Ten years ago, I saw The History of the Devil at Jobsite Theater, and was mightily displeased by a sloppy production of what seemed a tiresome script. Ten years later, Jobsite has brought Clive Barker's play back — and this time the production is so expertly polished that it almost makes the play tolerable. Almost, but not quite.
Because even with the splendid acting of Steve Garland in the title role, and the skillful direction of David M. Jenkins, Barker's play is overlong (almost three hours, with intermission) and devoid of the suspense that should, in what is essentially a metaphysical courtroom drama, be present at every moment. It's impressive to see how far Jobsite has evolved, in everything from acting to costume design, in the decade of its existence. And it's illuminating to learn again how excellent acting can redeem scenes that in themselves are numbingly episodic. But History of the Devil, even at its best, isn't sufficiently dramatic. Novelist Barker hasn't mastered the playwright's fundamental task: to make an audience want to sit still for a full hour or so, and then to ask for the same again after intermission. Without that precious talent, even the most eloquent, impassioned dialogue can seem superfluous.
The premise of History is that the Devil is about to go on trial in Africa in order to determine whether he should be permitted to return to the Heaven whence he was once cast out. In Barker's version, Lucifer wants this return badly; he's never been reconciled to his life on earth, and he still has nostalgia for the Father he and his cohorts once rebelled against. Prosecuting the case against him are two women — Caroline Lamb and Jane Beck — and defending him (for unconvincing reasons) is the unwilling Sam Kyle. The trial begins, presided over by a Judge Popper, and while the prosecution tries to prove that the reprobate's mayhem on earth makes him unworthy of return to Elysium, attorney Kyle and his client try to establish the Evil One's innocence.
We're shown moments in the Devil's career — from Russia in 1212 B.C. to India in 88 B.C., France in 1194 to England in 1799. And Judge Popper and the audience are asked to decide whether Old Nick isn't just a misunderstood anti-hero. Finally, there's a verdict, followed by what's supposed to be a surprise. In fact, by that time it's become abundantly obvious that all the scenes we've witnessed weren't really meant to convince anyone and that the playwright hasn't done the work of making his evidence persuasive or his verdict inevitable. In fact, there are moments in Act 2 when it seems that author Barker has utterly forgotten that he's supposed to be dramatizing a trial.
Still, there's the acting to enjoy. Garland plays the Devil with wonderful panache, dominating his scenes with such brio that you can almost forget that this figure is responsible for untold murders and misery. In his dashing white suit, designed by Spencer Meyers, he sweeps here and there, laughing manically at the wonder of it all or showing deep pain at his ejection from Paradise. Of the other seven members of the cast, four especially stand out: Chris Holcom as a corporately-attired Narrator, Shawn Paonessa as the attorney forced to represent the Father of Lies, Ami Sallee Corley in multiple roles, including the ancient Russian Ulla, and Chris Rutherford in multiple roles, including Jesus (the Devil claims to have JC's private diary).
Brian Smallheer's set turns the floor of the Shimberg playhouse into a large circle adorned with magical runes and places long red banners edged with drawings of snakes on the walls.
But even 10 years of evolution can't make this History satisfying. It's never clear who these prosecutors are or why this judge is presiding; it's never clear why these episodes and not others are the ones shown to us; it's never really clear that the Devil's future is in question. Too much is arbitrary, too much unexplained. This play needs cutting. This play needs a rewrite. If you're going to show us a trial, let both sides do their utmost. Then we might really care about the outcome.
Inspired acting or not, this is too much History.
And what's worse, it's not convincing for a moment.
This article appears in Nov 5-11, 2008.