Joan of Arc has been a woman written about by the best writers history has had to offer. When Shakespeare and George Bernard Shaw have tackled the subject, you know that you are headed in pretty heady territory. Despite the fact that she's no Shakespeare, Angels Unaware, a new play by Melissa Leilani Larson, has such a fresh approach to the subject, that I think it would be very difficult for a person to come out of the play without a new perspective on Joan of Arc. Not only a new perspective, but that this historic woman had a sense of inspiration and light.

What is this newness, this point of attack that makes this such an interesting and moving play? What does Larson focus on that the brilliance of Shaw and Shakespeare failed to? It may sound ironic to say such, since its the very thing that was Joan of Arc's main driving force, but it can be encapsulated in one word: Religion. In that one word we find the greatest strengths and weaknesses of the play.

Here's the premise: Joan's guiding spirits, Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret (with occassional appearances from Michael the Archangel) have an assignment: to help Joan of Arc free France from England's oppression within a year's time. There's one hitch, however, which is one of the play's most interesting premises-- these "Saints" don't really know what they're doing.

Larson takes a wonderful departure from classical representations of heavenly beings: that these Saints aren't nearly so grand, omniscient and all powerful as we would assume they would be. She scales them down from something perfect to something oh so beautifully human (and in the process places them squarely in the LDS concept of the Spirit World, an "in between place", as its described in the play).

In this process the play is not solely about Joan of Arc (in fact, it can be argued that she is not even the main character). The two Christian Martyrs killed by the Romans, Catherine and Margaret, are good friends who had known each other in the mortal realm, but have often opposing personalities, especially in regard to guiding Joan.

Catherine has a mother bear instinct, wanting to smooth Joan's path, to help her with miracles, to protect her from pain (even to the point of making her a promise to bring her home safely-- a promise, which even the most casual student of history knows, she won't be able to keep). Much of this come from her own experiences of being tortured for her faith and wanting to shield Joan from the experiences that she wishes she didn't have to endure herself on the wheel and then the beheading block.

Margaret, on the other hand, is more of a realist. She doesn't hide from unpleasant truths, nor the possibility that their guidance may lead Joan into the very thing that both these woman had to endure themselves-- a painful and tortured death. At times this makes her seem a little cold hearted to Catherine-- but, although it's a tougher form of it, her love for Joan is no less real. And, for me personally, I liked Margaret's character more, for she reflects more fully my view on life. We must never let emotionalism and attachment estrange us from the truth. Pain must never deter us from Peace. Although we see through Jennie Pardoe's spot on performance that, although she may not express it as much Catherine, she feels the pain no less. Let us remember that Catherine can't boast any pain or torture that Margaret can't match-- she had been, according to the legend, sexually harassed, boiled alive, burned alive, swallowed by the devil in a form of a dragon, had her breasts cut off and then she was beheaded. She knew her fair share of psychological and physical pain. In these women, as well as in Joan and other characters who we are introduced to, we find one of Larson's greatest strengths as a playwright: character. Larson makes her characters multi-faceted-- very few of them are card board cut outs. They have conflicting interests, weaknesses, passions, fears, glories-- they are what all people are, mutts with the mix of divinity and humanity within them.

However, the script is not without its flaws:

- The dialogue starts out rather didactic and clunky (fortunately, this is repaired as the play goes on and Larson finds her groove and the dialogue becomes more fluid and natural).

- A couple of the villains (although convincingly acted), betray Larson's otherwise powerful grasp on character. They're villainy seems a little too complete.

- Larson introduces a device which I'm reluctant to criticize since I've used it in own of my own plays-- a chorus of "historians" (which made me a little nervous when I saw it on the program because "Historians" are even what I call my own Chorus in my play Friends of God. Fortunately, even though they act various roles in the play as mine did, they didn't prove to be too much like my concept).

The concept isn't bad, but, especially since these Hitorians introduce the play, they (as historians, not as the characters they portray thorughout) play too little a part of the narrative. They throw out factual information every once in a while, to update us to what is happening, but do little else. They're kind of a one sided book end plot. And since we already have one of those with Margaret, Catherine and Michael, they're kind of redundant and don't serve much of a purpose. The information they give out could easily be taken up by the Saints instead. And Larson never really does follow through with them-- they seem to be an idea that really intrigued Larson, but didn't know what to do with by the end. They become a loose end at the end of the narrative.

Then there's the subject of Religion which prevails so much throughout the play. And not only Religion, but often Mormon Religion, manifesting itself through themes, comparisons and theology. As I said before, within this point of attack is found the play's greatest strengths and weaknesses.

For example, there is a comparison of Joan to Joseph Smith (although only an LDS person would probably pick up on it) throughout the play which I rather liked. However, at one point it became glaringly blatant and completely took me out of the show. Joan is thrown into prison and she says," O God, Where Art Thou? And where is the pavilion that covereth thy hiding place?" Although this text is also found in the Bible, that phrase has been so connected to Joseph Smith in the LDS mind, that it totally took me out of the story at hand. The parallels between them are certainly there and we can definitely benefit from looking at the comparisons. However, in the end this wasn't a play about the Prophet. It's a play about a Prophetess. That moment, instead of following Joan's story and feeling her pain, I thought of the ordeal of Liberty Jail. Instead of inspiring me, it distracted me. There are other moments like that throughout the play, where the religion, (instead of being an elegant addition as it usually is through the play), becomes a little clumsy and heavy handed.

Yet, when all is said and done, all of these little flaws I've pointed out are forgiven. For the play is powerful, it is moving, it is beautiful. The spirituality that is infused in the very bones and sinews of the play make it radiate. At the point when Joan is burned at the stake, something very beautiful happens (I won't spoil it for you, since I want everyone to see this play), and tears poured down my face. Not because of emotional manipulation or melodrama. But because at that moment, the Spirit rushed through me and I felt as if I was about to burst with light. That light followed me home, as my wife and I discussed the play, both of us very impressed and edified.

Much of the positive experience came from the great production values. First of all, I don't think I've seen a play directed by David Morgan that I didn't like. The aesthetic and the intellectual are always fully realized in his productions (although, I kind of chuckled to myself when I saw that the play was in a tennis court arena style, since he had just used that on A Marrying Man. It's a style that's very interesting, however).

The acting was skilled and powerful especially by Hollie Beard as Joan of Arc; Jason Purdie as King Charles and Warwick; and Slate Holmgren who plays the most sympathetic and interesting of Larson's villains, the Arch Bishop Cauchron. However, I was very pleased with the whole cast. A very balanced and skilled ensemble.

The set was beautiful (using lovely stain glass windows of Catholic Saints). The costuming was elegant and effective (my wife is usually very critical of costuming, and they passed with flying colors under her scrutinizing eye).

But, in the end, to me what matters most to me, being a playwright myself, is the script. And, with the few exceptions I've already noted, I think Larson is a powerful talent. Sometimes she wears her faith on her sleeve, but that is often said of me as well, so I don't count it against her. For the sleeve it's worn on, and the faith itself, has elegance, craftmanship, dimension and beauty. But, perhaps most important of all in a show that is focused on the spiritual and the religious, the play edifies.

Mahonri Stewart
March 12, 2006