The Joy And Silliness Of Shakespeare In 120 Minutes

There’s a benefit to silly. In our culture, society has a habit of overanalyzing everything — especially middling part-time arts writers. That’s why when confronted with the opportunity to let go and exist within a moment, you need to take it.

Sometimes basking in a chance to be silly, or at least witness it, can bring all the warmth and meaning the deepest, most recognizable dramas routinely do. Eventide Theatre Company’s latest production does this perfectly.

On June 4, Eventide debuted its latest production, “The Complete Works of William Shakespeare (abridged).” Directed by Donna Wresinski, the play has one central question established almost immediately: can the canon of William Shakespearre be told in under two hours? In what is part a series of pseudo–Saturday Night Live sketches and part the sensibilities of Monty Python, the journey the audience embarks on is one full of infinite pop culture references, irreverent pacing, and a rapt focus on what the quintet of actors just might do or say next. 

The action begins with Rick, the “Director,” played by Rick Sherburne, as he makes his way to the stage and shares all the pertinent information an audience could need — where the exits and bathrooms are, and how to join the raffle. Where the play changes is when he welcomes Mike, played by Mike Devine, to provide a legal announcement that really isn’t a legal announcement. From there, the bits begin and Mike welcomes both Maxie, played by Maxie Davidson, and the revered Shakespearean scholar Bill, played by Bill Rubidge, to provide a little more context to our mission for the night. Once Amanda, played by Amanda Hinsman, is welcomed to the stage, the play begins towards its goal: figuring out if the entirety of Shakespeare can be told in under 120 minutes.

Frankly, this was hilarious. I didn’t really have a clue of what was going to be going on (outside of the premise). I’ve dealt a lot with Shakespeare throughout my life, whether it be my own study through two English degrees or 10 years’ worth of pulling teenagers through “Macbeth,” “King Lear,” “Twelfth Night,” “The Merchant of Venice,” or “Romeo and Juliet.” In all that time, I haven’t engaged with something that has made me see another side to Shakespeare’s work like this play did. It was like watching one of those episodes of “Family Guy” where they spoof a book report on a famous text or sitting amongst friends where a group of people are riffing on a topic to find the best joke. 

 “The Complete Works of William Shakespeare (abridged)” blends the best of improv and audience participation in a confined structure that is incredibly hard not to become immediately invested in. Whether you’re the biggest Shakespeare nerd, like myself, or someone who cheated on their world literature final, there are common points for all that will make any audience member laugh the night away. 

Any play owes its success to its actors. Mike Devine seemingly can do anything. From impressions to crowd work to lightsaber fighting (when you see it, it’ll make sense), Devine was an unexpected force. Maxie Davidson had some of the best one-liners of the night and an expressive quality to her acting that was nothing but engaging. Bill Rubidge, who was tasked with playing the “academic” of the group, was probably the closest thing to what an audience member expects of someone who loves Shakespeare. What makes his character extremely memorable is how that devolves into farce by the end of the performance. Amanda Hinsman offers a naiveté in her character that gets funnier and funnier as the night goes on (I particularly enjoyed her learning and developing Ophelia). Lastly, Rick Sherborne crafts a director that is part Martin Scorsese and part Rob Riener and is tasked with being the closest thing to a straight man the proceeding has, intermittently jumping in to keep the other four on task in the goal of the night.

The last thing to mention is the bits. “The Complete Works of William Shakespeare (abridged)” offers retellings of “Romeo and Juliet” and “Hamlet” that emphasize notable points in each story, yet the smaller works are probably the most memorable. From “Titus Andronicus” as a cooking show to the histories played out as a football game to all of the comedies mashed together in an amalgamation that notes the common points they share, the play is so varied and inspired that each bit, and the actors within, does its best to outdo the other.