Wilde time

I saw a performance at the Hilberry Theatre yesterday. The weather was quite messy, so if I hadn't ordered and paid for a ticket I would not have bothered. Snow fell while I taught yesterday afternoon and highways were slow going for the evening commute. But instead of going home I went to Detroit's Midtown area.

First stop, after a slow drive from the college, was Whole Foods, as in while I'm in the area… By the time I parked near the theater I had only a half hour for supper (though I could have -- and did -- delve into what I had just bought at Whole Foods). I dashed into a Mid-East fast food place on the Wayne State University campus (of which the Hilberry is a part).

The preshow discussion for a very sparse crowd started a bit late. The speaker was John Corvino, a WSU philosophy professor and known as the Gay Moralist. It is his reputation that prompted me to attend last night's performance rather than one with better weather. He gave a bit of background and context for the evening's play, though he didn't enhance the evening's experience all that much.

The play was Gross Indecency: The Three Trials of Oscar Wilde. The script was written/assembled by Moises Kaufman. He's the same guy who created The Laramie Project about the death of Matthew Shepard and both plays have actors playing multiple roles. Material was taken from the various descriptions of the trial (including the official transcript) and writings of the participants.

Yes, we're talking about the famous Oscar Wilde, the one who wrote the novel The Picture of Dorian Gray and the play The Importance of Being Ernest among lots of other things that skewered Victorian England. I had known the outlines of the 1895 trials: Wilde took Lord Alfred Douglas as an "intimate friend." Alfred's father, Marquess Queensberry who was estranged from his son, objected to the relationship and threatened Wilde. Queensberry left a calling card at Wilde's club, which contained the words, "For Oscar Wilde, posing as a somdomite." He wasn't a good speller. Wilde sued for libel. Queensberry responded that it wasn't libel because it was true. During the trial when Queensberry's lawyer threatened to call several of Wilde's boy-toys as witnesses, Wilde withdrew the suit. That implied Queensberry was telling the truth. And that implied the Crown has a case of gross indecency against Wilde.

I didn't know the second trial ended in a hung jury or that there had been a third trial. I did know the final trial (which I thought was the second) ended in a guilty verdict. Because the crime was so detestable the judge sentenced Wilde to two years of hard labor. The judge thought Wilde deserved more, but the law limited the sentence to two years. Serving that time broke his health. The nature of the crime and the cost of the trials caused his finances to collapse. Wilde died three years after release at the age of 46.

There were two telling moments in the trials. At one time Wilde was asked by the opposing lawyer if he had kissed a particular boy. Wilde said he had not. Why not? "Because he was ugly." Wrong answer. The second was when he was asked, "What is the love that dare not speak its name?" Wilde's response was eloquent and too long to reproduce here. The text is in Wilde's Wikipedia entry.

At the start of the second act the playwright, portrayed by an actor, interviews a college professor about Wilde. It covered some of the same material John Corvino did. One point presented: Is it appropriate for Wilde to be described as gay when he didn't see himself as gay? Part of that is the concept of homosexuality was just making its way into English. That could be argued for a long time.

More importantly is Wilde's contribution to modern thought. Wilde defended Dorian Grey, in spite of its unsavory characters, because the story is told artistically. By the end of the trials Wilde began to see himself as a homosexual. Alas, the "professor" in the play was rambling and the Wikipedia entry doesn't have a section on cultural contributions.

I knew the Hilberry was color-blind when casting. There was a show a few years ago in which a senator in 1950s America had a black actress playing his wife. But I didn't think their casting was gender-blind. This play has nine actors on stage, all but two playing multiple roles. I was surprised that the actor playing lawyer Sir Edward Clarke was female. She and the female playing the judge (and one of the insolent boy-toys) did a marvelous job. In reading the program afterward I found out why women had those roles. There are only a dozen actors in the company this year (usually 18-20) and seven of them are male. They didn't have enough men for all the roles.

I also noticed something in the program that raises another question. The Hilberry Theatre company awards a Master degree in acting and takes three years. Actors are listed as "2nd year" etc. But this time there are no "1st year" students. Is the program ending or downsizing? Perhaps changing focus? There are 1st year students listed in the other departments -- acting, scene and light design, stage and theater management.

A review of the play is here, though this blog doesn't allow extracting an isolated entry. Scroll down to find it.