Lowering the curtain on 2009

Here are a few final thoughts before I bid farewell to 2009, my third year of theatergoing:

• I'm sad that Finian's Rainbow is closing Jan. 17, despite some great reviews. It seems like on Broadway, they hardly give shows a chance anymore. Yes, the musical's story was kind of silly and a bit of a hodgepodge but in the end I was charmed, especially by the lovely Kate Baldwin and the spritely Christopher Fitzgerald. Also, Finian's Rainbow had one of the most attractive posters I've seen.
  

• Speaking of posters, not that it matters but A Steady Rain had one of the worst designs I've ever seen. How can you take two handsome men like Daniel Craig and Hugh Jackman and make them almost painful to look at? I guess it was designed to symbolize their friendship, the merging of their lives. But it made them look like a two-headed Cyclops.
  

• Of my favorite lines in 2009 none was more shocking than one from Mary Stuart. I could not believe it when Janet McTeer as the imprisoned Mary, Queen of Scots taunted Queen Elizabeth I (Harriet Walter) with: "The throne of England is desecrated by a bastard." Not a wise thing to say to the woman who holds the keys to your jail and the warrant for your execution!

• Spoiler alert: I never realized that watching someone vomit on stage could be so entertaining but Hope Davis was superb at, er, "erupting" in God of Carnage. And watching the other three actors scurry around, trying to help her and cleaning up the mess, was hilarious. This is a scene that I knew was coming but it was executed in a way that still managed to surprise me.
  

• reasons to be pretty had an ending that made me laugh and cheer. Thomas Sadoski's character makes an obscene gesture after he's quit his job in the warehouse of a Costco-like chain. It was a beautiful moment and symbolized the way Sadoski's Greg became his own man. I hadn't planned on seeing this play but I ended up enjoying it so much, in large part due to Sadoski's engaging performance. Despite the ever-increasing appearance of celebrities on Broadway stages, it's most often the actors who aren't household names who end up making the biggest impression on me.
  

• On the downside, I've noticed more theatergoers arriving late and is it my imagination or have candy wrappers become more crinkly and noisy in the past year?
  

• Speaking of noise, I heard The Marvelous Wonderettes thumping above my head when I saw Love, Loss, and What I Wore at the Westside Theatre and I heard the rumbling of the subway trains beneath my feet during Waiting for Godot at Studio 54. Grrr.
  

• I'd been dreading 2009 long before January but thanks to my theatre-loving friends, it turned out to be a wonderful year, better than I could possibly have imagined. They made sure I had the best birthday ever. I am so grateful to them for that and for so much more.
  

• To everyone who read my blog, left a comment, followed me on Twitter, friended me on Facebook, sent me an e-mail, joined me for lunch, brunch dinner or a show, thank-you for the gift of your time and your friendship. Here's to a happy, healthy and adventure-filled 2010!
  

• Finally, out of everything I've read about theatre in 2009, this description by playwright Adam Szymkowicz of the plays that excite him resonated with me the most:
  
  "I want to have a good time. I want to laugh, I want to be engaged, I want to care. I like plays about things. I like crazy off the wall experiments and I like naturalism, too. Most importantly, I like narrative. If you're not telling me a story, I get bored and I hate your play. I don't want to hate your play. I want you to show me something new. I get excited by something I haven't seen before."

Mary Stuart

Gratuitous Violins rating *** out of ****

I've always been an Anglophile and I loved The Six Wives of Henry VIII when the BBC series aired in the United States in the early 1970s. But I'm kind of rusty on my Tudor history, so I did some quick research on Wikipedia before seeing Mary Stuart on Broadway.

And honestly, I think I would have been a little lost without that homework. There are terrific performances but the first act of this three-hour play was a bit of a slog for me. I couldn't quite figure out what roles everyone in the supporting cast was playing, who was loyal to whom.

Still, if I was feeling dazed and confused for the first 90 minutes or so, the brilliance and clarity of the second act more than makes up for it.

Mary Stuart tells the story of the clash between the Protestant Elizabeth I of England, played with steely resolve by Harriet Walter, and the Catholic Mary, Queen of Scots, portrayed by a fiery and passionate Janet McTeer, whom Elizabeth has imprisoned and accused of trying to overthrow her.

This is a new adaptation, by British playwright Peter Oswald, of a work by 18th-century German writer Friedrich Schiller. It won great reviews it was staged at at London's Donmar Warehouse several years ago with Walter and McTeer.

The women, and McTeer's nurse, played by Maria Tucci, are dressed in Elizbethan (I think) garb, while all the male courtiers and advisers wear modern suits.

I've read that this was a financial decision but it also highlights the different worlds that the men and women in this play inhabit. At a time when power normally was wielded by men, it makes Elizabeth and Mary stand out even more.

While I found the first act slow going, the second act, which opens with a fictitious meeting between the two queens, carries such tremendous force and intensity that Mary Stuart redeemed itself.

Anthony Ward's costumes and scenic design, Hugh Vanstone's lighting and Paul Arditti's sound combine for a stunning effect. This is where the struggle between these cousins and bitter rivals crystallizes and it's riveting to watch.

The performances by McTeer and Walter are wonderful. What I love is how distinct they make their characters.

McTeer's Mary is impetuous and headstrong and sometimes acts without thinking. She's warm and inspires devotion. Walter's Queen Elizabeth is Mary's opposite. She thinks to the point of almost being unable to act, or maybe that's part of her act. She's calculating and cold. (When I met Walter afterward, I was surprised at how small she is - she seems so imposing on stage.)

It was pretty fascinating to watch both women interact with their male advisers, wondering whom they can trust. Elizabeth especially is very canny in the way she uses them. I liked John Benjamin Hickey as the conniving Earl of Leicester and Chandler Williams as Mortimer, who remains loyal to Mary.

Even in Act II, though, there were a few things that didn't quite work for me - a scene of comic relief that seemed out of place, for one. And I thought the play was going to end several times before it finally did.

I think it's a tribute to both actresses that I wasn't sure how I felt about Elizabeth and Mary. Was Mary unjustly imprisoned or getting what she deserved? Did Elizabeth act out of a fit of pique or did she really have no other choice if Mary and her followers posed a threat?

So I'm glad I saw Mary Stuart, just for the thrill of watching Walter and McTeer play two fierce queens.