The Lion in Winter by James Goldman, directed by SSP members Steven Walanka and Scott Rosengarden
October 20–November 12, 2006.
“The Lion In Winter has more wit in every speech than some hits have in an entire evening…a growling, snarling, skin-piercing, skull rattling exhibit couched in marvelously articulate language with humor that bristles and burns.” –Los Angeles Times
“A play of intelligence, astringent wit and much theatrical skill.” – New York Times.
Few plays achieved the recognition of the well known classic The Lion in Winter. This play transports us to Europe in the 12th Century, a time of love and lust, greed and power, chivalry and treachery when Henry II ruled England with an iron fist. One of his most important conquests was the beautiful, charming and politically powerful Eleanor of Aquitaine. Through their marriage they have become the dominant force in England and France.
Their liaison also spawned three sons, (actually at last count it appears they had at least 12 sons, but only three are dealt with in this play), and three possible heirs to Henry’s throne: Richard the Lion Heart (future King Of England, who was bold, brash and homosexual), Geoffrey (the conniver), and John (Also, a future King Of England, who is still basically a child during this play, and is portrayed as a bit of a spoiled, sniveling idiot) The Lion In Winter revolves around Henry’s volatile relationship with Eleanor and the battle of his strong-willed sons for his throne. Henry’s desire to keep his kingdom together is obstructed by his sons’ divisive fight for his throne and Eleanor’s skillful manipulation of Henry and her sons.
This collision of egos and corruption of poser fuels this fiercely emotional drama. Goldman’s masterful use of language gives it a sense of eloquence and humor. We see the best and the worst of expressions of human character. It passionately displays our abilities to sacrifice blood ties and familial loyalties to achieve our political aspirations. The Lion In Winter transcends history and challenges us to ask: what’s the price of power?
Although this play is historical in nature, Goldman takes many liberties with that history (example: there was not a meeting of the entire family during the year and at the place stated in this play, but there was such a meeting earlier in Caan…) This piece should not be done heavy handed dramatic style as a Shakespearian style, just as it should not be done as a total farce. If we think of our own families it is always a mix between humor and drama with the lines sometimes, disappearing. Although the subject matter of the play involves those things royal, the functions and dysfunctions of our own families, we believe are issues that are just as big as Kings.
We believe that this show works on the level of an audience recognizing themselves or family members in this work. If any of us sat back and watched our families interact, we would all see the humor and pathos which is engaged. We see this play as partly absurdist and partly poignant to any audiences point of view.
Steven Walanka Scott Rosengarden
