2002-12-16 - 7:36 a.m.

Reading Paper 1: "Coffee with Richelieu� at the Olney Theatre, September 18, 2002, 8 p.m.

Coffee with Richelieu is retelling of the popular Three Musketeers story by Alexander Dumas. Playwright Norman Allen provides a look into the mind of Richelieu by providing a twist. In this story, Richelieu has the ability to see the actions of all parties in historical context. He can appear in a temporal coffee house, and can pull characters to him to discuss how they should change their course of action, so that he can have the historical outcome he wants. His target, naturally, is young D�Artagnan. Richelieu spends the play pulling D�Artagnan out of the flow of time to try and convince D�Artagnan to partner with him, rather than follow the course that Dumas laid out for him. Along with the standard characters that one would expect in the Three Musketeers, Gandhi, Queen Victoria and Jacquelyn Kennedy Onassis all make an appearance to ensure that D�Artagnan gets it right. The play is a drama, but has a strong sense of humor that ensures that the audience knows that it doesn�t take itself too seriously.

Now that I�m a highly educated theatre guy, I was on the look out for �Dramatic Action�. Sword fights are an obvious choice, and being somewhat knowledgeable of sword fighting, the choreography wasn�t bad. They weren�t too many of them, just enough to remind us that the root of this story involved the flashing of steel on Parisian streets. Another example dramatic action were the death throes of both Buckingham and Constance. The actions of Milady during these scenes, while her victims died, cemented the hatred the audience was supposed to feel for her, there was no sympathy from Milady.

Looking beyond acts of violence, sex is the most obvious choice. I must admit to being somewhat of a theatre rookie, in that most of my experiences in the theatre were either at the high school level or in safe, mainstream musicals. I bring this up because there were some points of dramatic action when I saw more than I was expecting to see, both of Milady and D�Artagnan. Seeing a man�s butt and penis was distracting. Not because I was offended, just because I really didn�t expect to see anything like that. The dramatic action of him becoming nude broke my suspension of disbelief, because, well, I couldn�t believe that I had just seen that. I feel that it took away from the play. Milady wasn�t quite as open to the world as D�Artagnan was, but no less distracting. I am a fan of the female figure, and found myself being easily distracted by the suggestive outfits worn. Perhaps this was the point, but I was rooting for her to follow D�Artagnan�s lead, but was disappointed, and felt somewhat cheated in the end.

The character development was almost embarrassingly evident. The stage seems to lack the subtlety that I�m used to in novels. In the span of an hour and a half, D�Artagnan went from young Gascon, wide-eyed and na�ve, to hero of damsels-in-distress, to bitter love-lost soldier, to co-conspirator of the Cardinal, to, finally, redeemed queen�s champion. Perhaps the development was embarrassing because the character wasn�t �full�. I didn�t get the impression that I knew D�Artagnan, so when he changed, it sort of slid past me, because I wasn�t emotionally attached to him. The other characters in the play were similarly flat.

The only exception to this was the Cardinal himself. We learned much more of the Cardinal�s character than any of the other characters in the play. Perhaps it is because the story is so well known, and the focus was shifted almost entirely to the Cardinal that this occurred. It is because we had a glimpse of the cardinal�s soul through his coffee sipping soliloquies that I felt almost obligated to root for him. Even knowing that in the end, he had to be defeated. Why cheer for a cardboard cutout when you can root for flesh and blood?

The quality of acting was highlighted by the fact that many of the actors played two characters. For example, the actress who played Constance, apparently also did an excellent imitation of Jacquelyn Kennedy Onassis. I am somewhat outside of the age group that would appreciate that, but I am assured that it was well done.

The play presented a question, �Should Men be permitted to live their own lives, as they see fit, or do their failings demand that they have someone to guide them?� While I enjoyed the visits of Gandhi, Queen Victoria and Jackie-O, they did little except to add to an aura of oddness that surrounded the play. They didn�t bring anything of substance to the question the play asked. The ending was what it had to be, D�Artagnan remained the good guy, and the Cardinal was foiled again.

While I very much enjoyed this play, I think the familiarity of the story, along with my love of sword fights gave it an edge it didn�t deserve. The author decided to wander down an odd, surreal path to tell a story, but it didn�t seem to develop well. Because he picked an established story, when he proposed the question to be answered, there was never any doubt in anyone�s mind how the question would be answered. The Cardinal could never win. Because of that, there was no added tension to the plot, no added stakes. The twist was in the telling of the story, but it didn�t add anything to the play.

Overall, I really enjoyed the play. The twist was fun, but added little to the substance of the play. The acting was good, the fight choreography was well done and the setting was OK. I would definitely recommend the play to anyone who would enjoy an alternate take to an old tale.

�

previous - next

�