'School for Scandal' elevates idle gossip to an art form

I have to admit that I am a naturally nosy person. I just have to keep abreast of what is going on in the world around me. I'm that person who strategically places myself in the back of the club so that I have free reign to comment about everyone in the room. I read People Magazine weekly without fail. I think a person's garbage is totally revealing. Don't be surprised if I know what's happening in your life before you do (and if I don't, I'll make it up). In short, I love gossip.

So, when rumor had it that McCarter Theatre was staging Richard Brinsley Sheridan's "School for Scandal," it was no surprise that I quickly found myself sitting front and center in the audience, completely mesmerized by the brilliant interplay between this eclectic bunch of characters who at any given point seem to be completely absorbed in everyone's business but their own.

The year is 1777 and the setting is London, but viewers on this side of the Atlantic today will find Sheridan's work no less hilarious and whimsical than it was so long ago. In fact, given the circumstances of today's world, where absolutely nothing seems sacred and scandal dominates the nightly news, "School for Scandal" seems all the more appropriate.

Under the guest direction of Tony Award-winning veteran Mark Lamos, Sheridan's work is imbued with new life and energy. The costumes are lavish, the set is a model of elegant simplicity and the staging, for the most part, is cleanly orchestrated and executed. For better or worse, this is an extremely classical production, and while Lamos seems to take few risks, Sheridan's biting sarcasm and wit would make this play entertaining on any stage.

The story is essentially just a brief turn of events that surround a gaggle of 18th Century gossipmongers with such appropriate surnames as Teazle, Sneerwell, Backbite and Careless. When Sir Oliver Surface (Jack Ryland) returns from an extended engagement in the West Indies to settle his estate and check up on his two nephews, the hypocritical and smarmy Joseph (Robert Cuccioli) and the ne'er-do-well Charles (Clarke Thorell), he quickly learns the dangers of idle gossip. The rumor mill, with reigning king and queen Crabtree (Stephen Rowe) and Mrs. Candour (Marceline Hugot) couldn't be more wrong about the nephews, as the seemingly upright Joseph is nothing but a deceitful prig while Charles, the rumored drunken spendthrift actually has a heart of gold.

Meanwhile, both brothers have their sights set on courting the beautiful Maria (Tara Falk). But while Charles sincerely loves her, Joseph seems more interested in her purse than her heart, and at the same time attempts to bed the very married Lady Teazle (Margaret Welsh) who is growing bored of her marriage to her much older husband (David Cromwell). Worlds collide in the famous "screen scene" and the thin wall of lies generated by the gossip salon of Lady Sneerwell (Vivienne Benesch) and her spy Snake (John Keating) comes crashing down with the set. The ending is in true sentimentalist style: happy, rejoicing and oh-so heavy-handed, setting everything right and restoring order.

While the play can stand on its own merit, it is aided considerably by some terrific performances from this cast, composed of seasoned stage veterans and relative newcomers. Benesch's sneering expressions and utterly cold tone of voice completely lives up to her character's name. Indeed, Benesch can steal just about every scene she is in, however Hugot's perfect portrayal of Mrs. Candour gives her a run for her money. Here again, Hugot seems to find the ideal voice for her character, booming and resonant with just the right touch of societal air and facial expressions that imply that no one is above scrutiny when Mrs. Candour is in the room.

Kudos also go to David Cromwell, whose Sir Peter is perhaps the most endearing character in this production. We laugh with him for his self-acknowledged folly at marrying a wife too young for him to keep up with (again, the facial expressions alone are perfect), but in the "screen scene," I think every laugh in the theater gets a bit stifled as we realize that he is the one character with which we truly sympathize—a marvelous task for an actor in a show that seems so devoid of anything so serious as character development.

As for the Surface brothers, Thorell's portrayal of Charles makes him someone you'd love to befriend yourself. He is down-to-earth, jocular, and even seems to move with a bit more humility than the rest of the characters. As Joseph, Cuccioli no doubt draws upon his previous experience as the title character in "Jekyll & Hyde". His two-faced performance gives Joseph a dimension that these stock characters seem to be lacking. In one breath he is utterly convincing as the upright brother but in the next, he shows us what a lecherous cad Joseph can really be.

Meanwhile, though the role could be seen as a throwaway, Keating assures us that Snake will be one character that everyone remembers. This is aided by his costume and pointed pigtail, but Keating even seems to slither when he makes an entrance, often unnoticed by the other characters, and his voice and blank expressions are equally slimy and chilling. As Sir Oliver, Ryland has his moments, but at times comes across as a bit stilted, not handling the speed and rhythmical curves that Sheridan's language throws him. All in all, however, this was an excellent ensemble of performers, handling difficult text with ease, clarity and rollicking humor.

Despite this, this production still presented some issues that never seemed to work themselves out. The first act moved at a snail's pace, at times rather tediously so, and seemed to lack any sense of urgency. This is perhaps a function of the play itself, but watching the second act's frenetic and perfectly timed staging, it is easy to wonder where this energy was during the first half of the play.

Lamos also makes interesting choices with his use of theatrical space that at times seem confusing. He in fact often seems intimidated by the depth of the McCarter stage, forcing his action into a much smaller area downstage requiring much more compressed movements from his actors. The set, too is a bit puzzling. I applaud its thematic function immediately—the cardboard thinness perfectly encapsulates the idea of false austerity surrounding the characters. Like the screen, it too could fall over at any moment and leave them all expose them all for what they really are. But the use of doors is puzzling. Actors entering through any of the doors can be seen long before they open them because of the exposed nature of this set, and this takes some of the urgency away from the entrances. Furthermore, sometimes doors are not even used, with characters entering around them, creating some confusion about the set's relationship to the staging.

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

Overall, however, Lamos shows us his award-winning talent through his near-perfect choreography of the actors. From the moment when the opening tableau is shattered until it is restored in the end, this is a production that is at once eye-catching, hilarious, and bitingly sharp. If you ever thought 18th Century people were just stodgy old frumps, you simply must see this play.