THEATER REVIEW: Egos Collide in "Orson's Shadow"

The Pasadena Playhouse's production of "Orson's Shadow," is a provocative behind the scenes look at stage actors, in this case famous actors. Egos explode, but this production is a well-acted celebration of theatrical fireworks and wit with dead-on comedic timing.

For those who love movies, you might remember Orson Welles as a man whose early promise was killed by ego and studio politics. He had taken on Randolph Hearst in his 1941 movie, "Citizen Kane." Hearst's media empire boycotted the film that went on to be nominated for Best Picture, Best Actor (Welles) and Best Director (Welles) and won an Oscar for Best Original Screenplay (Herman J. Mankiewicz and Welles).

Yet Orson as an icon has influenced popular culture, despite the desperation of his later years when he was often scrambling for financial support for his projects.

Based on true events, Austin Pendleton's play looks at the collision of narcissistic men and the death of a marriage in London 1960. A desperate Welles (Bruce McGill), trying to raise money for his next project ,agrees to direct an egotistical Laurence Olivier (Charles Shaughnessy) ,who wants to be relevant to a younger generation, and Olivier's young lover and future wife, Joan Plowright (Libby West). Olivier is still married to Vivien Leigh (Sharon Lawrence). Olivier and Plowright are founding the British National Theatre for which they will perform this new play, Eugene Ionesco's "Rhinoceros." Critic Kenneth Tynan (Scott Lowell), who wishes to leave something more than just words as part of his legacy to the theater world, is the one who suggests this meeting of creative artists of the stage. Tynan begins as our narrator, but Pendleton ends with Plowright, the only person still alive of the four, giving an epilogue.

Perhaps this is why "Orson's Shadow" is the kindest to Plowright and even, to a certain extent to Olivier.

In 1960, Olivier was still married to Vivien Leigh. They had become lovers while playing lovers in the 1937 movie "Fire Over England." Both were still married. Leigh was married to Herbert Leigh Holman, a barrister, in 1932 and had given birth to a daughter the next year. Olivier to actress Jill Esmond in 1930 whom he met on a film when she was more famous. Esmond and Olivier had just had a son in 1936. When Olivier and Leigh both divorced their respective spouses in 1940, they quickly married. Olivier seemed to want them to become a great theatrical couple, the Oliviers, often directing as well as starring opposite of Leigh--something he had not tried with Esmond.

Leigh had already attained film star success from her 1939 appearance as Scarlett O'Hara in "Gone with the Wind" for which she won a Best Actress Oscar. Olivier had starred in the 1939 "Wuthering Heights." Olivier would have to wait until 1948 to win an Oscar as Best Actor for "Hamlet." He also won for Best Director. The previous year, he had been given a special Oscar for his "Henry V."

She would later win another Oscar in 1951 playing Blanche Dubois in Tennessee Williams' "A Streetcar Named Desire." She had already played that role on stage under Olivier's direction in London, one that Olivier had interpreted differently than the film director Elia Kazan. Tynan had criticized Leigh's stage performances--including her Blanche, suggesting that Olivier was compromising his own talent for hers.

Leigh was a mercurial actress and was increasingly plagued by her bipolar disorder and Pendleton chiefly attributes this to the break up of the Oliviers marriage. There's little mention that Plowright was married when she met Olivier in 1957, during rehearsals of a play that John Osborne had written for Olivier, "The Entertainer." Plowright, who was 16 years younger than Leigh, did not divorce her husband until 1961, the same year she married Olivier to become his third wife.

According to IMDB.com, Plowright herself has even suggested that Olivier was somewhat difficult: "If a man is touched by genius, he is not an ordinary person. He doesn't lead an ordinary life. He has extremes of behaviour which you understand and you just find a way not to be swept overboard by his demons."

Although she was listed as the co-respondent in Leigh's divorce from Olivier, IMDB.com also quotes her as saying, "I have always resented the comments that it was I who was the homewrecker of Larry's marriage to Vivien Leigh. Danny Kaye was attached to Larry far earlier than I." Either way, both of the Oliviers were having affairs.

Pendleton sidesteps and streamlines all of this hubris. His Olivier is a charming, egotistical man, somewhat jealous of Welles' early success, constantly reliving his theatrical and cinematic successes with Leigh (e.g. "That Hamilton Woman"), still hurting from Tynan's harsh comments about Leigh's stage performances under his direction and Olivier attempts to control and mold the much younger (and less formal than Leigh) Plowright. Shaughnessy doesn't whine or weedle; he just makes helpful observations, hiding his own insecurities as he simply seeks better understanding while undermining Welles' direction. McGill's Welles is full of frustrated bluster. He can't finesse his way around Olivier's masterfully polite criticism and obsessive attention to detail. Yet he never becomes down right nasty. After all, Olivier and Welles had been friends. Welles has a tender spot for the troubled Leigh.

Lawrence's Leigh flutters in and out of control of her mania, we see lightening quick changes flash across her face as she struggles to maintain control of her emotions, particularly at a time that most women would find impossible--when facing your husband's much younger mistress. Lawrence's Leigh sparkles with tragic fragility and draws our attention from the much more down-to-earth West as Plowright.

Under the direction of Damaso Rodriguez, Welles, Olivier and Leigh are larger than life--fitting for the venue. Lowell's Tynan is a man with a vision that becomes a nightmare. The snappy pacing and witty exchanges without a razor sharp edge of hate or bitterness, prevent this production from being a poignant plunge into darkness. The real cypher is West's Plowright. The audience can't be sure why she loves Olivier, a man still very attached to his second wife.

"Orson's Shadow" debuted the Chicago Steppenwolf Theatre in Chicago in early 2000 and was staged at the San Diego Old Globe Theatre later that same year. In 2005, there was an off-Broadway production at the Barrow Street Theatre. In 2001, I saw this play produced at the much smaller Black Dahlia Theatre. From what I recall, compared to this Pasadena Playhouse production with wonderfully solid backstage views by set designer Gary Wissmann, that production was much darker in both tone and general staging. In a small venue such intimacy allows for more subtle character nuances and the set design more minimalistic. Rodriguez's ensemble plays this mostly in the light although almost predictably, our first view of Welles' is of his shadow. This interpretation is less tragic, a bright and intelligent piece of entertainment.

In restrospect, perhaps there was a reason for Olivier to doubt himself. Leigh's Scarlett O'Hara and Blanche DuBois live on in popular culture. Welles' shadow looms larger still. Even if you haven't seen "Citizen Kane" or his "Chimes at Midnight" or "Touch of Evil," he voiced the original trailers for the 1977 "Star Wars" and 1979 "Star Trek: The Motion Picture." The character of the intelligent lab mouse, The Brain, in "Pinky and the Brain" is loosely based on him. He was, until his death, the voice of Robin Masters, on the "Magnum: P.I." television series. A genus of spiders was named after him.

This production will entertain those who know about Welles, Leigh and Olivier and even, to a lesser degree, Tynan and Plowright. For those who don't, it will still be an enjoyable romp backstage as egos clash and a marriage implodes and, perhaps, pique one's interest in the long legacy of all the characters involved. "Orson's Shadow" continues until February 17 at the Pasadena Playhouse.

Remembering Lucy: A Vicious Dog

I suppose those in my neighborhood who remember Lucy think of her as a large vicious dog. I remember her as a dog who didn't take well to teasing. I also used to think of her as a victim, but now I feel that in some ways she was a hero.

I hadn't thought of her for a long time, and only recently, with the attention paid to the escaped tiger at the San Francisco Zoo, did I begin to think of her again. It took me a while to remember her name. It was the revelation that the young men teased the tiger, triggering an aggressive reaction that they surely now regret, that reminded me of Lucy.

Every day on my way home from school, I would make a point to pass her dog run. Her owners lived in the corner house, kitty corner across from my house. Along the dirt sidewalk at the side of the house bordering the street was Lucy's run.

As a puppy Lucy would run with the gamboling, clumsy gait of one whose feet and head were too big for the rest of the package. She was white and black, half German Shepherd and half Husky. At first, she ran with all the puppyish enthusiasm one would and should expect from a family pet.

That soon changed. Even though her owners put up plastic slats so that people couldn't directly see or touch Lucy, the damage had been done and continued to be done. People entertained themselves by kicking Lucy in the face when as a young pup she came with her sweet, excited bark up to the wire mesh fence. They waited until she was close enough, wanting to sniff their hands and meet these new people. They then kicked her in the face and laughed.

Lucy, of course, remembered these people. She grew up to be a big dog with an authoritative bark and a snarl. She didn't wait to bark when she came to the fence; you could hear her rushing up with an angry declaration. Yet when I lifted my voice above hers, greeting her, she quickly changed. She became docile, and instead of barking, she made that grunting sound dogs make when they want to be scratched in just the right place. My hand was small enough to squeeze through the wire mesh.

I always saved part of my lunch for her and she always remembered. On those rare occasions when she darted past her owners and got loose, I never had anything to fear. She would approach with a wide grin, wagging her tail. Even if I didn't have a treat, she would lean against me to be scratched in just the right place. My mother and sister were also not afraid of her even though we weren't particularly friendly with those neighbors.

One day when I was older and (I think) away at college, Lucy got out. There was a pedestrian, a man, and she attacked him. He was not badly hurt, but Lucy was put down. And that is the tragedy dogs and so many animals face: they often suffer for the misdeeds of humans. I do not know if the person she attacked had previously teased her, but it did seem to be a pastime of the boys and men who passed through our neighborhood. Lucy also seemed perfectly capable of differentiating between people. Maybe that scare stopped that pedestrian, and some others, from teasing dogs in the future. Fear will sometimes do that. I know one case in which a dog bite did stop two boys from teasing dogs thereafter. If so, then Lucy died an unfair and unfortunate death, but she died a hero if she prevented even one person from teasing a dog again. And one person certainly has the ability to tease more than one dog, cat or other animal.

I have seen neighbors teasing my own dogs, throwing things, imitating a bark. They do it to get the dogs' attention and make them bark, yet then they complain when the dogs do indeed bark. I used to live in a neighborhood where a man would walk his little Pomeranian and allow it to bark at larger dogs on the other side of the fence. Some dogs, like people, are braver when their opponent is behind bars. All of this teasing agitates the bigger dog, and who knows what might happen in the future? Sometimes the larger dog gets out at the wrong time and the smaller dog ends up dead. I know of one such encounter between a Pomeranian and a large white dog who happened to be off of his chain one day. One shake and the Pomeranian was dead.

In the case of the tiger, Tatiana, both a human and the big cat ended up dead.

If you check with any zoological garden, you'll see that they specifically request that visitors do not tease the animals. On the San Francisco Zoo's own website, there's a whole page devoted to zoo manners.

RESPECT THE ANIMALS! The magnificent animals in the Zoo are wild and possess all their natural instincts. You are a guest in their home. They are sensitive and have feelings. PLEASE don't tap on glass, cross barriers, throw anything into exhibits, make excessive noise, tease or call out to them.

Why should this be necessary?

Because bad things have happened and continue to happen. A baby wallaby was kicked to death at a British zoo. One American zoo records visitor problems that led to the death of animals:

About a dozen [deaths] were traced to moronic visitors.

Among the tricks of such visitors which killed some birds and badly injured some small mammals were the following: Throwing broken glass, poisoned or tainted food, indelible pencils, lighted cigar and cigarette stubs into cages or fenced enclosures, driving pointed sticks through the bars at animals tame enough to come within reach; breaking the bones of birds and mammals with stones, cutting wire fences, bending back the cut threads and frightening the animals so as to drive them into the projecting ends.

Several birds died with fish-hooks in their throats or stomachs. Two boys were caught trying to hook bear cubs with heavy fish-hooks. A gang of boys cut a hole into the wire fence of a grey wolf den, coaxed the parent wolves aside with sausages, and stole two cubs. The stolen cubs were recovered, the boys traced and punished.

And then there was the penguin baby penguin stolen a few years back, certain to die without the special diet and care it required.

I don't feel particularly sorry for the three young men in San Francisco. They were reportedly drunk on vodka in a public place. They were also high on a controlled substance (marijuana). They obviously didn't care too much about the legality of the matter, and they weren't particularly interested in animals. They didn't follow the appropriate behavior for the zoo as described by that particular zoo. One even climbed up on to the exhibit, going where visitors are quite obviously not supposed to roam. If the tiger hadn't attacked, these men would have returned to their car, probably had a few more drinks, and then driven home--endangering people who chose to responsibly spend that Christmas Day sober. If they had been sober, they might have realized a bit sooner the danger they were in and been able to communicate more quickly and effectively.

I am sure they thought themselves amusing. They didn't feel ashamed at their boorish behavior and how it infringed on the enjoyment of other people. They didn't think how being drunk and high might endanger other people. They were thoughtless, and I would guess this wasn't the first time they had behaved in such a manner. I would guess zoos weren't the only place they felt free to tease the animals. Would they have also thought it funny to tease a dog like Lucy? Why not? What was to stop them? Like Lucy, Tatiana was killed when she reacted as one would expect.

Yet perhaps Tatiana was not only a victim of her own instincts, but also the hero. She prevented these men from getting back in their car, getting drunker, driving drunk, and perhaps ruining the day and even the life of another person or animal.