Home > Off-Broadway Reviews >An Error Of The Moon Review

OFF-BROADWAY REVIEW

An Error Of The Moon Review Off-BroadwayLIFE IMITATES SHAKESPEARE
Reviewed by Ron S. Covar
Published 2010-09-01

What will happen if a celebrated record producer-songwriter and a successful ballet dancer-choreographer decide to put up a show without a single song or dance number in it? It’s not like having the songwriter and the dancer as stars of the show but rather, having them as playwright and director, respectively. Can they deliver? That’s probably the thought racing through the minds of theatergoers on their way to The Beckett Theatre on Theatre Row for the premier staging of An Error of the Moon by the highly-accomplished team of playwright Luigi Creatore and director Kim Weild.

 

Billed as a speculative tale about the relationship between Edwin Booth and his younger brother, John Wilkes Booth, An Error of the Moon takes a 360-degree turn from Creatore’s earlier play on the Booth brothers, The Man Who Shot Lincoln, which was weakened by an avalanche of factual references. This time, Creatore dispensed with history lesson and wrote a fictional account of the Booth brothers’ relationship. Creatore’s speculations are premised on Oscar Wilde’s antimimetic philosophy that life imitates art far more than art imitates life. In this case, the art is Shakespeare’s Othello which is appropriate since Edwin Booth has always been associated with Othello. Edwin’s portrayal of Othello’s villain, Iago, was touted as one of the best ever seen on stage.  It is not surprising that the play’s title is also borrowed from Othello.

 

The plot as well as other elements of An Error of the Moon is clearly inspired by Shakespeare’s Othello. Creatore’s homage to Shakespeare provides notable juxtapositions. In Shakespeare’s Othello, Iago destroys Othello by concocting a scheme to mislead Othello into believing that his (Othello’s) wife, Desdemona, is having an extramarital affair with Othello’s lieutenant, Cassio. In Creatore’s An Error of the Moon, Edwin Booth unwittingly destroys himself by concocting a scenario in his mind which leads him to believe that his wife, Mary, is having an extramarital affair with his brother, John. As the object of Edwin’s jealousy, Mary is undoubtedly Desdemona. John, as the third party in Edwin’s self-fabricated love triangle, is Cassio. Edwin is Othello and Iago at the same time. As a victim, Edwin is Othello. Edwin’s internal conflict arising from his paranoia over his imagined affair between his wife and his brother makes up Edwin’s own Iago. Although Creatore deliberately avoided turning John’s diary into Desdemona’s handkerchief, Desdemona is obliquely referred to when John boasts about receiving a pass for President Abraham Lincoln’s inauguration from akHalea senator’s daughter who will do anything for John. Othello’s wife, Desdemona, is a senator’s daughter. 

 

Creatore’s narrative straddles between the main plot involving Edwin’s paranoia over his wife’s supposed affair with John and the subplot involving John’s obsession to kidnap President Lincoln. However, the play suffers because the Lincoln subplot does not complement the main plot. Considering Edwin’s regret that he could have prevented Lincoln’s assassination, it appears that the main plot is the one which complements the subplot, thus burdening the play with two stories running simultaneously. While a minor subplot involving John’s acting career somehow affects the main plot, it is not fully explored. Since the play is subtitled as mere speculation, Creatore could have been more creative and bolder with his speculations concerning his subplot to fully illuminate the play’s main plot. A fictionalized play based on real-life characters serves as litmus test of a playwright’s boundless creativity and vast imagination without necessarily crossing the boundaries of widely-known facts.

 

It is difficult to sympathize with the play’s principal character, Edwin, because he created his own problem and his suspicion about his wife’s unfaithfulness is utterly baseless. Overhearing part of a conversation while he is heavily intoxicated does not provide a solid foundation from which to draw his conclusion. With this lame basis and his descent to madness, it doesn’t take long before Edwin’s constant nagging of Mary about the real father of their child, Edwina, becomes annoying. Even after Mary is gone, Edwin still mulls over the same question.


The play’s conclusion also appears to have been forced as it comes in the form of deus ex machina: Edwin’s epiphany is aided by his father’s “ghost”. Edwin’s realization and subsequent transformation may have signaled the completion of his character arc but his journey as principal character barely satisfies as there are no real struggles for him to rise above his predicament.

 

The play is presented as flashback, framed by Edwin’s narration in the afterlife. However, the use of deceased Edwin as bookend appears arbitrary and weak because it is not organic to the play. The play’s plot is not about Edwin’s demise.

 

Shortly after John Wilkes Booth made his New York acting debut in 1862, he was hailed as the most promising young actor on the American stage. Almost one and a half centuries later, Andrew Veenstra now makes his off-Broadway acting debut playing the role of John Wilkes Booth but similar compliments cannot be bestowed upon Mr. Veenstra whose attempt to capture John Wilkes Booth’s political zeal and exuberant personality falls short. As Edwin Booth, Erik Heger should have also infused more heart and soul into his role. Margaret Copeland’s part as Mary Devlin Booth does not provide real opportunity to show her acting talent. Brian Wallace displays versatility in his multitude of roles.

 

The other elements of the production are better executed. Alixandra Gage Englund’s simple yet elegant costumes are evocative of the period. Charles Foster‘s creative lighting and Christian Frederickson’s sound design are unobtrusive. Although the confinement of The Beckett Theatre’s performance area made the space look cramped, Steven Capone’s stylized stage design enhanced the production. While C. Andrew Bauer’s initially sparse and discreet video projections complement the action on stage, they later turn repetitive and tiresome. If not used cautiously, video projections can be literal showstoppers.

 

Fresh from the creative triumph of her Drama desk-nominated Fetes de la Nuit, director Kim Weild made some interesting directorial choices in An Error of the Moon. However, she could have spiced up the play’s staging with some zest and vigor. The play’s material offers a treasure trove of amazing possibilities but Creatore and Weild missed their golden opportunity to turn it into a real gem of a play about two of the most brilliant theatre actors ever.

 

It is worth noting that while John Wilkes Booth is at The Beckett Theatre, hatching his evil plot to get Abraham Lincoln, the object of John’s hatred must be over the moon at nearby The Acorn Theatre as he hosts his Big Gay Dance Party. Well, that calls for an entirely different review. 


Click Here To Learn More About "Error of The Moon."




Click here to buy group tickets.

Sign Up

     

 FEATURED SHOWS: