Shaking up Shakespeare

"They have been at a great feast of languages and stol'n the scraps." So says the page to his illiterate friend, watching the writing-men at work. In "Love's Labour's Lost," the scholars are quickly revealed as fools. King Ferdinand and his court swear off women in favor of study, and they are quickly forsworn when the quick-witted Princess of France and her alluring entourage arrive on ambassadorial duty.

That opening quote is from early in the play, and it seems meant mostly in jest, to poke fun at the academy and chip away at the foundations of the ivory tower. Even so, it seems to sum up something at the heart of the play: the fickleness of words. It seems to me that by its end, "Love's Labour's Lost" profoundly doubts whether words and their mirth can provide comfort in the face of death, or convey truth in love.

In keeping with this questioning of the limits of words and theatre, the play itself is very aware of its status as a play. "That's so meta" would be a good way to describe it. At one point, while writing a play-within-a-play, a nervous "playwright" throws in a role for young Hercules, snake-strangler, in a clever ploy to silence the heckling hisses of the crowd. "An excellent device!" says the young actor, "So, if any of the audience hiss, you may cry 'Well done, Hercules; now thou crushest the snake!' That is the way to make an offence gracious, though few have the grace to do it."

Coming from a theoretical standpoint – I study "Hamlet" in what little spare time I have – "Love's Labour's Lost" was really cool (and really funny) precisely because of all of these witty, self-deprecating windows into the inner workings of Elizabethan theater and the lives of its playwrights. Characters struggle to write sonnets, and fail spectacularly at producing plays, and as an aspiring young writer (or at least critic) I found all of these things comforting.

But back to the performance, where, in true Elizabethan fashion, the audience was very much part of the show. (I was singled out, serenaded no less than two times, and, to Mrs. Carroll's delight, correctly answered three times three.) Other aspects of the play were more modern, though no less fun; pop songs, plumbing equipment and gospel singing all made appearances.

Even with these updates, Shakespeare's concern – the potential of theater – remains a key question 400 years later for the actors and actresses of Montana Shakespeare in the Parks. What, after all, can acting do? Why does it matter?

Sitting in the Wagon Wheel Cafe, eating a halibut sandwich, Jordan Gleaves (King Ferdinand) told me that one of the reasons he acts is because he wants other people of color to see that they have a right to both Shakespeare and the stage. As he said, the emotions experienced by Shakespeare's characters – love, jealousy, loss – don't have a race.

For other members of the company, including Emily Wold (Rosaline and the Constable), their reason for acting is bound up with the reason Montana Shakespeare in the Parks exists. Few other companies tour the same way, and the chance to travel, meet new people and bring Shakespeare to communities where theater might not be accessible or affordable was important to everyone I met.

Here in Ekalaka, in the company's 46th season, 80 people stretched out on the grass while five buzzards vainly circled above, vexed that theatre is not dead.

To donate, or find more information on upcoming productions of "Love's Labour's Lost" and "Othello," visit the company's website at http://www.shakespeareintheparks.org.