Tuesday, 5/20/97 Drama buried by poor acting THEATER: Lead roles
in ‘Oscar Wilde’s Wife’ don’t do justice to script
By Alicia Cheak Daily Bruin Contributor It’s really quite a
shame when the supporting cast of a play is phenomenal, but the
leads are unable to deliver. Regrettably, this was the case in
"Oscar Wilde’s Wife," playing at the Odyssey Theater through June
15. Written by Los Angeles-based historical playwright Ronda
Spinak, the story is a semifictional construction of what the life
of Constance Wilde might have been in the Victorian Age of stifling
propriety. Of course, it is also quite amazing that such an age,
while imposing much restriction, also has notable transgressions.
The scene opens as Constance Wilde (Stacie Chaiken) faces spinal
surgery. Believing that her chances of surviving the operation are
grim, Constance reflects on her marriage to the gay writer and
hopes to reconcile the decisions she has made. It is her attempt to
undo years of denial and silent endurance. But as the ghost of her
father warns her, such attempts are dangerous. In chiseling into
the past, all that Constance Wilde is and the lies which hitherto
have become her life will "tap tap tap and crumble into a thousand
pieces." This is a wonderful image to set the tone of the play
which begins with the courtship between Constance and Oscar and
ends with the trial which indicts Oscar and sentences him to a
2-year hard labor term for crimes against society – that is, for
sodomy. As the play progresses, the secrets and lies surrounding
Constance’s father also emerge. The play has moments of intrigue,
passion and tragedy. And yet for all these ingredients Chaiken
fails to capture Constance Wilde’s tragic spirit, and the audience
can’t really empathize with her. In the end, Constance Wilde is
neither heroic (though she does, in a way, exemplify courage in
confronting her past) nor pitiable. She is merely neurotic, and
this does not give Oscar Wilde’s historically invisible wife the
voice which Spinak intended. Wilde is the famous British wit and
dramatist who penned the popular Victorian play "The Importance of
Being Earnest." He was also the author of the shocking "The Picture
of Marion Gray" and the more enigmatic "Salome," which met with
fervent disapproval from the English readers unnerved at the
explicitness and indiscretion of the story’s premise. Yet Wilde, a
foppish individual known for his allegiance to the school of "art
for art’s sake" and a witty tongue to champion it, never quite
makes it to the stage. John Morgan as Wilde is rightfully
flamboyant (cloaked in purple while others are resigned to more
somber blacks and whites) and vain (he loves drawing attention to
himself), but the man of wit doesn’t come through. Much of the
Wilde one sees is pageantry. One wonders how a woman like Constance
Wilde could fall in love with him and remain in love with him for
many years. Indeed the love between husband and wife, or even that
of Constance for Oscar, is overplayed – exaggerated to the point
that all sincerity and credibility is lost in the midst of all the
drama. For those unfamiliar with Victorian society, the subject of
the play is universal enough – marriage and specifically a woman’s
place in marriage – to enable identification with Constance Wilde’s
position. And even after the women’s liberation movement, the
conflicts within marriage and the roles prescribed to women still
exist. And though corsets are a thing of the past, there are still
many other forms of restriction. All these should bridge Constance
Wilde to present sensibilities. Yet Chaiken’s Constance is too
distant. Moments of connection are far too rare and they pass by
almost undetected until after the play is over and discussion about
it begins. But by then it is too late. It might have been a truly
noble attempt to redeem a woman who, while seemingly victimized
throughout the play, bravely discovers in the end that she has been
choosing all along. But poor performance fails to convey Constance
Wilde’s story to the audience. The truly poignant and witty moments
belong to the Wildes’ butler, Arthur, played by Stu Levin. Levin is
witty without being synthetic. His lines, executed with natural
ease, command the most response from the audience. "I don’t know
which is worse: fruits or creditors," Arthur says to Constance of
the mob gathering outside the Wildes’ residence. "The fruit, at
least, is perishable – the creditors not." Kudos too, to Paul
Eiding’s portrayal of Constance Wilde’s father, Horace Lloyd, who
with each appearance added another piece to the puzzle of his once
elusive role in the story. It’s just as well then that ultimately,
it is the butler who gets the most insightful and choice words in
the play for unfortunately, no one in the cast could deliver them
as matter-of-factly, true to the form of wit. THEATER: "Oscar
Wilde’s Wife" plays through June 15 at the Odyssey Theater, 2055 S.
Sepulveda Blvd. For information call 477-2055.