Jane v. Jane: Presented by Book-It and ArtsWest

I love when two theaters put on wildly different versions of the same story because it provides multiple interpretations. When I saw that both Book-It and ArtsWest had Jane Eyre on their season line-ups, I knew that I wouldn't rest easy unless I had experienced both. I love Book-It theater because it shares many actors with Seattle Shakespeare (who I adore), and ArtsWest puts on some of the most beautiful musicals in Seattle (I took voice lessons years ago from the recent Mrs. Lovett from Sweeney Todd and she NAILED the role). I would warn that there are spoilers ahead but...the book by Charlotte Brontë came out in 1847.

I always wished to be a plain, solemn child after reading Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte when I was a young girl. I suppose it's the same premise of many teen movies, an "ugly, boring girl" gets the popular guy after he realizes the cheerleaders are rude and vapid. However, the ending of the novel (and therefore the play) takes a gentle turn into Victorian Horror which was played out SO nicely by the cast of Book-It.

With all cast members except Jane and Mr. Rochester playing multiple roles, I want to give a quick shout-out to the crew backstage who were responsible for the flawless costume changes. I've been there, and there's is nothing more stressful than trying to change wigs under a time crunch. There were so many roles! From crotchety old ladies, a squad of students, two collections of mean girls, and even a very nice dog, the story of Jane Eyre takes the audience through a good portion of her life and therefore has quite a few environment changes. Because Book-It uses their own scripts, it's easier to add in roles that provide limited assistance to the storyline but WOW that dog was hilarious. Hats off to the writers and director for finding the funny in this grey Victorian tale. It must have been a logistical nightmare to figure out who was available at what time, and would have the opportunity to change before their next appearance, and ensure that no presence overlapped. But somehow everything came together and a show was born. And there was nothing plain or solemn about it. 

Jane is a spirited creature, willful and excitable, full of strong feelings, and is charmingly portrayed by Mi Huang. Taking Jane from small, angry child to fiercely loving adult, Mi brought the audience through her journey and showed how the people in your life can change how you view the world. We all grieved for the loss of the pure-hearted Helen, and followed Jane as she learned the power of forgiveness. This Jane is feisty, blunt, and confident that she can handle whatever comes her way. The relationship between her and Rochester, while important to the story, doesn't become the focus of the tale. Book-It did a lovely job of telling the story from Jane's perspective, putting herself at the forefront instead of her relationships.

The ArtsWest Jane Eyre was a musical, requiring very different pacing. Already a tough story to translate to the stage because of the sheer quantity of completely different characters and events which are very important to Jane's journey, musicals necessitate five minutes breaks every ten minutes to describe the internal emotions of the characters. The song "Forgiveness" was a highlight of the show, giving child and adult Jane the chance to share her most important lesson. "Forgiveness is the mightiest sword" indeed. Chelsea LeValley sang beautifully, and brought a very emotional Jane to the stage. She was in tears almost every song she sang after meeting Rochester because of her inner turmoil, feelings of rejection, joy, betrayal, and finally happiness. It was very touching. As someone who doesn't love stage-tears, I was a little over it by song 3, but it fit the soft Jane she was portraying. The musical is all about the love story, every other character is merely there to help explain why Jane idolizes Rochester.

Part of the charm of Jane Eyre, and referenced throughout much of the novel is that she is not classically beautiful. Her love interest, Rochester is also not supposed to be very handsome and indeed both characters spend a good amount of time telling each other how unattractive the other is. I would like to lodge an official compliant with ArtsWest because it is very hard to take a show seriously when the stunning LeValley is called "childish slender creature", "a slip of a girl", and herself sings that she is "unfinished metal" and "plain and uneven". If that's what she is, what are the rest of us? Apparently this is a regular issue with the show, even the Broadway production received complaints that the actress who originated Jane was too pretty to be a "plain Jane". Book-It was more successful, using limited makeup and a simple hairstyle to get the point across.

Secondary complaint, both theaters cast good looking Rochesters. The Book-It actor looked like a Disney prince and I wanted to take a poll of the audience to see if we could find a single person who would admit they weren't angry about how pretty he was. Also, it was mentioned only once that Rochester was supposed to be near 40, and both actors were around 30 at a guess. I'm blaming the producers for this one, not the actors of course. Everyone acted superbly and I'm very proud of them. 

I loved how both theaters cast the actresses playing Miss Ingram, Jane's rival, also as Rochester's mad wife. It was a good connection to draw between the two characters who both drive a wedge between Jane and her true love. The two characters are wildly different, showing a decent range for the women portraying them. Miss Ingram is a classic mean girl, with an over-the-top cattiness that makes her one of the few comedic characters in the play. Truly a joy to watch, and shows her as the complete contrast to Jane's quiet kindness. Rochester's wife on stage is a one-dimensional character, the mad violent woman who is an intriguing plot point but mostly glossed over. There are so many good essays written about the audacity of locking up your "mad" wife in the attic and acting surprised when she sets you on fire. Side note: If you're literally at the alter with a man (who up until now was your employer and is twice your age, I don't care how rich he is), and RIGHT THEN you find out that his current wife is currently locked up in the house because she went a little bananas a few decades ago, pretty please #leavehim. I don't care if God sends you his voice later on. GTFO. Do not pass go, do not return to him. Although, if you do return and he is blind, he might have a harder time locking you up at a later point so it might end up alright. I'm just saying it's a gamble.

Overall, I preferred the Book-It production because the characters were easier to connect with. The actors were given room to transport us back to the English moors. The ArtsWest cast were incredibly talented and the vocals were quite impressive (including a very soulful Vicar), but the script was rushed to make room for the songs, which unfortunately seemed to be included only because the playwrights had determined that they wanted to make a musical. The audience was rushed along from scene to scene, and we were not given the time to truly care about anyone other than the beautiful plain romantic leads.