Necessary Sacrifices By Richard Hellesen Directed by Jennifer Nelson; At Ford’s Theatre to Feb. 18 Why D.C. theaters could do better during Black History Month

Lincoln-Douglass Debate: The president and the orator get pedantic at Ford’s Theatre.

Across the country, lots of theaters mark the shortest month of the year as an occasion to put August Wilson’s name on their marquees. Or Lorraine Hansberry’s. Or, if a city is lucky, a current black playwright like Suzan-Lori Parks or Terrell McCraney.

Washington is a lucky city year-round: We don’t need Black History Month to see people of color onstage in complex, satisfying roles. (Fela! at Shakespeare and Trouble in Mind at Arena Stage are just two of this season’s examples.) All the same, February just happens to be the month where, inevitably, some local theaters program according to the diversity calendar. Both Ford’s Theatre, that bastion of Civil War-era dramaturgy, and MetroStage, a scrappy Alexandria theatrical outpost, have chosen to celebrate Black History Month by producing shows about famous black Americans, thinking, perhaps rightly, that a good way to get butts in seats at new plays is to put enigmatic characters onstage.

As both shows demonstrate, however, fascinating lives are not surefire fodder for a fascinating two and a half hours of theater. In Necessary Sacrifices, Ford’s has assembled two charismatic Americans—Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass—and saddled them with pedantic public policy dialogue only a history buff could love. In Josephine Tonight, MetroStage may have itself a show with legs, but it will take a few tweaks before this musical about vaudeville dancer Josephine Baker lives up to its showstopping subject.

History records that Douglass and Lincoln met just twice for extended tête-à-têtes. Why not make a play imagining these meetings? Because they got together to discuss matters of great historical wonkiness. In Act 1 of Necessary Sacrifices, Lincoln implores Douglass to help recruit more freedmen to fight in Union forces, while Douglass would rather the army provide an escape route for Southern slaves. Neither plan comes to fruition. So in frustration, Lincoln invites Douglass back to the White House in Act 2 to discuss whether the Emancipation Proclamation can be reversed if George B. McLellan is elected president.

Which—spoiler alert—he isn’t.

So while in 1864 formidable matters were at stake for the nation, no stakes are raised in Richard Hellesen’s play, which is essentially a two man-show. (Michael Kramer makes a brief appearance as a different cabinet member at the start of each act in an attempt to clarify the given circumstances.) James Kronzer has created a stately White House façade covered with a celestially suggestive backdrop of clouds. When David Selby initially rolls forward, sitting behind a messy presidential desk, his voice and mannerisms come as something of a shock. In Selby’s mind, Honest Abe is no statuesque orator, but a crotchety, hunched-over guy with a blue tongue and a hick Southern accent. He’s immensely engaging, and Hellesen gives Selby zingers 21st century locals will love. Lincoln: “What do you think of Washington?” Douglass: “It’s magnificent.” Lincoln: “It’s a mess!”

Craig Wallace, as Douglass, is not amused. It’s unclear whether coming to the role sooner would have made him a better sparring partner for Selby. (Ford’s announced just a week before opening that Wallace would replace an ailing David Emerson Toney.) At least the actor playing Lincoln has a desk full of props to play with. All Wallace does is stand around looking self-important while wearing an uncomfortable-looking amount of facial hair. In short, he portrays Douglass as stoic stick-in-the-mud. That may be historically informed, but it doesn’t allow for much of a character arc, or even pathos. The performance I attended was ASL-interpreted, and during Douglass’s monologues, I found myself watching the interpreter “speaking” for Wallace, not because he was distracting, but because he conveyed a broader range of emotion. His face and gestures were full of sadness as he related wrenching stories about Douglass’ escape to freedom, the death of his daughter, and the massacre of black troops at Fort Pillow. Morally, historically, and humanly, Frederick Douglass may have the upper hand, but Wallace doesn’t onstage, and an actor cannot hold an audience’s attention with ideology alone.

Our Readers Say

Personally, I'd rather see more plays written by blacks, not necessarily ABOUT blacks. Black people experience life like anyone else with race being a nonfactor. What I see in DC are many plays written by anyone but blacks, about blacks. The stories center around blacks who are needy, dependent, in dysfunctional families, hopeless, lack unity, or in some other negative light. DC (in the whole Metro area) is loaded with incredible talent in actors, playwrights, and others that make theatre happen. DC is overlooking a lot of this talent.

It's one thing to SEE black people on stage. It's another thing to know what ROLES they are playing, and why.
According to the "Necessary Sacrifices" program, "Ford's Theatre commissioned this play to celebrate the new Center for Education and Leadership, opening in February. Like the play, the Center provides new insight into Lincoln's legacy." and the program goes on to describe what the Center offers.

Thus, the play was not selected because February is Black History Month, which Ms. Ritzel should have known if she had looked at the program or asked someone on Ford's staff. And if not selected "to celebrate Black History Month" or "to get butts in seats" perhaps a more neutral view of why the play was commissioned would result in a different analysis of the play and a more favorable review.
Ritzel is one of the sloppiest reviewers I've seen in many years. She makes wild leaps of judgment. She goes into a play with her own pre-defined expectations and when what she sees doesn't match these, she can be quite unkind. It's best to just ignore her reviews and hopefully one day she'll go away.
Thank you for supplying your comments re: Necessary Sacrifices. My husband and I are looking forward to seeing it this Tuesday. Your comments, in my opinion are better written and expressed than the review. Her bias is evident
I really don't believe that Artistic Directors should respond to reviews, but I must make a few comments to the above. First of all this is the first professional production, considered a premiere since it has been completely rewritten for a cast of five. Secondly, of course we would all love more dancing. It is Maurice Hines afterall! But we have a story to tell that goes well beyond Josephine as a dancer, and we really did not want the show to be longer than 2 and a half hours. There is a great deal of interest in the show by producers around the country and in NY, so I am sure we will figure out how to get more choreography in next time. Because you are right. It is fabulous. And finally, the statement about the costumes is so patently ridiculous I must comment. There are amazing costumes, designed by the Award winning designer Reggie Ray (whose work can be seen on Broadway in Stickfly at the moment) depicting scenes from St. Louis to Harlem, vaudeville to Paris. There may be one cardigan, but the costumes caused another critic to state that the costmes alone were worth seeing the show! If I had time I would count the number of shoes, suits, dresses and boas that four costume assistants and dressers backstage are dealing with every night. I would encourage the CP readers to come see this show which is selling out because most critics and raving, audiences are cheering and producers around the country are showing interest in the show.
I saw and was moved by "Necessary Sacrafices" but never thought of myself as a history wonk though I find many biographies and
books that cover historical periods (e.g., "A Distant Mirror") fascinating.

I did not read the program so I could be off base and the play could have been chosen for production in February because it is Black History Month, but given that its main character is Abraham Lincoln and February is the month he was born in, isn't it more likely that the play was selected -- or written for Ford's Theatre for this reason. Of course another alternative is that the Center for Education and Leadership, which is focused on Abraham Lincoln and his values, opens to the public and that may be why Ford's chose a play centered around Lincoln. Frankly, I was stunned that Ms. Ritzel neglected to mention these connections or even posit that the choice may have something to do with February being Lincoln's birthday. But why should she when it didn't support the line of thinking she wanted to follow.
I've not seen Josephine Tonight, though look forward to it. However, I did see Necessary Sacrifices, and due to its premier nature, the late cast replacement, and/or uneven playwriting, I tend to agree with the review. Douglass in particular, in this play, seems ill-written, with the effect that David Selby runs circles around Craig Wallace; an actor I greatly admire in other arenas (raise your hand of you saw Clybourne Park in either of its runs). Though it may be unfair to jump to the Black History Month motivation, I respect this critic for the opinion presented here, and find it a little inappropriate that there is such ferocity in the rebuke.
Both my hands, both runs: Craig wasn't in Clybourne Park.

Leave a Comment

Note: HTML tags are not allowed in comments.
Comments Shown. Turn Comments Off.