Equivocation

by Bill Cain

The official script for the 2009 world premier production at the Angus Bowmer Theater.

King James commissions Shakespeare to write a play about the Gunpowder Plot.

Genres: Plays, Shakespeare, Drama, Theatre, Grad School, Book Club, Religion

81 pages, Spiral-bound

First published January 1, 2009

About the author

Bill Cain is an American playwright noted for an impish humor. He is the founder of the Boston Shakespeare Company, where he was Artistic Director for seven seasons, directing most of the Shakespeare canon. He is a Jesuit pries with teaching experience in New York's Lower East Side.

Reviews

[bookinglibrarian · Rating 5 out of 5]

We saw this incredible play at its world premier at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival in Ashland this summer, then saw it two more times (with the same cast & production) during its recent run at Seattle Repertory Theatre. Cain's drama overflows with intrigue and politics, while exploring the meaning of friends, family and faith in the tumultuous period following the Gunpowder Plot, set in the imagined theatrical life of Shagspeare's company at The Globe. You will not see (or read) a more thoughtful, well-written or inspiring play.

[Phillip · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an amazing example of historiographic metatheatre--a type of postmodern, self-aware theatre that understands and presents the construction of histories as a self-aware narrative act. Here we have Robert Cecil commissioning a play from William Shagspeare (one of the perhaps dozen different spellings of his name that Shakespeare used or that were printed during his lifetime) to tell the official version of the Gunpowder Plot, but Shag finds it impossible to tell the official version, and he must navigate murky waters of truth, lies, equivocation--a complex process expounded upon by Henry Garnet, who is in the play, which involves telling the truth in response to the underlying anxiety of a question without necessarily truthfully answering the question that was overtly asked. So, the wager of this play is that there are different ways to tell the truth and different ways to lie, and that what appears on the surface to be a lie can in fact be a profound truth which would otherwise be unspeakable without the context of the surface lie.

At the same time, there is a fundamental equivocation to the play as a whole, because it is overtly about political intrigue, torture, power, and religious oppression. But in a deeper and more true way, this is a play about the loss of a daughter and the desperate need to reconnect with her--much like the bulk of Shakespeare's late plays. Judith is a kind of shadowy presence throughout much of this play, showing up to look after Shag's material needs and the give him the minor--though unappreciated--pushes in the right direction that he frequently needs. But she is peripheral throughout much of the play. It is only at the ending--which I won't spoil--that it becomes clear how much the play was actually about the fractured relationship between the father and the daughter, and the various relationships and concerns about betrayal, disunity, and the hope of uniting a fragmented nation are all equivocations for the underlying anxiety about Shaq's relationship with Judith.

[Riq Hoelle · Rating 5 out of 5]

Saw this play in its premiere run at Ashland on the eighth anniversary of 9/11, which considering the subject matter, was the perfect day to see it, though in the Q&A in the Elizabethan theater afterwards, many of my fellow playgoers did not seem to see the connection. It's a wonderful, wonderful play, but curiously, because of certain tricks it uses, can probably never be done justice as a film.

[Garry Walton · Rating 4 out of 5]

What better time to read Bill Cain's alternative Shakespeare history than the week that Chloe Zhao's film version of Hamnet is hitting movie screens to wide acclaim? (I loved Maggie O'Farrell's book but found the RSC stage adaptation disappointing, so I am eager to see the film as a tie-breaker.)

Equivocation, first staged by Oregon Shakespeare in 2009, is clever in several ways - its metatheatricality, its inspired use of a tiny cast of six employed in quicksilver doubling, its explication of deadly Elizabethan-Jacobean religious and political intrigue, its creation of a new backstory for one of Shakespeare's most famous plays, Macbeth. Cain seems intent to capitalize brilliantly on the same pseudo-biographical impulse that made the Norman-Stoppard-Madden film Shakespeare in Love such a break-out hit a decade earlier.

Here we see several aspects of the historic Shakespeare in tension - the artist whose ambition and insecurity are both outsized, the loyal troupe member committed to the band of brothers who have together built a theater and an unparalleled body of work, the family man trying to survive a son lost and a family of women abandoned.

The engine of the play is the infamous Gunpowder Plot to blow up King James and Parliament at one fell swoop. Its chief engineer is Robert Cecil, prime counselor for both Elizabeth and James. In effect, Cain places Shakespeare in a Marlovian situation at the center of complicated court intrigue. The small cast swerves in an instant from Shakespeare's fellow sharers, to the Gunpowder conspirators, to James and Cecil and the prosecutors and persecutors they employ. Only Shakespeare and his daughter Judith play single roles.

As the Madden film was built around Romeo and Juliet and ended by anticipating a love story with a happier ending, Twelfth Night, this play begins with the bleak King Lear in rehearsal, turns Macbeth into a roman a clef and then gestures toward the reconciliatory last plays -- all in two acts and two hours traffic.

Some of my favorite actors toured this play with the American Shakespeare Center in 2016, but I never saw their performance. After reading it at last, now I really wish I had seen them enact it. I hope I can find a recording to appreciate both the script and the performance.

[Bardfilm · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bill Cain's Equivocation was recommended as a play about the Gunpowder Plot that had some connection to Macbeth. I dutifully requested it through Inter-Library Loan, and, after it had spent the requisite amount of time on my shelf, I read it.

Beyond the information that it connected to Macbeth, I had no idea what to expect. What I found delighted and thrilled me. I thought I was just going to dip into it, but I stayed exactly where I was until the last page—and even longer as I tried to digest what I had just experienced.

The play drops us right down in 1606 at a meeting between Shag (the name given to Shakespeare in this play—short for "Shagspeare," one contemporary spelling of the name) and Sir Robert Cecil, the Secretary of State (essentially, the Prime Minister avant la lettre) under Elizabeth the First and James the First.

Cecil is asking—make that demanding—that Shag write a play about the Gunpowder Plot (it's eventually titled The True History of the Powder Plot).

The rest of the play is about that endeavor and Shag's skepticism about the official version of events. We get glimpses of that play in rehearsal, but King Lear is also about to be performed . . . and Shakespeare is simultaneously composing Macbeth.

I don't want to provide spoilers for the rest of the play, but there are insightful scenes about the purpose of playing, the value of community, the potential difficulty of fathers and daughters communicating (Judith Shakespeare is a persistent presence throughout), the nature of religious belief, what politics is and does, and why James the First will always love a play with witches in it. And I'll add that the play is quite brutal at times, enacting the torture and execution of some of the Gunpowder Plotters.

[Alex Roma · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoyed this so much! It was heavy, but it was clever and the characters were written in such a way that it was kind of fun. I wish they'd done more with the character of Judith than they did, since they specified she was the ONLY woman. The author was clearly making a point by NOT utilizing her as much as he could have but I would have rather seen her take control a bit. I think that's really my only complaint, though. Probably my favorite play of the batch that I read over the summer.

[Noah · Rating 3 out of 5]

An alternate history that explores the political context surrounding "Macbeth."

At its best when it's messy, complicated, and vague. Towards the end it gets too clear--the message he's trying to give is too obvious. The ending with Macbeth as a way to get back at Cecil feels a bit too neat and a bit flat. There were also times where Judith's lines felt a bit too obvious.

Love the way he used doubling. Loved the stage directions.

[David Nemtzow · Rating 5 out of 5]

So exceptional. I saw it performed and loved it and reading it in some ways is even better because it's so complex and rich and clever. And laugh out loud funny. Politics and propaganda meet art and Shakespeare -- wow!

[SM]

28f looking for a proshot of the osf premiere

[Amanda · Rating 5 out of 5]

Love love love this play! So smart and funny and witty!

[Emily · Rating 4 out of 5]

I like it a lot, but overall I think it reads a bit like an under-edited draft. It doesn't seem to have been properly workshopped. Some scenes drag on far longer than they need to. There are moments of attempted comic relief where the serious tone of the scene absolutely does not call to be interrupted. Certain ideas simply don't work but are beaten into the ground while other interesting ones are left by the wayside.

The play also occasionally suffers from its own attempts to be lofty (read: a little pretentious). It gets just a trifle too high-and-mighty at times without enough real heft to support itself. This problem is exacerbated by the fact the playwright seems to think his audiences are idiots, and so has made his main character repeatedly either ask painfully obvious questions for them or restate points ad nauseum for their benefit.

Then...there's Judith, our only female character in the play. While I like Judith, I can't help but feel she's basically unnecessary to the story and being used more as a plot-device than a character; she's just there so we'll feel worse for Shag and to add an odd, short, needless romance device with Sharpe (as if he doesn't have enough going on). But perhaps she plays better than she reads.

[Kathleen (itpdx) · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the script for a play that was premiered at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival this spring. I saw the play in September and picked up a copy of the script from the Guild shop. I wanted to read it because there is so much to think about in the play. The OSF production is wonderful and I am glad I saw it before attempting the script because reading the script could be confusing if I didn't have the characters firmly in mind. The play has six characters, four play multiple parts and having seen the actors change parts during a scene made it easier to understand the script.

The plot of the play is that King James's henchman (Robert Cecil) commissions Shakespeare to write a play about the Gunpowder Plot. This is a meaty play with a lot to think about--family, artistic collaboration, torture, religion, politics, the truth...

It was great fun to read the playwright's stage directions to see what came from the director and actors and what had been called out in the script.

[Jan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Brilliant play. I saw it in Ashland, Oregon, in the summer of 2010, I believe. It revolved around the Gunpowder Plot in England--Guy Fawkes's attempt to blow of Parliament, if I am remembering correctly. In advance of reading the play and attending the performance, I read Antonia Fraser's "Faith and Treason: The Story of the Gunpowder Plot," Anchor Books, 1996. POWERFUL exploration of conscience, responsibility, choices, and conflicting moral obligations (the very stuff of life).

[Andrea Lakly · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a very fun, if totally improbable, play about the art of juxtaposition -- the seeming driving concern of most of Shakespeare's creative and personal life. It also mixes in the Gunpowder plot and Shakespeare's daughter Judith. I don't know if it all works out, but it's a fun ride. A really good onstage performance could easily make it four stars! (I don't have much vision and am kinda bad a reading plays . . .)

[Skallagrimsen]

Enjoyed but didn't love this play. Add a subplot, however--perhaps in the form of a series of flashbacks to the Gunpowder Plotters and their efforts to demolish the entire British government--and you have in Equivocation the potential for a thrilling historical film. Thanks to V For Vendetta, the ubiquity of the "Guy Fawkes mask" as a symbol of street protest could be exploited to hook a ready made audience. It's an idea whose time has come.

[Joyful · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a play commisioned specifically for the Oregon Shakespeare Festival. I was lucky enough to see it (beautifully) performed alongside its intended companion Macbeth. It contains a lot of history about the Gunpowder Plot and some details about William Shakespeare the man. Wonderfully written - great for Shakespeare lovers!

[G. Derek Adams · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really fucking good play. Technically demanding -- acting and effects. The worst kind of technique, where a lot of craft is required to make it look effortless and easy. Characters play multiple roles, switching parts through pure acumen. Fascinating intellectually and emotionally. A nodding familiarity with Shakespeare's plays recommended, but not required.

[Kevin · Rating 5 out of 5]

I bought this script when I had a chance to view the show at Arena Stage last year. Going through the story again, it's still just as fun. Cain's story swerves and jumps with dexterity, and shifts the ending several times along the way. It's a fun play with emotional and intellectual depth, while still presenting the occasional Easter egg for Shakespeare-philes.

[Colleen · Rating 5 out of 5]

What an incredible play! I saw the original production at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival in 2009, and purchased the script at that time. That production has stayed with me and I count it as one of the best pieces of theatre I have ever experienced. I only read the play for the first time now and the writing is so good.

[Letitia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Saw this with the original cast at Seattle Repertory. Beautiful! Clever! At moments difficult to follow with actors playing so many different roles, but the depth and wit of the script are exceptional.

[Miriam · Rating 5 out of 5]

I started laughing on page one, continued through two viewings, and haven't stopped yet. An exploration of the Powder Plot (Guy Fawkes), Hamlet, Macbeth, and martyrdom, there's a lot packed into a short space.

[Ann · Rating 2 out of 5]

The dedication was beautiful and heartfelt. There were moments throughout that felt sincere and similarly inspired, however, overall the play felt like it was trying too hard to be important. I missed a sense of honesty, which was alluded to here and there throughout the work.

[Sarah · Rating 5 out of 5]

The contents of this play are eerily timely during out current political season. The contrast between the theatricality of art and politics. Does it do more harm than good? Or vice versa? Beautifully written piece of theatre... I wish I had seen this when it played nearby two years ago.

[Debs · Rating 5 out of 5]

Loved it when I saw the play performed at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival in 2009, loved it again reading it. There is a great deal in these 80 pages, and I will be rereading it in the future.

[Emily · Rating 4 out of 5]

I definitely am anxious to see this staged by Virginia Rep. I think I'll have a better understanding of my feelings about the play then.

But I did love the plot. I struggled to put it down.

[Kerry Booth · Rating 4 out of 5]

Strange play. Can't wait to see it performed.