John Oyler: Gettysburg, the play |

John Oyler: Gettysburg, the play

One advantage of reading this column is its unprecedented record of presenting exclusive scoops, reports of significant events that no other journalist is covering.

This week’s scoop is a critical review of the premiere of the Noh play “Gettysburg,” in the Charity Randall Theater on the University of Pittsburgh campus.

The play is a melding of two dramatically different cultures — traditional Japanese theater and our American obsession with the Civil War. The specific story, two comrades choosing commitment to opposing causes over friendship is an excellent candidate for a Noh play and could easily have been based on a Japanese tale.

Playwright Elizabeth Dowd felt it was specifically appropriate for “the warrior Noh, a genre that … explores the Buddhist concept of the Asura realm where defeated warriors are condemned to fight their final battle through eternity.”

Performed by repertory company Theatre Nohgaku, the play has two acts, seamlessly connected by an interlude. In the first act, “The Veteran” arrives at Gettysburg seeking the monument showing the spot where Confederate General Lewis Armistead fell. The Veteran is a classic Noh “waki,” a traveler visiting a hallowed site. This waki has been traumatized by his experiences in the war in Afghanistan.

A descendant of Union General Winfield Scott Hancock, The Veteran possesses a pocket watch which the dying Armistead had requested be given to Hancock, his (former) best friend, and which he has inherited. At the battlefield, The Veteran encounters a mysterious “Groundskeeper,” who helps him find the monument and then discusses Armistead’s last days with him. In Noh, this role is the “Shite,” the main character.

The two men discuss the lingering effects of war.

The Veteran: “Only the dead have seen the end of war.”

The Groundskeeper: “No. Not even the dead.”

The Groundskeeper then leaves and The Veteran remains alone. Act One has ended.

The Interlude begins with the arrival of a “Docent,” a tour guide reciting her description of the events of the afternoon of July 3, 1863 — the great artillery barrage, Pickett’s Charge, Armistead’s reaching the “High Water Mark of the Confederacy,” and the musket shots that felled him. She also explains the “best friend” relationship of Armistead and Hancock prior to the Civil War.

In the concluding act, The Groundskeeper returns, revealed as Armistead’s ghost, in full Confederate dress uniform. He relates the story of his early career, his friendship with Hancock, the ultimate battle and his mortal passing. He begs The Veteran for information on Hancock’s reaction to learning of his death, and is disappointed to learn there is no record of it. He then leaves, doomed to an eternal battle.

Armistead’s black felt hat remains on the stage. The Veteran lays the watch beside it and then removes his beret, folds it carefully, and places it there as well. One hopes this satisfies the Ghost’s desire for forgiveness.

In both acts, the eight-person mixed Chorus is used effectively to supplement the dialogue between the two principal characters, enabling them to communicate naturally, with no requirement that they fill in the details.

I am grateful for having had the opportunity to participate in this event. I hope that the repertory company is able to present this play many more times and that each audience includes someone who profits from it as much as I have.

Categories: Local | Carlynton
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.