run, Cohen-Orth’s “Dracula” has more merits than faults. Kate Hamill demonstrates throughout she can write and advocate beyond some of the indulgent sequences in the first act. Eliana Cohen-Orth may lard some sequences, but she also knows when to leave what works alone.
Its greatest asset is its cast, the best overall ensemble I have seen there.
Meg Moynihan is excellent as Lucy Westenra. The clarity and scope of her portrayal inform the production and promote fine performances from others.
Moynihan makes Lucy the picture of a modern Victorian woman. She is wise and candid but also practical. She has figured a way to be somewhat independent while realizing she needs a man with a decent income if she is going to survive in the British society of her time.
Moynihan’s Lucy plays the game well while also skillfully conveying a woman in unwilling thrall to Dracula.
Meghana Kumar is the perfect match for Moynihan. Her Mina is a brave woman who cannot help being honest and is always ready to do the necessary.
Kumar quickly establishes Mina’s intellect and commitment to going into action. She also demonstrates a wife who is willing to stand by her husband, even in the face of danger.
Sophie Falvey is an energetic performer who is unafraid to be annoying as Dr. Van Helsing, the vampire specialist, while also being canny and no-nonsense.
Hamill sees Van Helsing as a cowboy on a mission, and Falvey does not stint on taking charge or being a distinct individual in a world of manners.
Jordan Kilgore is cunningly entertaining as Count Dracula. Kilgore is gleefully haughty when Dracula scoffs at his enemies and wittily thwarts them. His Dracula is charming, funny, and seductive.
Teddy Feig displays the right kind of fuss, the right kind of propriety, and the right kind of contrition as Dr. Seward. Katie Hameetman impresses as a mad but brilliant Renfield — with good handwriting! Destine Harrison-Williams is a likable Jonathan Harker. Faith Wangerman and Kelly Brosnan do well as Dracula’s bloodthirsty brides.
Yoshi Tanokura’s set serves several locations well. Bex Jones favors white in costuming, but garments show traces of fake blood that made suspension of disbelief difficult at times.
Dracula, Princeton Summer Theater, Hamilton Murray Theatre, Princeton University. Through Sunday, June 30. Thursday through Saturday, 8 p.m.; Saturday and Sunday, 2 p.m. $35. www.princetonsummertheater.org.
,
