Blackbird Theatre's season canters along with Peter Shaffer's 'Equus'

Photo and design by Barton Bund
“I remember going to make a phone call to offer a role to an actor that had auditioned for the show, but that was unfamiliar with the script,” said director Sarah Lucas in an e-mail interview. “I kept thinking, ‘How on earth do I ask someone to play a horse named Nugget and make it sound like good thing?’”
PREVIEW
"Equus"
- Who: The Blackbird Theatre.
- What: Peter Shaffer’s Tony Award-winning play about a psychiatrist who tries to treat a 17-year-old boy who, despite a religious and sexual fascination with horses, blinds six horses near London. For mature audiences.
- Where: sh\aut\ Gallery, 325 Braun Court.
- When: Thursday-Saturday at 8 p.m., February 24-March 19. (Preview performances February 17-19 at 8 p.m.)
- How much: $25 ($20 for seniors, $15 for students). Tickets for discounted preview performances cost $20 ($15 for seniors, $10 for students). Tickets and information: 734-332-3848 or http://www.wix.com/blackbirdtheatre/blackbirdtheatreorg2
Indeed, actors who tackle “Equus” have to be willing to go to some dark, unconventional places, since the Tony Award-winning play works to unravel — by way of a psychiatrist’s questions — why a 17-year-old boy who harbors a religious and sexual fascination with horses would then blind six of them one night in a small town outside London. (The show is for mature audiences.)
Given the unusual nature of “Equus”’ story — which Shaffer built entirely from his imagination after hearing a strange news item about a young man blinding six horses — Lucas believes that getting the audience to connect to the characters is one of the play’s biggest challenges.
“Not many people will be able to look at the actions of the play's primary characters and say, ‘I remember doing that type of thing when I was an adolescent,’” said Lucas. “However, it is necessary that on some level they are able to understand why someone may be able to do the terrible things that these characters do.”
Lucas, who’s previously worked as the Blackbird’s resident stage manager, is making her directing debut with “Equus,” and she hadn’t previously seen it on a stage before taking it on.
“I had heard of the show, but it wasn't until (Blackbird founder Bart Bund) and I were in knee-deep in the process of choosing a script that I actually picked up a copy and read it cover to cover,” said Lucas. “I've always been attracted to scripts that tend be a little on the dark side, that push the envelope, and that have a rich, compelling text. I read ‘Equus’ in one spectacular sitting and immediately decided that it was a story that I wanted to tell.”
The Blackbird’s highly intimate performance space at the SH\aut\ Cabaret and Gallery would seem to lend itself perfectly to “Equus,” in the sense that the play unfolds as an intense, deeply personal, psychological mystery. But then, there are also some large equines to contend with.
“For every benefit that the venue offers, there is an obstacle to match it,” said Lucas. “ Trying to maneuver a small herd of 'horses' around a tight space does occasionally become problematic, as one might imagine. As a result, we have gotten creative with some of the staging. And ultimately, I think the challenges have, in some strange way, benefited the production.”
A recent 2007 London production of “Equus” garnered a great deal of attention, largely because it featured “Harry Potter” star Daniel Radcliffe in the role of the horse-blinding boy — a role that required on-stage nudity. (The production, which also starred Richard Griffiths as the psychiatrist, was transferred to Broadway in 2008 and earned Radcliffe a Drama Desk Award nomination.)
And while the performances in this production were generally well-received, some critics found Shaffer’s '70s-era play to be dated.
Lucas begs to differ. “The compelling aspects of ‘Equus’ for me don't take the form of sweeping themes or political undertones, but instead, lie within the guts of the story,” she said. “ Good stories never go out of fashion.”
Comments
Halter
Thu, Feb 24, 2011 : 3:26 a.m.
Not sure what the vitriol is all about here toward Equus -- it's a pretty standard popular theater piece that is very entertaining and has had successful productions on Broadway (including the recent revival with Daniel Radcliffe), regionally, in colleges, and community theaters across America... The piece is what it is. But you can't deny it's a popular piece of American theater modern classics at this point. As to the small theater space at sh/aut/ what do YOU suggest? There ISN'T any theater space available in Ann Arbor -- those of us who direct, produce, and do theater locally know what a battle it is to find even basement theater space for a week let alone have their own viable space, no matter how small it might be. My only comment there is, if you don't like that small theater, then help our theater community find a way to finance and build a larger community-assessible theater space like most cities the size of Ann Arbor possess. That doesn't exist here. Want two weeks at the Miller Theater on North Campus? You have a two-year wait for a space....want to use Lydia Mendelssohn for a week? You can plan something for 2012 during either summer break or spring break when neither students (nor by extension audience) are around...Want to use the high school theater spaces? You can't. The school system has made it next to impossible for anyone outside the school to rent any of that space -- chess club meeting inside the theater takes precedent over any theater company that might want to rent it for the week. Looking forward to the Blackbird production....
Christopher Potter
Wed, Feb 23, 2011 : 9:29 p.m.
For what it's worth, there are two enduring theatrical truths regarding "Equus:" 1. It's a bunch of philosophical hooey. Is it fundamental to the human condition to yearn to gallop like a centaur and cavort like a deity? 2. It's also one hell of an entertaining piece of theater when done well. All it takes is good acting, directorial imagination, and a minimum of focus on Shaffer's perpetual I-wanna-be-a-god complex. Physically it's a show that could fit cozily into Blackbird's limited playing space, and I wish them all the best. Just go easy on the superman stuff.
Blackbird
Mon, Feb 14, 2011 : 2:25 a.m.
Quick correction to our web address: <a href="http://www.blackbirdtheatre.org" rel='nofollow'>www.blackbirdtheatre.org</a> Catch us in previews this week. See the show and give us your feedback!
A2lover
Sat, Feb 12, 2011 : 1:11 p.m.
Regardless of the limited space and inexperience of the director, why do the play in the first place? It's dated, not a very good play and relies on gimmicks and nudity (a theme at Blackbird) to bring in an audience.
Ray Barkley
Fri, Feb 11, 2011 : 7:37 p.m.
As a frequent patron of the Blackbird I total disagree with the comments of Rusty. First, the director has correctly identified the "the guts of the story" and that is what she seems to be referring to as "pushing the envelope". I commend her for taking on the challenge of bring this story to the Ann Arbor theatre followers. I believe that to see this play would show that you are open to "broadway" greats and I believe Ann Arbor patrons are ready to embrace true theatre work not just the run of the local mill types performances. The cast selected by the Director shows that this will be a quality performance for the Blackbird.
rusty shackelford
Fri, Feb 11, 2011 : 9:04 p.m.
Perhaps she is being unintentionally maligned by the author of the article, but the way the director talked about the play did not give me confidence that this production will be any more professional than the one the RC Players did several years ago, at 1/5 the cost.
rusty shackelford
Fri, Feb 11, 2011 : 2:34 p.m.
It doesn't seem like BT thought things through very carefully before committing to SH/aut. It seems that every review contains some comment about awkward or problematic staging. There's a difference between an "intimate venue," and one that is just too small to be appropriate for what you're trying to do. I wish this article included some information about what the director actually thinks about the play. I can't tell if the author didn't include her thoughts, or if the director just doesn't have anything notable to say about the play. All I know about her take on it is that she only read it for the first time recently (not a good sign, since it's kind of an essential play of the last half century), and that she likes it. The fact that she is uninterested in the play's themes or politics seems troubling to me; if that's the case, you're just appealing to the audience's prurience. What's the point of that? And it's hard for me to see a play written in the 70s that has been produced many times on Broadway as still somehow "pushing the envelope."