Review: ‘Six Men Dressed Like Joseph Stalin' at A Red Orchid Theatre is based on an intriguing true story
Apparently, there were at least four Stalin doubles in reality, all employed to throw off those who might do harm to the main man. Much work went into their preparation (hair, weight, mannerisms, gait and so on), to ensure the physical likeness was as deceptive as possible. The gig was hazardous and the run could be brief: At least one of the fake Stalins was killed by a roadside bomb as his cortege was passing Red Square.
In 'Six Men Dressed Like Joseph Stalin,' playwright Dianne Nora imagines a training session for one of those doubles, with characters based on the real-life figures of Aleksei Dikiy (a Stanislavski-trained actor who played Stalin in propaganda films) and Dikiy's trainee Felix Dadaev, a former dancer and juggler who was chosen in part for the job because he'd been left for dead on a battlefield and thus had little personal identity to be in potential conflict with Stalin. Dikiy kept silent for years about his Stalin act but eventually fessed up in a 2008 autobiography, presumably feeling enough time had passed that no one would be coming to take him out.
Dado's production at A Red Orchid Theatre went through some major problems (differences of process, I was told) that culminated in one actor leaving the production late into rehearsals, necessitating the cancellation of opening night, given that this is a two-person show. John Judd became the pinch hitter as Dikiy, working opposite Esteban Andres Cruz.
I suspect that if these two experienced actors had worked together from the beginning, the two would have gelled more than was the case when I saw the show last weekend, when the show's energy seemed to operate only in fits and starts and the stakes never rose to the ideal level. I also was confused as to why the director dado had not worried a little more about actual physical resemblance to Stalin, given that this is a play about that very thing. Cruz has some lovely long hair but I'm not sure that would aid in fooling a potential assassin.
Perhaps I'm being too literal there and the play absolutely explores some interesting broader issues, especially for people who work in the arts. Most interesting to me, at least, are the scenes that deal with the idea of maintaining professional and educational integrity in the face of both coercion (Dikiy had already been to Siberia) and moral bankruptcy. I saw glimmers of that conflict, which is hardly limited to playing Stalin, flash across Judd's face at times as he found his way into this role.
Cruz, meanwhile, puts his heart into this struggling but still youthful character, but I think the piece really needs to reveal more of his difficult transformation. Achieving that in this kind of play, though, requires more of a surrogate parental relationship between these two characters and that needs two actors who more clearly occupy the same world and find a mutual way to drive on through its thickets.
Review: 'Six Men Dressed Like Joseph Stalin' (2.5 stars)
When: Through June 22
Where: A Red Orchid, 1531 N. Wells St.
Running time: 1 hour, 35 minutes
Tickets: $35-$50 at 312-943-8722 and aredorchidtheatre.org
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
5 hours ago
- The Hill
Senate deal on nominees elusive amid Democratic anger at Trump
President Trump, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) are making slow progress toward a deal to clear some of the Senate's backlog of executive branch nominees to allow weary senators to leave Washington for the four-week August recess. Walking off the darkened Senate floor at 10 pm Friday, Thune said negotiators 'floated' proposals 'back and forth all day' but added that the Democratic demands 'are probably not going to be something at this point we can meet.' 'No deal yet,' he said. The Senate is scheduled to reconvene at 9:30 a.m. on Saturday and will vote at 10 a.m. to limit debate on Andrew Puzder's nomination to serve as U.S. ambassador to the European Union. Democrats are under heavy pressure to oppose Trump in any way they can, including stymying his nominees, and their anger soared again on Friday after the president fired Erika McEntarfer, the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, after the agency released a weaker-than-expected jobs report. Trump accused McEntarfer, a Biden appointee, of manipulating the jobs data for 'political purposes' but Schumer said the president was only 'shooting the messenger.' Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), the Democrats chief deputy whip, said called the firing 'absolutely insane' while Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) called it 'Soviet sh–.' Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) said he's willing to stick around steamy Washington for however many days it takes to grind through votes on Trump's nominees, showing little appetite for a deal to advance a bloc of Trump picks through unanimous consent or a voice vote. 'I know there's a lot of things being negotiated so I'm not going to comment on that,' he said when asked if he could support advancing a package of Trump nominees. 'I'm okay with sticking around to do work. It's unfortunate that we have a Republican Party right now that's off the rails and doing Donald Trump's bidding,' he said. Booker said Trump's decision to fire the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics because of a disappointing jobs report was 'very authoritarian, very 1984.' Senators are now expected to spend their weekend voting on Trump's nominees as Democrats have refused to allow any of them — even those tapped to fill subordinate positions at federal departments and agencies — to be confirmed by unanimous consent or voice votes. Senators on both sides of the aisle are eager to get home for the month-long break, having spent more time in Washington than usual since the start of the year. As of this week, members of the Senate have cast more votes during the first seven months of the year than the chamber had previously taken over 12 months in 32 of the past 36 years. But they will have to wait to return to their home states as leaders continue to wrestle over a deal on a nominations package and as Democrats are hearing demands from their party's base to drag out the confirmations of Trump's nominees for as long as possible. Democratic senators said they had little sense of whether Schumer was making any progress with Trump on a deal. 'Could be more votes tonight or could be more votes tomorrow but I don't really know,' Sen. Tim Kaine (R-Va.) said shortly after 8 pm. Some senators were told to 'keep their phones on' Friday night in case they were summoned back to for a late-night flurry of votes. Republicans ranged from pessimistic to optimistic when asked about the prosect of a deal on a package of nominees to spare them from having to return to the Capitol for a Saturday session. 'At this point, I think they're quite a ways apart,' Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) told The Hill upon emerging from a conference luncheon earlier in the day. 'We'll do our best to try to work through as many [nominations] as we can and kind of move from there,' Rounds said. 'We don't have a deal. We're going to continue to try to work on something, but we don't have a deal yet.' Sen. Tom Tillis (R-N.C.) told The Hill after 8 p.m. Friday that it appeared the White House and Schumer's team had made progress since lunchtime. The talks reached new stage on Friday as Schumer began negotiating directly with the White House on the contours of a package. Thune told reporters that he has put White House officials 'into conversation directly' with Schumer's team. 'That is how this is ultimately going to get resolved,' he said. The Republican leader said that 'a number of people' from the White House are talking with Schumer, who is under heavy pressure from his Democratic base to use every tool at his disposal to thwart Trump's agenda. Thune said a deal would be 'up to the discussions between the White House and Schumer and the Democrats.' He and other Republicans assert that Trump is being treated unfairly on the nominations front, noting that none of his choices have been confirmed via unanimous consent or a voice vote — breaking with past precedent. The Democratic tactics have forced Republicans to churn through time-consuming procedural votes and final confirmation votes on every single Trump nominee Democrats only allowed Secretary of State Marco Rubio to come directly to the floor for a final vote on the same day Trump took the oath of office. Rubio was confirmed by a vote of 99 to 0. 'This isn't normal. This is petty partisan politics at its worst,' Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said on the floor earlier on Friday. 'Republicans are not backing down. We will continue to confirm President Trump's nominees. The easy way if we can. The hard way if we must.' Senate Republicans weekly policy luncheon on Tuesday was filled with discussions about changing the Senate's rules for confirming lower-level nominees — either by eliminating the need for procedural votes before the final confirmation votes, collapsing the mandatory debate time, or allowing nominees to move in groups. They would need to establish new rules by a simple-majority vote, a move that's considered so destructive to bipartisanship that it's referred to the 'nuclear option.' Under regular order, it would take 67 votes to change the Senate's rules. Senate Republicans are also talking about putting the Senate into an extended recess so that Trump could fill scores of open positions through recess appointments. But that would require mustering 50 Senate Republican votes, something that's not assured given that several Republican senators, including Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Tillis are reluctant to give up their constitutional role of providing 'advice and consent' on nominees. Entering into a multi-week recess would require passing an adjournment resolution through both the Senate and House, and Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) hasn't given any indication he plans to call House members back to Washington before September. Trump has called on the Senate to stay in session throughout August in order to approve his nominees, but the vast majority of senators are ready for a break. The Senate has been in session for 12 of the past 14 weeks and had its July Fourth recess chopped in half because of marathon negotiations over Trump's One Big, Beautiful Bill Act, which passed after senators slogged through a long series of amendment votes that went overnight and into the next day. While Senate leaders remain deadlocked over a nominations deal, they achieved a major bipartisan accomplishment Friday evening when they passed a package of appropriations bills to fund military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs and Agriculture, and the legislative branch. The Senate voted 87 to 9 to pass the military construction, veterans affairs and agriculture appropriations 'mini-bus' and 81 to 15 to attach the legislative branch appropriations bill to the package.
8 hours ago
After a reference to Trump's impeachments is removed from a history museum, complex questions echo
NEW YORK -- It would seem the most straightforward of notions: A thing takes place, and it goes into the history books or is added to museum exhibits. But whether something even gets remembered and how — particularly when it comes to the history of a country and its leader — is often the furthest thing from simple. The latest example of that came Friday, when the Smithsonian Institution said it had removed a reference to the 2019 and 2021 impeachments of President Donald Trump from a panel in an exhibition about the American presidency. Trump has pressed institutions and agencies under federal oversight, often through the pressure of funding, to focus on the country's achievements and progress and away from things he terms 'divisive.' A Smithsonian spokesperson said the removal of the reference, which had been installed as part of a temporary addition in 2021, came after a review of 'legacy content recently' and the exhibit eventually 'will include all impeachments.' There was no time frame given for when; exhibition renovations can be time- and money-consuming endeavors. In a statement that did not directly address the impeachment references, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said: 'We are fully supportive of updating displays to highlight American greatness.' But is history intended to highlight or to document — to report what happened, or to serve a desired narrative? The answer, as with most things about the past, can be intensely complex. The Smithsonian's move comes in the wake of Trump administration actions like removing the name of a gay rights activist from a Navy ship, pushing for Republican supporters in Congress to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and getting rid of the leadership at the Kennedy Center. 'Based on what we have been seeing, this is part of a broader effort by the president to influence and shape how history is depicted at museums, national parks, and schools,' said Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. 'Not only is he pushing a specific narrative of the United States but, in this case, trying to influence how Americans learn about his own role in history.' It's not a new struggle, in the world generally and the political world particularly. There is power in being able to shape how things are remembered, if they are remembered at all — who was there, who took part, who was responsible, what happened to lead up to that point in history. And the human beings who run things have often extended their authority to the stories told about them. In China, for example, references to the June 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in Beijing's Tiananmen Square are forbidden and meticulously regulated by the ruling Communist Party government. In Soviet-era Russia, officials who ran afoul of leaders like Josef Stalin disappeared not only from the government itself but from photographs and history books where they once appeared. Jason Stanley, an expert on authoritarianism, said controlling what and how people learn of their past has long been used as a vital tool to maintain power. Stanley has made his views about the Trump administration clear; he recently left Yale University to join the University of Toronto, citing concerns over the U.S. political situation. 'If they don't control the historical narrative,' he said, 'then they can't create the kind of fake history that props up their politics.' In the United States, presidents and their families have always used their power to shape history and calibrate their own images. Jackie Kennedy insisted on cuts in William Manchester's book on her husband's 1963 assassination, 'The Death of a President.' Ronald Reagan and his wife got a cable TV channel to release a carefully calibrated documentary about him. Those around Franklin D. Roosevelt, including journalists of the era, took pains to mask the impact that paralysis had on his body and his mobility. Trump, though, has taken it to a more intense level — a sitting president encouraging an atmosphere where institutions can feel compelled to choose between him and the truth — whether he calls for it directly or not. 'We are constantly trying to position ourselves in history as citizens, as citizens of the country, citizens of the world,' said Robin Wagner-Pacifici, professor emerita of sociology at the New School for Social Research. 'So part of these exhibits and monuments are also about situating us in time. And without it, it's very hard for us to situate ourselves in history because it seems like we just kind of burst forth from the Earth.' Timothy Naftali, director of the Richard M. Nixon Presidential Library and Museum from 2007 to 2011, presided over its overhaul to offer a more objective presentation of Watergate — one not beholden to the president's loyalists. In an interview Friday, he said he was 'concerned and disappointed' about the Smithsonian decision. Naftali, now a senior researcher at Columbia University, said museum directors 'should have red lines' and that he considered removing the Trump panel to be one of them. While it might seem inconsequential for someone in power to care about a museum's offerings, Wagner-Pacifici says Trump's outlook on history and his role in it — earlier this year, he said the Smithsonian had 'come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology' — shows how important those matters are to people in authority. 'You might say about that person, whoever that person is, their power is so immense and their legitimacy is so stable and so sort of monumental that why would they bother with things like this ... why would they bother to waste their energy and effort on that?' Wagner-Pacifici said. Her conclusion: 'The legitimacy of those in power has to be reconstituted constantly. They can never rest on their laurels.'
Hamilton Spectator
11 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
After a reference to Trump's impeachments is removed from a history museum, complex questions echo
NEW YORK (AP) — It would seem the most straightforward of notions: A thing takes place, and it goes into the history books or is added to museum exhibits. But whether something even gets remembered and how — particularly when it comes to the history of a country and its leader — is often the furthest thing from simple. The latest example of that came Friday, when the Smithsonian Institution said it had removed a reference to the 2019 and 2021 impeachments of President Donald Trump from a panel in an exhibition about the American presidency. Trump has pressed institutions and agencies under federal oversight, often through the pressure of funding, to focus on the country's achievements and progress and away from things he terms 'divisive.' A Smithsonian spokesperson said the removal of the reference, which had been installed as part of a temporary addition in 2021, came after a review of 'legacy content recently' and the exhibit eventually 'will include all impeachments.' There was no time frame given for when; exhibition renovations can be time- and money-consuming endeavors. In a statement that did not directly address the impeachment references, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said: 'We are fully supportive of updating displays to highlight American greatness.' But is history intended to highlight or to document — to report what happened, or to serve a desired narrative? The answer, as with most things about the past, can be intensely complex. It's part of a larger effort around American stories The Smithsonian's move comes in the wake of Trump administration actions like removing the name of a gay rights activist from a Navy ship, pushing for Republican supporters in Congress to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and getting rid of the leadership at the Kennedy Center. 'Based on what we have been seeing, this is part of a broader effort by the president to influence and shape how history is depicted at museums, national parks, and schools,' said Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. 'Not only is he pushing a specific narrative of the United States but, in this case, trying to influence how Americans learn about his own role in history.' It's not a new struggle, in the world generally and the political world particularly. There is power in being able to shape how things are remembered, if they are remembered at all — who was there, who took part, who was responsible, what happened to lead up to that point in history. And the human beings who run things have often extended their authority to the stories told about them. In China, for example, references to the June 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in Beijing's Tiananmen Square are forbidden and meticulously regulated by the ruling Communist Party government. In Soviet-era Russia, officials who ran afoul of leaders like Josef Stalin disappeared not only from the government itself but from photographs and history books where they once appeared. Jason Stanley, an expert on authoritarianism, said controlling what and how people learn of their past has long been used as a vital tool to maintain power. Stanley has made his views about the Trump administration clear; he recently left Yale University to join the University of Toronto, citing concerns over the U.S. political situation. 'If they don't control the historical narrative,' he said, 'then they can't create the kind of fake history that props up their politics.' It shows how the presentation of history matters In the United States, presidents and their families have always used their power to shape history and calibrate their own images. Jackie Kennedy insisted on cuts in William Manchester's book on her husband's 1963 assassination, 'The Death of a President.' Ronald Reagan and his wife got a cable TV channel to release a carefully calibrated documentary about him. Those around Franklin D. Roosevelt, including journalists of the era, took pains to mask the impact that paralysis had on his body and his mobility. Trump, though, has taken it to a more intense level — a sitting president encouraging an atmosphere where institutions can feel compelled to choose between him and the truth — whether he calls for it directly or not. 'We are constantly trying to position ourselves in history as citizens, as citizens of the country, citizens of the world,' said Robin Wagner-Pacifici, professor emerita of sociology at the New School for Social Research. 'So part of these exhibits and monuments are also about situating us in time. And without it, it's very hard for us to situate ourselves in history because it seems like we just kind of burst forth from the Earth.' Timothy Naftali, director of the Richard M. Nixon Presidential Library and Museum from 2007 to 2011, presided over its overhaul to offer a more objective presentation of Watergate — one not beholden to the president's loyalists. In an interview Friday, he said he was 'concerned and disappointed' about the Smithsonian decision. Naftali, now a senior researcher at Columbia University, said museum directors 'should have red lines' and that he considered removing the Trump panel to be one of them. While it might seem inconsequential for someone in power to care about a museum's offerings, Wagner-Pacifici says Trump's outlook on history and his role in it — earlier this year, he said the Smithsonian had 'come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology' — shows how important those matters are to people in authority. 'You might say about that person, whoever that person is, their power is so immense and their legitimacy is so stable and so sort of monumental that why would they bother with things like this ... why would they bother to waste their energy and effort on that?' Wagner-Pacifici said. Her conclusion: 'The legitimacy of those in power has to be reconstituted constantly. They can never rest on their laurels.' ___
