We are living in an interesting age...an age where culture is becoming a faux pas and the freedom to express is a cliche.
Ottawa, where is your humanity? Or better yet, where are your artists??
Buried under piles of government handouts, production bills, set designs, costume measurements and old cigarette butts from people who "don't smoke"...
I'm not going to be so bold as to state that Ottawa is alone in its complacency---I suspect it's happening everywhere...at least in North America.
When did it become all about the money? It wasn't always about it...even during the hardest of times...I thought it was about the need to express...
"Hurry up please, it's time."
There's a magic in this place--as there is in every village, town, and city all over this small world...but people aren't able to recognize it because their focus is on survival -- not living. Cellphones, computers, Ipods, blue tooth--have replaced the need to look into a person's eyes or feel beyond your arms reach...far too many other things that need doing.
"Hurry up please, it's time."
Third Wall Theatre had to cancel it's 2011/2012 season. I am really upset about that. I think it's a statement in some way; and an indication of an even bigger trend...
The Conservative government won a majority in the Federal election and are hoping to do so again in the upcoming Provincial election...and we all know what they think about the Arts...
Critics are tired of commenting on the doom and gloom affecting every area of the arts so they prefer to stick with the glib superficialities of boring industry hires and the announcement of CD release parties...
Art is not a charity...art it could be argued is not a business either -- more like an essential service that people take for granted everyday...and yet Art identifies itself as a charity out of perceived necessity--how else would a theatre company pay it's bills? By begging of course!
"Hurry up please, it's time."
There is nothing new about the current state of affairs...life is cyclical and so this is just another turning of the wheel
--
However revolutions and evolutions have occurred throughout the various turns...the uninterested attitude of the masses does not have to be the death knell for a dying arts community--it could be it's battle cry
But it would take more than just talking to start the process...it would also take cooperation and huzpah.
--
What is the difference between the placement of Art in other countries and the placement within our own? Tradition? History? A recognition by both practitioner and beholder that art does more than swallow up a few hours of a person's life -- it enriches and informs it?
I have sat in a crowded opera house in Budapest and watched as the audience thrilled at the finale, seen patience on a block-long lineup for the washrooms at intermission and heard applause unlike any I'd ever heard live...I have sat in moderate houses in Ottawa and seen scatterings of program fans, heard the sound of boredom, and winced at the sound of a cellphone going off.
"Hurry up please, it's time."
Theatre in Ottawa has lost its way, I feel. There will be people who will suggest these are just musings of a bitter, angry, washed up, pseudo performer no one remembers...but there will be others who can see what I'm trying to say...who witness it themselves and wonder what's to become of this city's theatre legacy...even more people will question the idea that this city has a theatre legacy--and those are the people who will save it!
"Hurry up please, it's time."
I'm going to miss this place...everytime I leave I say that...and everytime I mean it...this city has been very kind to my inner artist -- I was hired when I had no history, was encouraged to write, and I got the chance to play with some of the greatest people I will ever know.
Please do not give up on the art form!
Please work on projects that stir your souls!
Please remember where the magic comes from!
Those are your last orders...and so goodbye! :)
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Secrets of a Soccer Mom aka Women Pretending to be Soccer Moms Who Have Secrets!
Okay so I thought I would do well to take in a show during the summer as this is something I haven't done in a very long time...so I cleared my schedule yesterday (Wednesday) and took myself to the theatre.
I arrived early, because I never come late...just what I do.
There were sixteen people in the audience...sixteen people, including myself...
When the doors were opened and we could enter the theatre, we were greated by a strong, semi-thick layer of fog...I don't know why...I'm guessing to go along with the "radio" broadcast--which explained (thanks to Terri Lorreto's interpretation of the weather for the purposes of the show's plot) that the day was cloudy...I don't really get where the fog came into play--maybe it was supposed to be early morning...if it was, I still don't get the fog...except that it takes place in September...(confusing? unclear? possibly).
The opening sequence--nice idea with the ladies in their various "motherly roles" (one irons, one dressing, one doing PTA crap) however I couldn't help but shake the impression that these ladies were playing charades with the audience. There's a little dance sequence where they all dance together and get all "into character" -- but this is where things start to get dark and grey for me...
1. Greatest piece of advice I ever got in theatre school came from the AD who said to me in a fit of total exasperation: "Stop showing me, FEEL IT!"
This ENTIRE production was one big SHOW...there was little authentic reality, there was even less authentic emotion.
2. When directing lines and comments to people offstage and out towards (or beyond) the audience, have agreement as to where those people are in relation to you. You should also know what the person/thing you're looking at looks like. When you are all included in the comment or line, you're supposed to have agreement as to where to look and what you are looking at.
I had a hard time staying focused for this production. For a number of reasons.
There was never a sense that any of these actors (female) had children or even knew children or had maternal bones in their bodies...yes some could deliver a funny line when they had to, but most of the time it was as though they were selling the audience fake Gucci bags for the price of real ones.
Notes taken during first part of the show (within first twenty minutes)
Nancy: wft stop reciting your lines and engage!
Allison: Stop showing me your emotions
"Erin run the other way that's the wrong goal" - in order to say this line, you need to actually "see" Erin run the other way...not have your gaze posed in the opposite direction.
The character of Nancy I had a hard time believing she wasn't a characature of Samantha from Sex in the City who happened to get knocked up and thought she could still wow men with her looks...she wore an exercise top with a regular bra...she kept putting on lip gloss or doing any number of grooming activities that showed me she was someone who tried very hard to keep up appearances but I really didn't get the sense that she was a mother...maybe a step mother...but the child aspect if it wasn't for the lines about her children, I would never have guessed she had any.
1. Nancy gets hit in the head by the soccer ball -- I have no idea where that came from, or why it was there (this could be a problem with the script as part of my issue with the overall production came from the fact that the script was mediocre...seriously)
2. Nancy picks up a bottle of Purell and rubs it into her hands...WHY? Where did the impulse to put Purell on come from? Did you touch something funky, did you feel the need because you wiped dirt off your face? I didn't see anything except the gesture...and according to the biographical notes in the program, this actor (female) has a BFA in Acting...
Allison comes back from checking on her daughter who's sleeping in the car (little weird her infant daughter is left to sleep in the car...didn't really get the sense that any of the mother's thought it weird despite one line devoted to it...still weird)...she freaks out because her husbands a jerk and doesn't like to talk about stuff and rags on her...
1. Does she loose it because she needed to unload her stress?
2. Does she loose it because she lost control after trying to keep things light and wonderful for too long?
My point is there are many different ways to play it--but you need to COMMIT to one and play it--not do the action because either someone tells you that's what they want, or because you think it would look good to an audience...BA in Acting from Dalhousie.
A rather cheap sight gag was the obscenely large bowl of Goldfish the ladies pig out on for the last three minutes of the scene...seriously, who brings a tub 'o Goldfish to a kid's soccer practise????? -- it was a tub! (why not bring the bag?? -- or better yet since it's the PTA mom that whips them out, why not a try of Rice Krispy Squares???
Question: What does the ref look like? After all one of them thinks she's having an affair with him?
Lynn has a line: "What's with you?" -- flat delivery on a loaded question...I never got the sense there was much work done in terms of tactics/intent from any of the women in this production...another line (I believe delivered by Lynn) "That's not a joke, that's life as we know it" -- it's one thing to deliver a funny line, it's another to know it's funny and not be able to hide knowing it's a funny line...
1. The audience was laughing (if it laughed and there wasn't much laughter because not much of it was funny) at the script, not at the performances of the actors (female) who sometimes thought they were funnier than they actually were...sometimes they played for laughs because they weren't getting any...I've fallen victim to this myself and know the temptation but that does not mean that it's excusable!
Nancy has a line: "That must have been rough." she says this line as she is checking her makeup...there was no laugh as I recall, this was not meant to be funny...so I really don't understand why you would say a line like this while checking your makeup for the fifteenth time--unless you had no intention behind the line and you weren't listening to the person the line was directed to in the first place!!!!!
Lynn has a great line: "What I would give for a cigarette." -- why didn't I get the sense that Lynn would give anything for a cigarette in that moment? Because she's never smoked before? Because she was tired from stuffing envelopes? Because she didn't really feel connected to the line??? Because it was hot out? I don't know!!!!!
At this point I really got confused...I know these women were supposed to be soccer moms at their kid's practice/tournament...however then they kept talking about playing in the game...so now I'm totally confused because I've never known parents to play with kids in soccer...this was unclear partially because the script was crap and partly because I stopped caring about the plot of the show long before this scene.
Question: Are these women friends or do they just meet up and chat while their kids play soccer? There was no sense that they had any kind of relationship outside this particular day...yet the lines suggested they knew each other for longer (what's their history? How did they all meet? Where do they live in conjunction to each other? Why am I the one asking these questions???)
Lynn has a great line: "I left a great job. My kids see me at school and it fills me with pride" -- I may have paraphrased slightly but the lines were great because it's maternal and human...it was delivered like a grocery list with no connection to another person, no sense of pride, no sense of having made the right decision for her in her life...no stakes at revealing something personal about ones self...
Where the heck is the process of thought????????????????? Just because the lines are written does not mean there isn't stuff going on....
Nancy has a line: "I admire you" -- bullshit (was my note)...I don't believe it and I now think you're a liar...
Nancy has another line in regard to her photography: "I don't develop them"
1. Where's the risk in revealing that truth about oneself?
2. Where the trust needed to share that with "friends"?
3. Where's the process involved to come to the decision to reveal that?
At this point Nancy starts to get emotional (really I got confused at this part because the meaning and thoughts in the monologue disappeared)...but instead of letting the emotion organically flow, I witnessed a very painful contortion of the actor (female) as she willed and summoned from the depths of the swamp what would pass as emotion...first thing I noticed--furrowed brow (which means the head is in the way and trying to control the flow of emotion), second thing I noticed--purposeful manipulation of both jaw and tongue...I'm telling you it wasn't pretty to watch but if I didn't know better I would say these were all habits of someone either new to performance work or trying to pass off false emotion for real emotion.
1. Audiences are rarely dumb...even when you can hear a pin drop...it's usually in those moments that the audience is picking up what you're putting down...that never happened in this production.
Nancy I believe ends her monologue with the line "That was Mary" -- or it comes close to the end--but not before a rather awkward moment when it looked as though Nancy was going to throw up...seriously I thought the actor (female) was going to be sick...
As is my habit I was looking at the other mothers and their reaction to Nancy's "story"....
Wouldn't you know Allison was "showing me she was listening" while Lynn listened but was not present in the room...
1. Active listening...don't have to show your listening...just listen...be invested...your friend is revealing something that they find upsetting, they need your energy and support...you don't have to say a word but please be there for them! And Nancy, check in to make sure they're listening--feel their support and relax your jaw!!! Sure "drama isn't crying, drama's trying not to cry" -- but for goodness sake don't try to force it out!
"They're getting ready over there" -- can't say this line if you're pacing back and forth along the stage...have no idea where you're looking, and neither do the other actors (nor why your saying that if you're intent on pacing back and forth--unless you have more clarity of intent!).
Lynn has a line: "She said shit like she meant it" -- sloppy...good line (especially when the gag is they are all mothers who don't swear)
Allison has a Ron moment (Ron's her husband) she freaks out and kicks a few bags...essentially she has a small tantrum...then she admits to having an "affair" with the ref, but not a real affair...WTF.
Allison then has a line: "How did I ever end up like this?" the note I have: "Stop wandering with your eyes!"
Then comes Sex Talk about Husbands -- this gets a few laughs finally (from the three ladies in the front row who laughed--not because the situation on stage was funny, but because they related to the ideas...)
Allison has a line: "I love my children so much." -- too general and wimpy/weepy...do I believe you? Not really, I got the impression she regretted having children and was really a mess in her personal life...
Nancy delivers yet another speech, this time to "cheer" Allison up and it takes place in St. Martin at somekind of a nude beach...
1. What did this speech have to do with Allison's breakdown??? I still have no idea.
2. What's the big deal about naked people?
3. What prompted Nancy to tell this story to help cheer Allison up in the first place?
Lynn has a line: "Were they lesbians?" -- timing was off, no thought or intent behind the line, no reaction from audience.
Allison confronts her husband (who's offstage in the audience somewhere) and says "Pizza, fine..." then she I am guessing has a moment and then says "No. tonight I want time for us" -- or words to that effect...all these lines were run together...there was no separation of thought, no moment of "no, I'm not going to go along with this, I'm going to stand up and demand what I want."
I have to admit there wasn't much left of the play at this point and I couldn't take anymore notes...I was too upset.
Seriously there was no excuse why this production failed as badly as it did...I'm not going to chalk it up to going on a Wednesday night during the last week of a three week run...there's no excuse (I won't even allow the fact that the script was poor to be used as an excuse.) for the poor performances. These actors (female) all have a strong background in performance but for some reason every time I see them in something (I've seen two of them in more than one show) I am always either blaming the director for not utilizing them to their fullest potential or expecting more from them than I get...I don't know why this is...are my standards too high? I refuse to take that as the reason...if that were the case then advancing and getting better as an actor would be pointless...
I think it's a combination of a lot of things.
1. Lack of professional development.
2. Laziness.
3. Friends working with friends and letting it get in the way of professional creativity. (a guess really)
4. Money.
5. Lack of imagination.
These are just things off the top of my head. Many people may have a problem with this--please tell me! I would love to debate and hear what other's have to say about this topic. Why? Because I LOVE the art form. I do not criticize people for the sake of making them feel bad--cripes I am an actor and I know it's not pleasant to be ripped apart--but you know what? How else is one supposed to know? Performance is an art form. Professional Development does not end when you graduate...it only begins.
I arrived early, because I never come late...just what I do.
There were sixteen people in the audience...sixteen people, including myself...
When the doors were opened and we could enter the theatre, we were greated by a strong, semi-thick layer of fog...I don't know why...I'm guessing to go along with the "radio" broadcast--which explained (thanks to Terri Lorreto's interpretation of the weather for the purposes of the show's plot) that the day was cloudy...I don't really get where the fog came into play--maybe it was supposed to be early morning...if it was, I still don't get the fog...except that it takes place in September...(confusing? unclear? possibly).
The opening sequence--nice idea with the ladies in their various "motherly roles" (one irons, one dressing, one doing PTA crap) however I couldn't help but shake the impression that these ladies were playing charades with the audience. There's a little dance sequence where they all dance together and get all "into character" -- but this is where things start to get dark and grey for me...
1. Greatest piece of advice I ever got in theatre school came from the AD who said to me in a fit of total exasperation: "Stop showing me, FEEL IT!"
This ENTIRE production was one big SHOW...there was little authentic reality, there was even less authentic emotion.
2. When directing lines and comments to people offstage and out towards (or beyond) the audience, have agreement as to where those people are in relation to you. You should also know what the person/thing you're looking at looks like. When you are all included in the comment or line, you're supposed to have agreement as to where to look and what you are looking at.
I had a hard time staying focused for this production. For a number of reasons.
There was never a sense that any of these actors (female) had children or even knew children or had maternal bones in their bodies...yes some could deliver a funny line when they had to, but most of the time it was as though they were selling the audience fake Gucci bags for the price of real ones.
Notes taken during first part of the show (within first twenty minutes)
Nancy: wft stop reciting your lines and engage!
Allison: Stop showing me your emotions
"Erin run the other way that's the wrong goal" - in order to say this line, you need to actually "see" Erin run the other way...not have your gaze posed in the opposite direction.
The character of Nancy I had a hard time believing she wasn't a characature of Samantha from Sex in the City who happened to get knocked up and thought she could still wow men with her looks...she wore an exercise top with a regular bra...she kept putting on lip gloss or doing any number of grooming activities that showed me she was someone who tried very hard to keep up appearances but I really didn't get the sense that she was a mother...maybe a step mother...but the child aspect if it wasn't for the lines about her children, I would never have guessed she had any.
1. Nancy gets hit in the head by the soccer ball -- I have no idea where that came from, or why it was there (this could be a problem with the script as part of my issue with the overall production came from the fact that the script was mediocre...seriously)
2. Nancy picks up a bottle of Purell and rubs it into her hands...WHY? Where did the impulse to put Purell on come from? Did you touch something funky, did you feel the need because you wiped dirt off your face? I didn't see anything except the gesture...and according to the biographical notes in the program, this actor (female) has a BFA in Acting...
Allison comes back from checking on her daughter who's sleeping in the car (little weird her infant daughter is left to sleep in the car...didn't really get the sense that any of the mother's thought it weird despite one line devoted to it...still weird)...she freaks out because her husbands a jerk and doesn't like to talk about stuff and rags on her...
1. Does she loose it because she needed to unload her stress?
2. Does she loose it because she lost control after trying to keep things light and wonderful for too long?
My point is there are many different ways to play it--but you need to COMMIT to one and play it--not do the action because either someone tells you that's what they want, or because you think it would look good to an audience...BA in Acting from Dalhousie.
A rather cheap sight gag was the obscenely large bowl of Goldfish the ladies pig out on for the last three minutes of the scene...seriously, who brings a tub 'o Goldfish to a kid's soccer practise????? -- it was a tub! (why not bring the bag?? -- or better yet since it's the PTA mom that whips them out, why not a try of Rice Krispy Squares???
Question: What does the ref look like? After all one of them thinks she's having an affair with him?
Lynn has a line: "What's with you?" -- flat delivery on a loaded question...I never got the sense there was much work done in terms of tactics/intent from any of the women in this production...another line (I believe delivered by Lynn) "That's not a joke, that's life as we know it" -- it's one thing to deliver a funny line, it's another to know it's funny and not be able to hide knowing it's a funny line...
1. The audience was laughing (if it laughed and there wasn't much laughter because not much of it was funny) at the script, not at the performances of the actors (female) who sometimes thought they were funnier than they actually were...sometimes they played for laughs because they weren't getting any...I've fallen victim to this myself and know the temptation but that does not mean that it's excusable!
Nancy has a line: "That must have been rough." she says this line as she is checking her makeup...there was no laugh as I recall, this was not meant to be funny...so I really don't understand why you would say a line like this while checking your makeup for the fifteenth time--unless you had no intention behind the line and you weren't listening to the person the line was directed to in the first place!!!!!
Lynn has a great line: "What I would give for a cigarette." -- why didn't I get the sense that Lynn would give anything for a cigarette in that moment? Because she's never smoked before? Because she was tired from stuffing envelopes? Because she didn't really feel connected to the line??? Because it was hot out? I don't know!!!!!
At this point I really got confused...I know these women were supposed to be soccer moms at their kid's practice/tournament...however then they kept talking about playing in the game...so now I'm totally confused because I've never known parents to play with kids in soccer...this was unclear partially because the script was crap and partly because I stopped caring about the plot of the show long before this scene.
Question: Are these women friends or do they just meet up and chat while their kids play soccer? There was no sense that they had any kind of relationship outside this particular day...yet the lines suggested they knew each other for longer (what's their history? How did they all meet? Where do they live in conjunction to each other? Why am I the one asking these questions???)
Lynn has a great line: "I left a great job. My kids see me at school and it fills me with pride" -- I may have paraphrased slightly but the lines were great because it's maternal and human...it was delivered like a grocery list with no connection to another person, no sense of pride, no sense of having made the right decision for her in her life...no stakes at revealing something personal about ones self...
Where the heck is the process of thought????????????????? Just because the lines are written does not mean there isn't stuff going on....
Nancy has a line: "I admire you" -- bullshit (was my note)...I don't believe it and I now think you're a liar...
Nancy has another line in regard to her photography: "I don't develop them"
1. Where's the risk in revealing that truth about oneself?
2. Where the trust needed to share that with "friends"?
3. Where's the process involved to come to the decision to reveal that?
At this point Nancy starts to get emotional (really I got confused at this part because the meaning and thoughts in the monologue disappeared)...but instead of letting the emotion organically flow, I witnessed a very painful contortion of the actor (female) as she willed and summoned from the depths of the swamp what would pass as emotion...first thing I noticed--furrowed brow (which means the head is in the way and trying to control the flow of emotion), second thing I noticed--purposeful manipulation of both jaw and tongue...I'm telling you it wasn't pretty to watch but if I didn't know better I would say these were all habits of someone either new to performance work or trying to pass off false emotion for real emotion.
1. Audiences are rarely dumb...even when you can hear a pin drop...it's usually in those moments that the audience is picking up what you're putting down...that never happened in this production.
Nancy I believe ends her monologue with the line "That was Mary" -- or it comes close to the end--but not before a rather awkward moment when it looked as though Nancy was going to throw up...seriously I thought the actor (female) was going to be sick...
As is my habit I was looking at the other mothers and their reaction to Nancy's "story"....
Wouldn't you know Allison was "showing me she was listening" while Lynn listened but was not present in the room...
1. Active listening...don't have to show your listening...just listen...be invested...your friend is revealing something that they find upsetting, they need your energy and support...you don't have to say a word but please be there for them! And Nancy, check in to make sure they're listening--feel their support and relax your jaw!!! Sure "drama isn't crying, drama's trying not to cry" -- but for goodness sake don't try to force it out!
"They're getting ready over there" -- can't say this line if you're pacing back and forth along the stage...have no idea where you're looking, and neither do the other actors (nor why your saying that if you're intent on pacing back and forth--unless you have more clarity of intent!).
Lynn has a line: "She said shit like she meant it" -- sloppy...good line (especially when the gag is they are all mothers who don't swear)
Allison has a Ron moment (Ron's her husband) she freaks out and kicks a few bags...essentially she has a small tantrum...then she admits to having an "affair" with the ref, but not a real affair...WTF.
Allison then has a line: "How did I ever end up like this?" the note I have: "Stop wandering with your eyes!"
Then comes Sex Talk about Husbands -- this gets a few laughs finally (from the three ladies in the front row who laughed--not because the situation on stage was funny, but because they related to the ideas...)
Allison has a line: "I love my children so much." -- too general and wimpy/weepy...do I believe you? Not really, I got the impression she regretted having children and was really a mess in her personal life...
Nancy delivers yet another speech, this time to "cheer" Allison up and it takes place in St. Martin at somekind of a nude beach...
1. What did this speech have to do with Allison's breakdown??? I still have no idea.
2. What's the big deal about naked people?
3. What prompted Nancy to tell this story to help cheer Allison up in the first place?
Lynn has a line: "Were they lesbians?" -- timing was off, no thought or intent behind the line, no reaction from audience.
Allison confronts her husband (who's offstage in the audience somewhere) and says "Pizza, fine..." then she I am guessing has a moment and then says "No. tonight I want time for us" -- or words to that effect...all these lines were run together...there was no separation of thought, no moment of "no, I'm not going to go along with this, I'm going to stand up and demand what I want."
I have to admit there wasn't much left of the play at this point and I couldn't take anymore notes...I was too upset.
Seriously there was no excuse why this production failed as badly as it did...I'm not going to chalk it up to going on a Wednesday night during the last week of a three week run...there's no excuse (I won't even allow the fact that the script was poor to be used as an excuse.) for the poor performances. These actors (female) all have a strong background in performance but for some reason every time I see them in something (I've seen two of them in more than one show) I am always either blaming the director for not utilizing them to their fullest potential or expecting more from them than I get...I don't know why this is...are my standards too high? I refuse to take that as the reason...if that were the case then advancing and getting better as an actor would be pointless...
I think it's a combination of a lot of things.
1. Lack of professional development.
2. Laziness.
3. Friends working with friends and letting it get in the way of professional creativity. (a guess really)
4. Money.
5. Lack of imagination.
These are just things off the top of my head. Many people may have a problem with this--please tell me! I would love to debate and hear what other's have to say about this topic. Why? Because I LOVE the art form. I do not criticize people for the sake of making them feel bad--cripes I am an actor and I know it's not pleasant to be ripped apart--but you know what? How else is one supposed to know? Performance is an art form. Professional Development does not end when you graduate...it only begins.
Monday, June 27, 2011
The 2011 Ottawa Fringe Festival aka Thanks that was fun!
As luck would have it, my employer saw it fit to lockout me out for the two weeks that coincided with this city's festival of fringy delights...well, in theory anyway.
I have to admit I did not get to see nearly as many shows as I would have liked (I woulda seen all of them if it weren't for the $$ and the fact that I was creatively documenting my employment adventure so I had very little time off the picket line) I did manage to see six in total and speak to a few fringers at the fringe tent...
I did take notes at all six shows I attended (I tried to stay in the back with the rest of the notetakers but sometimes I couldn't resist a closer view); but instead of sharing them with the world I wondered if simply making general statements on my experience at the fringe without getting too into the specifics of each show (you can ask me for that later if you'd like) would be a better choice.
Generally I thought the Fringe this year was boring...I hesitate to compare it to other fringes over the last 15 years as I was not around for the last one nor did I experience much of the 2009 one...but others had the same pained look on their face when trying to answer the simple question of "How do you think the fringe is going this year?"...
1. Where was the networking? Granted I wasn't around after dark so I wonder if I just missed it, or if there was very little of it going around.
2. What kind of marketing tools/techniques were being employed...I had one person thrust a handbill at me after a show and I saw no other person trying to draw a crowd after that...again was I just in wrong places at wrong times, or what?
3. Since when can people bring outside food/drink into the Fringe tent??
4. I miss the theatre workshops that were offered in Fringes of late (we're talking 10 years ago)...are all professionally recognized performers/directors unavailable to do a few hours of community service for their fellow artists? I woulda used my picketing cheque to attend them (monologue, voice/movement)...
5. Did anyone count the number of "students/young people" in attendance...I was kinda impressed.
So perhaps now is as good a time as any to share my "general" thoughts on the shows I did manage to see.
PRESHRUNK
This show did not have a heart...and the actors where not having any fun and that showed throughout the performances. Actors have to be coaxed into trusting a new work especially if the new work is under edited or a first draft. This show had/has a lot of potential and the actors good instincts but I felt as though everyone was holding back or hesitating. Actors also have to take what they are given and make something out of it--even if what they have is nothing...I also had a hard time accepting the stage as it was dressed (not to mention some of the costume choices)--the couch was nice but the rest of the furniture didn't say "hospital or therapy" environment to me.
FRUITCAKE
This was a great piece of writing. But I found it really hard to keep up and understand what was going on because the lines were rushed through (I know, for pacing) without much inflextion or clear process to take on thought into another. There were no clear characters though the actor conjured some. Granted half the audience I would say laughed through out -- the rest of the audience (the ones towards the back of the room like me) were still interested but not as engaged. Also sight lines were bad--in the Library space the platform is good because it raises the actors to be seen by the audience, but use a stool instead of a chair when sitting down!
MOONFLEECE
I really enjoyed the writing of this piece. I highly recommend it (just watch out for the "contreversial" parts of it). However, the kids in this show (ages 15-18) needed a little more work. Their physical conditioning was weak and unsupportive. This cast had a tonne of energy and presence but very little flexibility in both movement and voice. One actor looked as though he were hyperventilating while being told some "horrible" news...others would just freak out in a rage because the lines were "clearly aggressive"--what happens when you remove anger out of the equation?...it frees the actor up to explore other ways to "get what he/she wants"--it's also much more interesting.
I AM BLUE
This was interesting...but I couldn't help but keep comparing it to Kristen Wiig's style of sketch humour. It was "funny"; people laughed. But I felt the interaction with the audience (this is a general note for the all the shows I saw) was flat and that the performance had trouble reaching the back room (she played to the first two rows and that was really it). However I enjoyed the style of her one-woman show (good transitions).
CANUCK CABARET
I love variety shows. This was a great variety show. Both performers enjoy performing -- especially in front of an audience (at least that's the impression I got)...it was so nice to see actors on stage engaging willingly with an audience. The sketches were the right length, the variety good (loved the Prairie Fire numbers, and the Dirty Dancing sketch), and the fact that they included new "Fringe people" every show was a real interesting gimmick -- I think the Fringe should do something similar.
REQUIEM FOR AUGUST AND (OH NEST) HONEST INSANITY
Woah...first I applaud the company that chose to do this piece. It's a weird and complex piece (technically) so ambitious is a word I would use. Performances were blah. I do not know if this was typical "verbatim theatre" (where the show is done as though reading off a sheet with no emotion or thought process whatsoever) -- but it sure was boring. After the first scene they lost me--I didn't hear or see the imagery of the words, I didn't get the sense that the actors really understood what they were doing (the pronunciation of words was horrible -- did anyone work with the language?) -- the story progress but the performances do not...screaming and yelling, and having no intention behind the lines, no grounding in their bodies (constantly moving).
Somethings I discovered during my wanderings at the fringe:
1. Arts Court was it's own little courtyard of debauchery...everyone doing everyone/everything at all hours of the day and night...
2. Never try to smoke drugs beside the Volunteer Tent, kiddies...try the trees behind the bar.
3. The St. Ambroise Oatmeal Stout Ale that was on tap--was the best Fringe beer I've tasted...bravo! (the food was also quite good)
4. It never fails that everytime I use the port-o-potties at the Fringe Tent, I inevitably end up peeing on myself...I tried to resist it this year, but had to use them and sure enough, all down my leg...
5. The fringe gave the impression of being Lack Lustre for more people than just yours truly...
My passion and excitement for the Fringe Festival and what it stands for was renewed this year. Sure, the festival itself my not have been "eye popping, or gut grabbingly funny" but the spirit that is conjured when that many companies get together and do that many new works, interesting tales, and leaps of faith in a condensed amount of time, magic can only happen -- even when the show is slapped together at the last second. What I would like to see is more of an emphasis on creation/development of the script (it happens every year, so why is it always a shock when it arrives??), more interest in the actor involvement (work with them more!), and less of a (performer vs. audience) perception of the theatre going public...the audience wants to be encouraged to enjoy themselves, to participate, to support the shows they're seeing -- it's not just about looking them in the eyes, it's about entertainment and having fun telling a story to a room full of people...
I have to admit I did not get to see nearly as many shows as I would have liked (I woulda seen all of them if it weren't for the $$ and the fact that I was creatively documenting my employment adventure so I had very little time off the picket line) I did manage to see six in total and speak to a few fringers at the fringe tent...
I did take notes at all six shows I attended (I tried to stay in the back with the rest of the notetakers but sometimes I couldn't resist a closer view); but instead of sharing them with the world I wondered if simply making general statements on my experience at the fringe without getting too into the specifics of each show (you can ask me for that later if you'd like) would be a better choice.
Generally I thought the Fringe this year was boring...I hesitate to compare it to other fringes over the last 15 years as I was not around for the last one nor did I experience much of the 2009 one...but others had the same pained look on their face when trying to answer the simple question of "How do you think the fringe is going this year?"...
1. Where was the networking? Granted I wasn't around after dark so I wonder if I just missed it, or if there was very little of it going around.
2. What kind of marketing tools/techniques were being employed...I had one person thrust a handbill at me after a show and I saw no other person trying to draw a crowd after that...again was I just in wrong places at wrong times, or what?
3. Since when can people bring outside food/drink into the Fringe tent??
4. I miss the theatre workshops that were offered in Fringes of late (we're talking 10 years ago)...are all professionally recognized performers/directors unavailable to do a few hours of community service for their fellow artists? I woulda used my picketing cheque to attend them (monologue, voice/movement)...
5. Did anyone count the number of "students/young people" in attendance...I was kinda impressed.
So perhaps now is as good a time as any to share my "general" thoughts on the shows I did manage to see.
PRESHRUNK
This show did not have a heart...and the actors where not having any fun and that showed throughout the performances. Actors have to be coaxed into trusting a new work especially if the new work is under edited or a first draft. This show had/has a lot of potential and the actors good instincts but I felt as though everyone was holding back or hesitating. Actors also have to take what they are given and make something out of it--even if what they have is nothing...I also had a hard time accepting the stage as it was dressed (not to mention some of the costume choices)--the couch was nice but the rest of the furniture didn't say "hospital or therapy" environment to me.
FRUITCAKE
This was a great piece of writing. But I found it really hard to keep up and understand what was going on because the lines were rushed through (I know, for pacing) without much inflextion or clear process to take on thought into another. There were no clear characters though the actor conjured some. Granted half the audience I would say laughed through out -- the rest of the audience (the ones towards the back of the room like me) were still interested but not as engaged. Also sight lines were bad--in the Library space the platform is good because it raises the actors to be seen by the audience, but use a stool instead of a chair when sitting down!
MOONFLEECE
I really enjoyed the writing of this piece. I highly recommend it (just watch out for the "contreversial" parts of it). However, the kids in this show (ages 15-18) needed a little more work. Their physical conditioning was weak and unsupportive. This cast had a tonne of energy and presence but very little flexibility in both movement and voice. One actor looked as though he were hyperventilating while being told some "horrible" news...others would just freak out in a rage because the lines were "clearly aggressive"--what happens when you remove anger out of the equation?...it frees the actor up to explore other ways to "get what he/she wants"--it's also much more interesting.
I AM BLUE
This was interesting...but I couldn't help but keep comparing it to Kristen Wiig's style of sketch humour. It was "funny"; people laughed. But I felt the interaction with the audience (this is a general note for the all the shows I saw) was flat and that the performance had trouble reaching the back room (she played to the first two rows and that was really it). However I enjoyed the style of her one-woman show (good transitions).
CANUCK CABARET
I love variety shows. This was a great variety show. Both performers enjoy performing -- especially in front of an audience (at least that's the impression I got)...it was so nice to see actors on stage engaging willingly with an audience. The sketches were the right length, the variety good (loved the Prairie Fire numbers, and the Dirty Dancing sketch), and the fact that they included new "Fringe people" every show was a real interesting gimmick -- I think the Fringe should do something similar.
REQUIEM FOR AUGUST AND (OH NEST) HONEST INSANITY
Woah...first I applaud the company that chose to do this piece. It's a weird and complex piece (technically) so ambitious is a word I would use. Performances were blah. I do not know if this was typical "verbatim theatre" (where the show is done as though reading off a sheet with no emotion or thought process whatsoever) -- but it sure was boring. After the first scene they lost me--I didn't hear or see the imagery of the words, I didn't get the sense that the actors really understood what they were doing (the pronunciation of words was horrible -- did anyone work with the language?) -- the story progress but the performances do not...screaming and yelling, and having no intention behind the lines, no grounding in their bodies (constantly moving).
Somethings I discovered during my wanderings at the fringe:
1. Arts Court was it's own little courtyard of debauchery...everyone doing everyone/everything at all hours of the day and night...
2. Never try to smoke drugs beside the Volunteer Tent, kiddies...try the trees behind the bar.
3. The St. Ambroise Oatmeal Stout Ale that was on tap--was the best Fringe beer I've tasted...bravo! (the food was also quite good)
4. It never fails that everytime I use the port-o-potties at the Fringe Tent, I inevitably end up peeing on myself...I tried to resist it this year, but had to use them and sure enough, all down my leg...
5. The fringe gave the impression of being Lack Lustre for more people than just yours truly...
My passion and excitement for the Fringe Festival and what it stands for was renewed this year. Sure, the festival itself my not have been "eye popping, or gut grabbingly funny" but the spirit that is conjured when that many companies get together and do that many new works, interesting tales, and leaps of faith in a condensed amount of time, magic can only happen -- even when the show is slapped together at the last second. What I would like to see is more of an emphasis on creation/development of the script (it happens every year, so why is it always a shock when it arrives??), more interest in the actor involvement (work with them more!), and less of a (performer vs. audience) perception of the theatre going public...the audience wants to be encouraged to enjoy themselves, to participate, to support the shows they're seeing -- it's not just about looking them in the eyes, it's about entertainment and having fun telling a story to a room full of people...
Sunday, June 5, 2011
Exit it the King (or) Just Die Already!
So it had been over a month since I last saw a play (and before that even longer) and I decided my next victim -- I mean subject of a review should be Third Wall Theatre's production of Eugene Ionesco's Exit the King.
Keep in mind I knew nothing of the play prior to seeing it. I know a little about Ionesco and I think Absurdist Theatre is my favorite genre of theatre (next to Theatre of the Revolt to be sure). Third Wall Theatre is also something I know a little about. James Richardson's direction another. So I had high expectations and no expectations for what I was about to see. I think this turned out to be a good thing.
One thing that stood out for me while waiting for the curtain to rise is I like Third Wall's approach to set direction and design: both are subservient to the story being told on stage through the actors with the generous assistance of the light and sound men, the wardrobe and hair mistresses (all competently and deftly managed by the superhero Stage Manager).
Picture it: Floured patterned drapes hanging from the ceiling (what is it with hanging drapes from the ceiling of theatres in this city? I am sensing a trend...) The stage was condensed and rangaled so the playing area was a tight half circle. Centre were three different sized rocking chairs, the obscenely large one in the centre flanked by two smaller ones...simple and easily understood--no, Goldilocks was not in this production. The chairs used to symbolize the various thrones of the King and his two Queens (which was more weird than absurd--but I'll get to that).
(I should also mention before I go too much farther...Artistic Director James Richardson did the sound for this production and he also directed it.)
First character up to bat: The Knight
The Knight enters and begins rhyming off a whole bunch of stuff. He's dressed head to toe in absurd looking armour. Good visual, good physical performing--didn't need to see his face to know his intent (although he does take his "visor" off near the end of the play and the visual gag of it being a young man with a smurf voice did get the desired laugh--although not a strong one). Voice was a little inconsistent going in and out of the "mid atlantic dialect"...weird because Ionesco wasn't English...the Knight also had a bit of the twitching hand thing going on for about the first three or four lines but that soon ended...I enjoyed his up and down shrugging and bending physicality as it helped focus the audience's mind to the idea of absurd theatre--it's hard if you're not used to it but it's exhilarating when you know what you're looking at. What was a little disheartening was when all the other characters entered on stage. It was like a tornado went through the set. Which I kinda think goes with the play--but it was messy so I really couldn't tell exactly what was going on--that one of the problems with Absurdist Plays--what is absurd and what is "accidental"...not that there's anything wrong with that!
I don't know if it was me but I got the impression that if bubbles were able to form over the heads of the actors it would have the same sentence written inside them (with the exception of the King):
"What the heck is going on?"
1. Each character seemed to have their own concept of the play's reality...but there didn't seem to be a whole lot of agreement on the play's reality outside of the individual actor....until the end--but I'll get to that.
2. I chose to attend a Sunday matinee. I did this because I do not think that just because it's a matinee it should be treated with any less focus by the actor's as an opening night performance. For me the energy was too low and the actors weren't having enough fun. -- this I find weird as this kind of show encourages and champions actors having fun so I would have thought it would be easy.
Ten years ago I remember that Third Wall had a very young and "upstart" spirit. It was so inspiring to me to be apart of that company and I have some very fond memories of my experiences. But at some point Third Wall theatre seems to have grown up and lost that risk taking -- cavalier attitude (and I know that funding for the Arts has been reduced to a drip and classical theatre is a hard sell) -- but this show lacked spunk...it lacked the edginess of that golden age. That's not to say this show wasn't good. But it is to say that this show could have been GREAT.
This play is a comedy. So why did the audience (full of older, wiser and well seasoned people) have trouble laughing out loud? Because to me this show was played safe...
I know James Richardson can direct comedies. The Importance of Being Earnest was so popular it was brought back for a second run. But that was ten years ago. And ten years is a long time.
Back to the story.
There are two Queens and a King. One Queen was dressed like Snow White's crazy Step Mother, the other dressed like Sleeping Beauty...I do not know if this was intentional but I had trouble understanding that Sleeping Beauty Queen (the young actress who played Ophelia last month) was supposed to be a Queen and that she was married to the King (the actor who played Claudius/Ghost)--much older and more decrepid looking as he was 400 years old. I actually thought (because I didn't read the program) that she was the Princess and he was her father -- then I thought she was the mistress and then I got really creeped out -- then I realized she was the other Queen and I laughed thinking it would have been less creepy and more funny if I had actually gotten the sense from the Sleeping Beauty Queen and the King that they were married, shared a bed, knew things about each other and had some hint of love between them--after all, Sleeping Beauty Queen has makeup that makes her look like she is constantly crying--because she's unhappy with the state of the world, with the health of the king, with her own mortality...I don't know...
Snow White's Step Mother (aka the other Queen) was loud and annoying. I kinda wanted her to be the one the died at the end -- so this was somewhat a good choice for the character (the "battle axe" type of wife you love to hate)...but I found it to be a trap for the actress as her lines came out loud and resentfully flat and the lines had a tendency to sound the same and run together.
The Servant girl was funny. But I can tell this actress has the potential to make an audience wet their pants with laughter. This role has the ability to do the same thing -- but it didn't. Her bowing at the beginning to the big empty chair was too sloppy and quick -- like bowing at an altar when I was a kid -- clarity of intent was not seen.
1. Just because it's absurd does not make it devoid of meaning. There's a reason these characters do and act and say the things they do, act and say.
Sleeping Beauty Queen blows her nose and as you would expect she does it in a very "funny" way...but either the timing was off or it wasn't the right nose noise, it didn't produce the desired affect...it ended up reading like a limp joke...
At one point the Snow White Step Mother Queen repeats the line: "That's an order" -- she says it at least three times...why were they said the same way each time? I couldn't help but notice this Queen's use of her hands. It was like watching Edith Piaf sing -- which was kinda nice but became cumbersome at certain points because her hands never stopped moving.
Suddenly a Doctor enters. It was as though this "doctor" was walking into his kitchen to make himself breakfast instead of meeting up with two Queens to watch the death of a long drawn out King. Had he not walked into the light, I never would have noticed he was there--low energy.
I liked the lead up to the King's entrance (loud familiar carnival music--I laughed hysterically in my head at the absurdity of it) and then the King entered like a drunk and I was like: "one of these things is not like the other..." Absurd? Yes, that could be argued. Dischordant, that could be argued too.
The impression I got around this point in the show was: this production was put on by either a church pageant group or the children's television workshop--which is kinda good for absurdist theatre I think...but I wasn't engaged in the production (and neither was the audience judging by the shifting and dozing going on) like a child would be watching something acted out on the Polka Dot Door or something.
The Snow White Step Mother Queen tells the King: "You're going to die." Each time she says this (and again it's at least two or three times) it's the same way each time. I'm not saying the lines need to go up in pitch or in volume but I am saying the tactics need to be varied and each time needs to be a stronger tactic--but that's my theatre background coming through and not everyone cares about that stuff.
Around now the King has the first of a number of "fits" in which loud Mozart music plays while the King wanders around in a kind of mad dance to show the degeneration of his illness (it's a guess really). Okay, I kinda got this but it seemed messy. I know that movement can be chaotic but I also know that even chaotic movement has to have clarity and purpose.
One thing I noticed about all actors (maybe not so much the Knight) was everyone had a hard time bringing the audience on stage. In what I know of Ionesco's work, it's rich in audience/actor play. The audience is always talked to by someone on stage as though they were part of the story--like in this one, the audience is like another character (the Servant girl addresses the audience in little one line jabs and smart ass comments and commentary thus making us feel like her friend and that makes what she says and what we observe to be even funnier because it becomes an inside joke). Had the actors not been so shy or resistant to the idea of letting the audience in on their world I may have gotten my sense of "fun" back again.
At some point the King says the line "I want arms around me" -- I am pretty sure he's in the throws of his resistance to his impending death...but after he says this line he starts to run his hands around over the front of his body...I do not know what this had to do with the overall show but it jarred my understanding of what was going because I was watching it and thinking "ew...WTF...I did not see this coming...cough..."
Then there was another musical interlude and again I found it too be messy and confusing--sometimes with movement, less is more...I dunno though...I'm not a movement expert and this could have just been my perception of things...
Then there's another moment when the King is sitting in a wheelchair where he gets sexual and gross...again I don't know why...this is followed by the King having the Servant girl on his lap and they talk about Stew. This part I had no problem with as I could see a glimpse of the potential comedy -- the King has the line: "never knew how beautiful carrots were" -- and the Servant girl has bright red hair...this could have had the audience howling in the aisles (not just because of the hair colour comparison)...but sadly there was no lead up, there was no pause or need for timing, there was no recognition that this was infact understood to be a joke, and the audience wasn't primed in time for the joke to work.
At this point Snow White's Step Mother Queen is pissed. She wants the King dead...
1. She may want him dead but does every line have to sound the same? Where's the love? What's the objective of that character? What other tactics could she play to get him to accept his death?
2. James is a master at blocking. I had few issues on the blocking (except why the Sleeping Beauty Queen ends up spending the last half of the show sitting on the stage floor).
Sleeping Beauty Queen at this point begins to have lines that express her love for her husband the King and her struggle to accept his impending death--she wants him to live as badly as he does. But I only know that because that's what the lines say. One of the lines: "He's still breathing because I'm here." depending on how the character is played this line could be hysterically funny (if the character were played like Georgette on the Mary Tyler Moore Show) or it could be touching or it could be sincere...I did not get any thought behind it.
The King refers to the Snow White Step Mother Queen as: "You hateful, hideous woman. " This tells me the actress did her homework and formulated her character based on what she discerned from the text -- however, not every husband who refers to his wife like this actually means it -- even if it is said as if he does...this is another line of potential comedy but the level of that comedy is determined by the type of character developed by the actor and the actor/director's ability to see and navigate the comedy.
This "chat" that the queen has with the King at this point I have dubbed the: "Don't be afraid" speech. Throughout the Queen's chat with the King in which she helps him "knit up the raveled sleeve of care" and take off his burdens, she has some lines clearly meant to be said to the audience. Then why was her focus solely on the King? Did she not like us?
I found it hard to listen to because it seemed so long and drawn out and the images and words that were being said were very important and vivid but were not said with any more importance or energy than a tired cashier. There was no sense of the Queen helping the King (her husband) or that she was bringing him and us (the audience) to the end -- our final exit.
The Snow White Step Mother Queen had the line: "Now you've lost the power of speech..." This is a great monologue that this Queen has. But the lines ran together and the audience tuned out because there was no clear processing of ideas and images. There was no " landmarks of crescendos" in the thoughts. There was also no incentive to listen to the Queen as she helps her husband to his final moments or to let ourselves be taken along for the ride.
1. The director could have worked with his actors more to cultivate both the clarity of the play's reality (so there was some agreement) and helped to give the characters more depth (and also assistance in playing with and for the audience).
The very last image of the play (I will not spoil it for you) was worth the price of admission.
I am not kidding. Which is why I am a little disappointed -- if the show had just a little more fire under it's ass, along with this last image, I would dare say this production would give anything currently running on Broadway or East End London a run for it's money. However, that impression may not be shared by anyone else...I found it powerful and effective and 10 times more interesting, engaging, and impressive than the overall production. Well done Lighting person!
Some parting shots---I mean thoughts.
1. The pool of "professional" actors appears to be quite small -- or the companies very incestuous in Ottawa these days...it used to be a bigger pool with less incest...this could be a sign 'o the times and I'm not sure it's a good thing.
2. Acting is an art form...like any art practice makes perfect...please someone offer more voice/movement/technique classes and please fellow actors -- take these classes and continue to hon your craft!
3. Classical Theatre must be revived. I know that over 75% of the audience this day were over the age of 50 but I prophesy a good way to get the younger generations interested and supportive of theatre is to get them exposed to good productions of plays like those of the Absurdist genre. I know it's not for everyone but done right, I challenge even the most staunch adversaries of absurdity to not have "a good night out".
Keep in mind I knew nothing of the play prior to seeing it. I know a little about Ionesco and I think Absurdist Theatre is my favorite genre of theatre (next to Theatre of the Revolt to be sure). Third Wall Theatre is also something I know a little about. James Richardson's direction another. So I had high expectations and no expectations for what I was about to see. I think this turned out to be a good thing.
One thing that stood out for me while waiting for the curtain to rise is I like Third Wall's approach to set direction and design: both are subservient to the story being told on stage through the actors with the generous assistance of the light and sound men, the wardrobe and hair mistresses (all competently and deftly managed by the superhero Stage Manager).
Picture it: Floured patterned drapes hanging from the ceiling (what is it with hanging drapes from the ceiling of theatres in this city? I am sensing a trend...) The stage was condensed and rangaled so the playing area was a tight half circle. Centre were three different sized rocking chairs, the obscenely large one in the centre flanked by two smaller ones...simple and easily understood--no, Goldilocks was not in this production. The chairs used to symbolize the various thrones of the King and his two Queens (which was more weird than absurd--but I'll get to that).
(I should also mention before I go too much farther...Artistic Director James Richardson did the sound for this production and he also directed it.)
First character up to bat: The Knight
The Knight enters and begins rhyming off a whole bunch of stuff. He's dressed head to toe in absurd looking armour. Good visual, good physical performing--didn't need to see his face to know his intent (although he does take his "visor" off near the end of the play and the visual gag of it being a young man with a smurf voice did get the desired laugh--although not a strong one). Voice was a little inconsistent going in and out of the "mid atlantic dialect"...weird because Ionesco wasn't English...the Knight also had a bit of the twitching hand thing going on for about the first three or four lines but that soon ended...I enjoyed his up and down shrugging and bending physicality as it helped focus the audience's mind to the idea of absurd theatre--it's hard if you're not used to it but it's exhilarating when you know what you're looking at. What was a little disheartening was when all the other characters entered on stage. It was like a tornado went through the set. Which I kinda think goes with the play--but it was messy so I really couldn't tell exactly what was going on--that one of the problems with Absurdist Plays--what is absurd and what is "accidental"...not that there's anything wrong with that!
I don't know if it was me but I got the impression that if bubbles were able to form over the heads of the actors it would have the same sentence written inside them (with the exception of the King):
"What the heck is going on?"
1. Each character seemed to have their own concept of the play's reality...but there didn't seem to be a whole lot of agreement on the play's reality outside of the individual actor....until the end--but I'll get to that.
2. I chose to attend a Sunday matinee. I did this because I do not think that just because it's a matinee it should be treated with any less focus by the actor's as an opening night performance. For me the energy was too low and the actors weren't having enough fun. -- this I find weird as this kind of show encourages and champions actors having fun so I would have thought it would be easy.
Ten years ago I remember that Third Wall had a very young and "upstart" spirit. It was so inspiring to me to be apart of that company and I have some very fond memories of my experiences. But at some point Third Wall theatre seems to have grown up and lost that risk taking -- cavalier attitude (and I know that funding for the Arts has been reduced to a drip and classical theatre is a hard sell) -- but this show lacked spunk...it lacked the edginess of that golden age. That's not to say this show wasn't good. But it is to say that this show could have been GREAT.
This play is a comedy. So why did the audience (full of older, wiser and well seasoned people) have trouble laughing out loud? Because to me this show was played safe...
I know James Richardson can direct comedies. The Importance of Being Earnest was so popular it was brought back for a second run. But that was ten years ago. And ten years is a long time.
Back to the story.
There are two Queens and a King. One Queen was dressed like Snow White's crazy Step Mother, the other dressed like Sleeping Beauty...I do not know if this was intentional but I had trouble understanding that Sleeping Beauty Queen (the young actress who played Ophelia last month) was supposed to be a Queen and that she was married to the King (the actor who played Claudius/Ghost)--much older and more decrepid looking as he was 400 years old. I actually thought (because I didn't read the program) that she was the Princess and he was her father -- then I thought she was the mistress and then I got really creeped out -- then I realized she was the other Queen and I laughed thinking it would have been less creepy and more funny if I had actually gotten the sense from the Sleeping Beauty Queen and the King that they were married, shared a bed, knew things about each other and had some hint of love between them--after all, Sleeping Beauty Queen has makeup that makes her look like she is constantly crying--because she's unhappy with the state of the world, with the health of the king, with her own mortality...I don't know...
Snow White's Step Mother (aka the other Queen) was loud and annoying. I kinda wanted her to be the one the died at the end -- so this was somewhat a good choice for the character (the "battle axe" type of wife you love to hate)...but I found it to be a trap for the actress as her lines came out loud and resentfully flat and the lines had a tendency to sound the same and run together.
The Servant girl was funny. But I can tell this actress has the potential to make an audience wet their pants with laughter. This role has the ability to do the same thing -- but it didn't. Her bowing at the beginning to the big empty chair was too sloppy and quick -- like bowing at an altar when I was a kid -- clarity of intent was not seen.
1. Just because it's absurd does not make it devoid of meaning. There's a reason these characters do and act and say the things they do, act and say.
Sleeping Beauty Queen blows her nose and as you would expect she does it in a very "funny" way...but either the timing was off or it wasn't the right nose noise, it didn't produce the desired affect...it ended up reading like a limp joke...
At one point the Snow White Step Mother Queen repeats the line: "That's an order" -- she says it at least three times...why were they said the same way each time? I couldn't help but notice this Queen's use of her hands. It was like watching Edith Piaf sing -- which was kinda nice but became cumbersome at certain points because her hands never stopped moving.
Suddenly a Doctor enters. It was as though this "doctor" was walking into his kitchen to make himself breakfast instead of meeting up with two Queens to watch the death of a long drawn out King. Had he not walked into the light, I never would have noticed he was there--low energy.
I liked the lead up to the King's entrance (loud familiar carnival music--I laughed hysterically in my head at the absurdity of it) and then the King entered like a drunk and I was like: "one of these things is not like the other..." Absurd? Yes, that could be argued. Dischordant, that could be argued too.
The impression I got around this point in the show was: this production was put on by either a church pageant group or the children's television workshop--which is kinda good for absurdist theatre I think...but I wasn't engaged in the production (and neither was the audience judging by the shifting and dozing going on) like a child would be watching something acted out on the Polka Dot Door or something.
The Snow White Step Mother Queen tells the King: "You're going to die." Each time she says this (and again it's at least two or three times) it's the same way each time. I'm not saying the lines need to go up in pitch or in volume but I am saying the tactics need to be varied and each time needs to be a stronger tactic--but that's my theatre background coming through and not everyone cares about that stuff.
Around now the King has the first of a number of "fits" in which loud Mozart music plays while the King wanders around in a kind of mad dance to show the degeneration of his illness (it's a guess really). Okay, I kinda got this but it seemed messy. I know that movement can be chaotic but I also know that even chaotic movement has to have clarity and purpose.
One thing I noticed about all actors (maybe not so much the Knight) was everyone had a hard time bringing the audience on stage. In what I know of Ionesco's work, it's rich in audience/actor play. The audience is always talked to by someone on stage as though they were part of the story--like in this one, the audience is like another character (the Servant girl addresses the audience in little one line jabs and smart ass comments and commentary thus making us feel like her friend and that makes what she says and what we observe to be even funnier because it becomes an inside joke). Had the actors not been so shy or resistant to the idea of letting the audience in on their world I may have gotten my sense of "fun" back again.
At some point the King says the line "I want arms around me" -- I am pretty sure he's in the throws of his resistance to his impending death...but after he says this line he starts to run his hands around over the front of his body...I do not know what this had to do with the overall show but it jarred my understanding of what was going because I was watching it and thinking "ew...WTF...I did not see this coming...cough..."
Then there was another musical interlude and again I found it too be messy and confusing--sometimes with movement, less is more...I dunno though...I'm not a movement expert and this could have just been my perception of things...
Then there's another moment when the King is sitting in a wheelchair where he gets sexual and gross...again I don't know why...this is followed by the King having the Servant girl on his lap and they talk about Stew. This part I had no problem with as I could see a glimpse of the potential comedy -- the King has the line: "never knew how beautiful carrots were" -- and the Servant girl has bright red hair...this could have had the audience howling in the aisles (not just because of the hair colour comparison)...but sadly there was no lead up, there was no pause or need for timing, there was no recognition that this was infact understood to be a joke, and the audience wasn't primed in time for the joke to work.
At this point Snow White's Step Mother Queen is pissed. She wants the King dead...
1. She may want him dead but does every line have to sound the same? Where's the love? What's the objective of that character? What other tactics could she play to get him to accept his death?
2. James is a master at blocking. I had few issues on the blocking (except why the Sleeping Beauty Queen ends up spending the last half of the show sitting on the stage floor).
Sleeping Beauty Queen at this point begins to have lines that express her love for her husband the King and her struggle to accept his impending death--she wants him to live as badly as he does. But I only know that because that's what the lines say. One of the lines: "He's still breathing because I'm here." depending on how the character is played this line could be hysterically funny (if the character were played like Georgette on the Mary Tyler Moore Show) or it could be touching or it could be sincere...I did not get any thought behind it.
The King refers to the Snow White Step Mother Queen as: "You hateful, hideous woman. " This tells me the actress did her homework and formulated her character based on what she discerned from the text -- however, not every husband who refers to his wife like this actually means it -- even if it is said as if he does...this is another line of potential comedy but the level of that comedy is determined by the type of character developed by the actor and the actor/director's ability to see and navigate the comedy.
This "chat" that the queen has with the King at this point I have dubbed the: "Don't be afraid" speech. Throughout the Queen's chat with the King in which she helps him "knit up the raveled sleeve of care" and take off his burdens, she has some lines clearly meant to be said to the audience. Then why was her focus solely on the King? Did she not like us?
I found it hard to listen to because it seemed so long and drawn out and the images and words that were being said were very important and vivid but were not said with any more importance or energy than a tired cashier. There was no sense of the Queen helping the King (her husband) or that she was bringing him and us (the audience) to the end -- our final exit.
The Snow White Step Mother Queen had the line: "Now you've lost the power of speech..." This is a great monologue that this Queen has. But the lines ran together and the audience tuned out because there was no clear processing of ideas and images. There was no " landmarks of crescendos" in the thoughts. There was also no incentive to listen to the Queen as she helps her husband to his final moments or to let ourselves be taken along for the ride.
1. The director could have worked with his actors more to cultivate both the clarity of the play's reality (so there was some agreement) and helped to give the characters more depth (and also assistance in playing with and for the audience).
The very last image of the play (I will not spoil it for you) was worth the price of admission.
I am not kidding. Which is why I am a little disappointed -- if the show had just a little more fire under it's ass, along with this last image, I would dare say this production would give anything currently running on Broadway or East End London a run for it's money. However, that impression may not be shared by anyone else...I found it powerful and effective and 10 times more interesting, engaging, and impressive than the overall production. Well done Lighting person!
Some parting shots---I mean thoughts.
1. The pool of "professional" actors appears to be quite small -- or the companies very incestuous in Ottawa these days...it used to be a bigger pool with less incest...this could be a sign 'o the times and I'm not sure it's a good thing.
2. Acting is an art form...like any art practice makes perfect...please someone offer more voice/movement/technique classes and please fellow actors -- take these classes and continue to hon your craft!
3. Classical Theatre must be revived. I know that over 75% of the audience this day were over the age of 50 but I prophesy a good way to get the younger generations interested and supportive of theatre is to get them exposed to good productions of plays like those of the Absurdist genre. I know it's not for everyone but done right, I challenge even the most staunch adversaries of absurdity to not have "a good night out".
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Hamlet 2011...Ottawa Shakespeare Production...aka: Hamlet dies in Calvin Kleins
Okay first I should start off by saying I love Shakespeare and Hamlet is my favorite play...confessing this information may make the following critic of the show biased or too demanding...however my hope is that I will enlighten some people into understanding why I felt the way I did about this particular production.
Picture it...sunny, cool, Saturday afternoon in suburban Ottawa...I got a good deal on a theatre ticket to see Hamlet 2011--I modern adaptation of Shakespeare's famous and beloved play. I dare say everyone has heard of it and can probably recite some part of it...
I went to the show to see the play...yes, I brought a notebook and a pen...but I hadn't totally committed to taking notes...and when I discovered that "general seating" meant the first two rows infront of the stage, I figured I probably shouldn't as it might distract the actors...so I sat six seats in from stage left and eagerly awaited the house lights to fade.
Fade they did...
Then the McFarlandesque banners of cloth came shooting down, the fog machines got kicked into high gear and the actors slowly filtered their way onto the stage literally like zombies on a walk through town...fine, I kinda get that image for the play...
Opening scene is the end of the play...Horatio explains the events leading up to what we are witnessing will be explained in the play...
At this point I'm still not taking notes...
Then all the actors leave in blackout and the "tale of woe" begins...
So the play officially opens about three pages or so into the play...with Horation, Marcellus and Bernado (or Bernadette as he was played by a she)
At this point I have a few beefs to point out:
1. If you are going to cast a woman in a man's role, do it tastefully...with this, she was dressed similar to Marcellus but with a pony tail under her cap and she answered like a butch woman in a dark club...granted she was maybe 17...but also, Horatio refers to her and Marcellus as "gentlemen"--you can't tell me this couldn't have been edited as there were several liberties taken with the text..."dead letter perfect" was not to soup de jour...but in some ways I don't really blame the actors...
2. I have to wonder if McFarland and his actors actually took the context of the play into consideration...there was very little mention of it in the play---the fact that Denmark is on the brink of war and has just come out of one with Norway...everyone is on guard (or are supposed to be)...I felt that the behaviour of the guards (Marcellus and Bernardo) were a little "whimpy"...they were scared of the ghost...unable to act rationally...sure the characters are scared, but they take their job seriously and would rather stay and fight than run...my money would have been on them running if push came to shove in this production...
Suddenly the Ghost of Hamlet appears (played by Claudius)...he's in the upper balcony area, roaming through the catwalk aisles...covered in cobwebs, dressed in a winter overcoat and wearing a "flesh covered" mask...I don't know why...Marcellus was extremely loud (strong presence and would probably be great at Othello in a few years and more classes) and a little too controlling of his words (Horatio would speak, and either Marcellus would anticipate the line and jump in too soon with his, or would hesitate a split second and cause a skip in the fluidity of the pentameter)...
Here I have to say that I found Horatio to be "off voice"--too controlled by his nervous excitement so that his voice rose about an octave and he was all but hysterical in saying his lines...a deep breath into his stomach using the back of his lungs would have helped bring him back to centre--every actor knows this if they took Voice class...Directors know it too.
Believe it or not I haven't taken any notes yet.
Next scene is the "wedding reception"...
Where we catch our first glimpse of Hamlet...who is frantically focused on his blackberry for some unknown reason (distraction? Maybe but no knowledge of what he's doing--texting someone, who? writing something, what?)...a woman in the balcony dressed in period costume is singing "When I fall in Love"...Gross but hey, it's not my wedding...all the attendees are nicely dressed but I really couldn't understand why they were there except to fill the space...Hamlet at one point plops himself down in the middle of the stage crossed legged like a spoilt little child and everyone just kind of ignores him...then Claudius and Gertrude enter...fine, great, good.
"Seems, madam! nay it is; I know not 'seems.'
'Tis not alone my inky cloak, good mother,
Nor customary suits of solemn black,
Nor windy suspiration of forced breath,
No, nor the fruitful river in the eye,
Nor the dejected 'havior of the visage,
Together with all forms, moods, shapes of grief,
That can denote me truly: these indeed seem,
For they are actions that a man might play:
But I have that within which passeth show;
These but the trappings and the suits of woe."
-- this section of Hamlet I always took to be sarcastic---like biting, dry, almost revealing too much truth about Hamlet's disatisfaction at her wedding and choice of husband so closely following the death of his father whom he's still grieving after (I guess he really loved him...wonder how Hamlet Senior felt about Hamlet--you don't find out in this production because it seems as though all the emotion and loyalty was taken out of it)...for some reason the passage was directed like a weepy drip of a young man in the midst of a temper tantrum, not a highly intellectual yet severely depressed heir to the throne...
1. How old is Hamlet? 16, 20, 22? He's actually 34, 35--and this is proved by what the Grave digger says about Yorick...but I didn't get this tidbit of information from this production either because that part was cut out or because it was delivered unimportantly...
Now Hamlet directs the above passage to his mother who he isn't happy with at this moment...what I had a problem with is: Does Gertrude have any guilt or discomfort for having married so soon after her first husband (whom she dearly loved) died? At first I thought "maybe McFarland is doing the -- Gertrude and Claudius were having an affair before Claudius decided to kill Hamlet Senior"...but this was not the case--it's just that Gertrude had no opinion...like it was a natural course of action to take: "when your husband dies, you marry his brother within less than a month of his death..." Sarah Botsford is a strong actress...capable at playing this part and possessing the range of emotion and intellect to do a fine job of it...which is why it makes me wonder just how much of the "acting issues" are a result of the direction (or lack thereof) they were given...
Then Claudius has a few words with Hamlet...actually a lot of them...but what I found really weird was:
Claudius was too nice...genuinely nice...like I saw no reason why Hamlet should have a problem with him...it was as though there was no reason for Hamlet to be so upset...which I guess should be the whole dynamic of the wedding reception scene, but not seeing any hint of the recent events they speak about (Hamlet senior's death, the recent remarriage) it was as though either expected or no big deal....
This was another issue I had: Hamlet is the Prince of Denmark...not Ritchie Rich...to me having the play set in modern times took the "status" of the characters out-of-context...it lost the sense of "nobility" and replaced it with the sense of "priviledge"...if you allow the audience to forget that regicide was performed and that the future of Denmark is at stake (lest we forget Fortinbras and his army) than the sense of urgency is killed and the play lacks intensity--which it did in this production...Fortinbras in fact is never mentioned (that I recall)
Now to the first of Hamlet's sililoquey's...
"O, that this too too solid flesh would melt
Thaw and resolve itself into a dew!"
I don't know why this wasn't curbed in the rehearsal process but Hamlet never stops moving during his silioquey's and I found it hugely distracting...and I thought he lost intensity because he wasn't grounded...yes, I know Hamlet is upset but...I couldn't grasp how upset because his emotions were either forced, hysterical, or disjointed...in this silioquey the audience should understand the depth of his melancholy and feel the rage in his heart--not to mention sympathize with him a little at the situation.
Sure he was upset, but again it was as though Hamlet were 16 unable to steer away from uncontrollable wailing--which was my perception...again, something a director could have worked with (change tactics, control the emotion don't let it control you, etc...)
There were no peaks and valleys to his words...yes the lines were said correctly, but the words spoken were not heard by the speaker, the thoughts evoked were not felt by the speaker...
Then comes the infamous "Laertes speaks to Ophelia and Polonius speaks to Laertes" scene...
My first impression of Ophelia was: she's 13...with earbuds in her ears, listening to music no care in the world...then Laertes warns her about Hamlet...she's like "yeah, no big deal"...they have a cutsy little chase 'round some chairs which was weird...then Polonius comes in and does his father farewell bit---with the kids mocking his famous speech--funny, yes...I chuckled but only because it was a cheap way to get laughs...the set up was insulting and unnecessary, I thought...
After this scene, I started taking notes...
Next scene was when Hamlet sees the ghost of his father for the first time...he rushes (and so do the other actors) through his lines, getting caught up in the "shock and awe" of seeing his dead father in ghost form...(the prayer which is a real one, was not taken as a prayer but more as a gesture) the ghost for his part, never did much but wander along the balcony moving his hand at Hamlet...no sense of recognition except for a slight hesitation in step...no love, no sign of commanding him to follow...Hamlet also had no means to stop his friends from preventing him from following the ghost--the audience isn't stupid, but it's as though we were made to "pretend that Hamlet is threatening his friends to let him go"...
1. The ghost had very little precense...as though the mask stole it for the actor...if the light and the actors hadn't pointed him out, I would never have seen him.
When Hamlet encounters the ghost and it speaks, the ghost never speaks directly to Hamlet...he either has his back turned to him, or is in profile to him...and I'm not sure why this was...
"Oh my prophetic soul"...didn't get the depth of that line and it's a pretty good line for Hamlet...
Another thing I had a problem with in this scene was that the ghost really didn't seem to have much to say of interest...at least that was how I heard the lines...his soul's been ravaged in hell, he's in misery...he can't describe what he endures except to say "O, horrible, O, horrible, most horrible"...said correctly that's enough to scare the crap outta me...but in this production, it was sped over for a reason I don't understand...and then the ghost decides he better go and off he does...weird...very weird...
The speech where Hamlet says he'll put on an "antic disposition"---it was played for laughs...which is different than playing the comedy...which I found a pattern in this production...
So Hamlet gets into "character" in the next scene by frantically taking his clothes off while rock music plays loudly overhead...wouldn't you know, he's wearing bright white CK briefs...
1. I have a seriously problem with wearing white underwear on stage...why couldn't they be navy blue or something not so stark and distracting...the play is not about Hamlet in his underwear, or his sexuality...yes they appeared to be nice underwear, but not necessary to the story...
Wouldn't you know, Ophelia interrupts him, and what does he do? Just looks at her and backs up out of the room...staring at her...weird...very weird...(not madness weird...more like serial killer weird)...
So then Polonius finds out and has a talk with Claudius and Gertrude...
In this production:
1. Polonius is not dottering enough...he's too smart for his own good...
2. Ophelia is not submissive to her father (the world in general), but rather she is innocent...not the same thing...and one is a stronger character choice than the other...
3. The servants were dressed in white tops, black bottoms---like Howard Johnson servers
Enter Rozencrantz and Guildenstern (next scene)
Gertrude had two glasses of "whatever" in the span of about five minutes...I thought "OK maybe she's a drinker in this show"...nope...she was just thirsty I guess...
Gertrude's Line: "more meaning and less art" was a throw away when it was chalk full of comedy...
Also during this scene, Gertrude expresses her thoughts that Hamlet is upset because of their marriage, etc...does not hint at any guilt on her part...does she even have an opinion about her marriage to Claudius? Why didn't they wait? Does she have feelings or is she like Lady M? I dunno, but she's the closest to a Stepford wife I've seen in a long time, and I don't know that that was intentional.
So we get to the next scene where Ophelia helps to "trap" Hamlet by giving him back his gestures of affection...I was hoping this would be intense...it was not...
But first "To be or not to be, that is the question"...dressed as a SK8RBOY...Hamlet is how old??? Would not have believed his was university educated, nor heir to the throne of Denmark.
He speaks in the audience, to the audience(?) about suicide...I saw no hint of Hamlet seriously comtemplating his own mortality and the taking of it...none whatsoever...and that's a little insulting...the sense of the speech was totally lost and the need to care what was being contemplated was non-existent...Mr. Director, were you asleep during the rehearsal process?????????
Enter Ophelia
1. "Orisons" what is the proper pronunciation? Is it: "Or-I-zons" or "Or-EE-sons"...
Moving on, Ophelia holds out a gift given to her by Hamlet.
"Well, well, well"--would have helped Hamlet to have said these lines to convey his shock, disappointment, and suspicion at Ophelia's sudden desire to redeliver his token of love...instead they were said blankly...then somehow he ends up pining her on the ground and straddling her, and yelling at her about being a bitch---okay so, Hamlet doesn't have any love for Ophelia?
1. Madness doesn't mean, the person is angry all the time...it also doesn't mean the person is contantly whiny, weepy, or prone to outbursts...it can sometimes but it's not everytime the mood hits him...and the running around the stage...I am still boggled by that--madness does not mean aimless fits of running for no reason.
Hamlet's line to Ophelia: "that suck'd the honey of his music vows" -- great line, 10 pts...but in this production, the line was bulldozed for some reason...still wondering why and how it happened...perhaps not enough emphasis on the words and their emotional value...
And Ophelia...she's freaked but isn't crushed by his attitude, or by her father's insistence that she play a part in his deception against him which Hamlet may or may not have discovered in this scene (not clear in this production)...she's innocent yes, but controlled by everyone in her life (brother, father, king/queen)
1. Too much exposition in this production...by all characters...not enough invested in the lines, in the relationships or in the stakes involved...energy was flatlined.
Now come the Players...
Hamlet explains his acting preferences to the Player King---in a gaudy smoking jacket/bathrobe, in bare feet....WHY?????? Because it conveys "madness"? Maybe if we're going for the cliche...
Then Hamlet address his friend Horatio...and ends up kissing him on the mouth...I could see it maybe if the speech proceeding the kiss was an intense eruption that led to the kiss (a natural progression) however this was as though they had a mark to hit and it came at the end of the speech...not out of the plays circumstances...BOO Hiss...
Horatio yes is shocked...but Hamlet never acknowledges it happens ever again (even when he dies in his arms)
The play "the Mousetrap" is performed as a Farce (exaggerated movements and speech)...but the players are "tragedians" or "tra--gee-dee-ans" as was the pronunciation used...
The "Lady, shall I lie in your lap" lines are comic and saucy gold...but not in this production...they were spoken with spite and malice...I don't know why...and Ophelia reacted as though she were a bothered 14yr old...
The play goes off without a hitch until the plot is revealed at which point, Claudius gets visibly nauseated...up until now, there's been no hint of any discomfort with regard to his crime...and yet he's about to confess in a monologue he's riddled with guilt...weird...
So Claudius freaks and everyone leaves---what I found weird and unacceptable was that a few of the "minor" characters actually left ahead of Claudius/Gertrude...big no no if these two are the King and Queen of Denmark...but maybe they weren't in this production...
Next scene Claudius confesses to the audience his crime...he eventually falls to his knees and if that weren't bad enough, he goes into semi-child's pose with his ass in the air...so that Hamlet can aim his gun from the balcony at it...
I found the choice of putting Hamlet in the balcony a good thirty feet away form Claudius a weak choice compared to having him come up behind him with a bat or something else...immediate, intense, emotional, strong...Direction is yet again the weakest link.
Next scene "Hamlet, thou hast they father much offended"...my favorite scene in Hamlet...and one I did in college...again use of curtains flung down from the catwalk...
Believe it or not, it was blocked in a similar fashion to how my scene was in college (and weirder that McFarland directed a few shows there during my time)...however in this version, Hamlet ends up stratling Gertrude...sigh...
1. The killing of Polonius -- no sign of madness...only shock and adrenaline at having done it...it would have been nice to see Hamlet progressively being swallowed by madness as the play progresses to the end, as the body count piles up...however in this production the madness never builds or carries over...
"The counterfit presentment of two brothers"...still no sense of guilt from Gertrude...like her marriages were really no big deal...
The Ghost arrives (from under the curtain which Polonius was killed behind)...fairly effective "entrance" I must admit...however, his costume was so distracting...seriously distracting...who gets buried in a winter coat? And where did he get the cobwebs from--he's only been dead two months!
Gertrude's line: "Where doth thou look" -- no where in this scene did I get the sense that Gertrude and Hamlet were mother and son...no motherly concern for her son's behaviour--looking at something which is not there...
"O, step between her and her fighting soul:
Conceit in weakest bodies strongest works:
Speak to her, Hamlet."
It would have been nice to have seen some kind of semblance that the Ghost and Gertrude were once in love with each other--and married...just because the ghost is dead, doesn't mean there couldn't be a bit of tenderness expressed (even with the face covered with a weird mask)...
"I must be cruel only to be kind"...said like a weepy teenager...looses the maturity and irony.
"I'll lug the guts"...yet another line said weepy...no deadpan, just pathetic...
Gertrude is left crying in a heap on the ground at the end of the scene...in the black out, she just gets up and slowly walks off stage...would not the stronger choice have been to stay in character and give yourself a reason to exit offstage? Just because it's a blackout does not mean the audience can't see you or that the play isn't in session...
1. Hamlet actually infers that Hamlet Senior was murdered...but there was no hint of that discovery in Gertrude...as though she were impervious to guilt, or dread...
INTERMISSION--thoughts
1. Unneccessary Movement
2. Their definition of Madness?
3. Relationships -- where are they?
4. Where is the guilt?
5. Where is the love?
6. Why do all the men (in this production) act like cowards?
7. Why do all the women act like "mechanicals"?
8. Entrances/Exits have no purpose
At the top of the fourth act, Hamlet enters and I noticed again what I had noticed at the top of the show: Hamlet's hands...as though keeping time with the Pentameter, Hamlets hands twitched throughout his opening lines/speeches...
The whole "where is the body" scene was high energy...however I wonder why now Hamlet decided to act crazy or "mad" (wobbly feet, hoddy up, weird speech pattern, buggy eyes)...
This does not last past the end of the scene.
When Horatio tells Gertrude Ophelia wants to see her, Gertrude says she doesn't want to---WHY??? never got the answer to that...
Then Ophelia enters in her "mad" state...OMFG...Ophelia's performance from this point on, I do not put on the shoulders of the actress playing her...I blame the director entirely...
My notes on this are: "drunk American Idol contestant"...she was singing her lines alright...but in a contemporary song fashion, almost as though they were real songs (ala taylor smith or someone similar)...she was swaying and standing still for most of it (no visible movement of her feet I mean)...but never a hint that her "madness" was grounded in anything "real"...hence why I thought she was drunk or on something..."being mad is not like being high"...Ophelia mentions bits of things about her father...surely that would trigger her emotions...no...she would just start singing like Amy Winehouse or someone similar...at one point I thought I heard the tune of "killing me softly"...I would not have voted for her...
"He is dead and gone Lady, he is dead and gone" -- Ophelia laughs hysterically.
Near the end of the scene Ophelia says "my brother shall know of it"--then Ophelia again laughs hysterically...strong choices or weak choices?...they played weak in my viewing of it...
So Ophelia stumbles offstage laughing all the while...
Enter Laertes, fit to be tied.
Reenter Ophelia shortly thereafter with a handful of freshly picked (I mean freshly picked) fake flowers...
Now, depending you can read the text and think Ophelia really is handing everyone on stage "real flowers" or you can read it and think she is using objects to "represent" real flowers...it was really weird to see Ophelia handing everyone pretty flowers...and not understanding what it was she was saying to each of them...
Also it is not specified in the text to whom she is addressing as she hands out the "flowers" and their definitions...however what she says provides the player with clues...
"There's rosemary, that's for remembrance" -- maybe to Gertrude due to her guilt?
Ophelia's line: "They say he made a good end" -- easily could have injected a bit more intensity so the audience and those characters on stage could have felt the weight more intensely...
The rest of Ophelia's bit, if anyone has seen the scene in the show Slings and Arrows that is referred to as the "wrong way to play her" you will see a similarity (even down to the horrible tune used) in this production's performance--and again, I don't blame the actor--the director should have done something to fix it...
Horatio, who's been witness to all of this and was even given some flowers...does nothing...in this production I think he was supposed to be a closeted gay man...if so, I expected him to be more caring toward Ophelia...instead he was shy and just kept looking at her with puppy eyes...not effective, dude.
1. How long has Ophelia know all these characters? Gertrude, Claudius, Hamlet, Horatio...that's what I thought...
Next scene (well second next scene) Laertes and Claudius have decision on how to revenge Polonius' death and get rid of Hamlet...when asked how much Laertes loved his father and how badly he wants revenge, he responds with "to cut his throat in the church"...now granted in today's age, this isn't as big a deal as it was 500 years ago...back then that was blasphemy and not said lightly even when in a rage...so watching the actor in this production say it like he was saying "nice to meet you", it lost it's affect...
So then enters Gertrude to tell Laertes that Ophelia has "drowned"...
1. Where has Gertrude just come from?
2. How does she know all this information about how Ophelia died? Does anyone buy that a guard relayed these "tragic events" to Gertrude, in this much detail???
This is what bothers me...it's a great monologue...but suspicious too...Gertrude knows an aweful lot, and because she is the one telling Laertes to his face that now his sister is dead (suicide, accident, murder?) you'd think there would be some deliberate stepping...nope...it was as though she were remembering her favorite scene from Steel Magnolias...
Laertes "tries not to cry"...every time the men in this production go to cry, it's painful to watch...their entire bodies tighten up, their chests become barrels, and their faces scrunch up into old man sour faces...seriously do they not teach proper vocal/movement technique in theatre programs anymore??? There is a reason for those classes!!! Technique may not be for everyone, but there's gotta be something there to assist in the production of what is required by the play!!!
Now comes the Gravedigger scene...
I was disappointed by this scene...it's clear comic relief/genius and it was moderately successful in conveying this---nothing against the actors in this scene...they were/are competent...it just didn't go far enough to get some geniune laughter from the audience beyond the "haha, that's a joke" kind...
But I had a problem with a few things.
1. The "grave" was a sand box dead centre in front of the first row---I did not take notes during this scene as I was all but in the scene myself.
2. The skulls were concealed by a dome of soil -- two peaking out of the sand box.
3. Clown #1 had Yorick's skull in her knapsack...WTF???
This is supposed to give Hamlet another chance to contemplate his own morality/life in general...which it looked like he was going to do...however he invested nothing of himself in this scene (as in all the others)...as though none of this were about him and his own demons/issues...
1. Hamlet nor Horatio had any reaction but "oh wow" to the skull...it's a person's skull...the skull of a person they knew once in life...that's kinda creepy, isn't it?
(The intensity of this scene (as with all of them) was lacking and I think it had a little to do with the fact that none of the actors had any connection to any of the objects or people they were working with...)
So then comes the funeral procession...with Ophelia being carried on the shoulders of her "pall bearers" (nice touch)...except for a few things...
1. The priest was a woman...I get that it's a modern adaptation...however, this would have to be an "orthodox"-type church because the lines about suicide being wrong were kept--so in order for there to be a Christian burial there would have to be a visible arguement...not just any church would have a problem burying someone who may or may not have died by their own hand...
2. Ophelia was in a black body bag...that's friggin' offensive!
"I loved Ophelia!" -- did Hamlet??? From what I gathered in this production he didn't care about her at all...and even when he speaks these lines, I get no sense he means any of it other than "she was a nice girl and I feel bad that she died."
Again once this scene ends, Hamlet does not carry forward his multiple woes...he was played more as a "whiny playboy" than a "melancholy dane"...
Next scene Osric comes to tell Hamlet he is being challenged to a duel...
1. Why was Osric dressed as a clown? Complete with rainbow shirt and yellow tie--and a feather in his cap????
Horatio says the line: "You will lose this wager, my lord." -- sounds like he's worried about the safety of his friend, right? Then why was the line unnoticeable???
Another line follows shortly thereafter: "If your mind dislike any thing, obey it: I will
forestall their repair hither, and say you are not fit."
They kissed in a previous scene, Horatio is being played like a closeted gay man...even if he wasn't it's okay for friends to be worried about friends...why didn't I get the sense of apprehension??? Because it wasn't there!
Now the end is near...Final scene--the duel...
After a few words about "forgiveness" which totally had no meaning to either the actors or to me, the sparrers assume the "en garde" position---only Laertes was NOT in en garde position!!! It wouldn't matter so much if there hadn't been a big deal made about it in previous scenes about them both being accomplished fighters--but it was! Proper stance is essential--I had to take an entire year of stage combat and that was drilled into me!!! Unacceptable!!!
By this point I was giving up on taking notes so I only have a few more (I swear!)
Gertrude goes to drink the cup that Claudius has poisoned...Claudius (no hiding anything) screams at her not to drink...she does anyway...Claudius turns away to say his line: "It is the poison'd cup: it is too late." He doesn't face his wife as she drinks the cup...just because this line is noted as an "aside", does not mean the actor has to turn away to say it!!!
1. To me this solidified in my mind that Claudius was a complete coward and that if he had actually killed his brother, he either hired someone to do it OR had done it accidently...think about it: it's creepy to think he might "get off" on watching people die...by his hand...
Then Gertrude dies (surprise), Claudius is found out as having poisoned the cup and what happens?...he opens his hands up and lets Hamlet run him through...totally anti-climatical...
Claudius is supposed to be a conniving, manipulating, ambitious man...surely he could have tried to avoid being killed...maybe just a little...
1. This version of the play was toted as a bloody version a little like the "Saw" movies...this was nothing like a "Saw" movies...there was very little blood (if you could call the red marks on the shirts blood)...disappointed in the gore department
Finally, Hamlet dies in the arms of Horatio after wandering halfway across the stage (not to be by his mother, not to say goodbye to anyone in particular...just to get his lines out)...there's no progression of dying with Hamlet (loosing of faculties--sight, hearing)...and the way Horatio is cradling him and "trying not to cry" (gross!) what peeks through visibly beneath his ripped Skater jeans???
Pure white Calvin Klein briefs...FML!
Major Points I conclude with (there are more but "brevity is the soul of wit"):
1. Voice and Movement are dying skills that need to be revived...so does the art of performing Shakespeare--it's not just about Iambic Pentameter or Rhyming Couplets, or quirky characters
2. There have to be stakes, consequences and reasons that drive people to do what they do
3. Relationships have to be real (between Claudius and Gertrude for example, or Hamlet and Ophelia)
4. Thinking on the line, does not mean "say the lines quickly and piss off to pub"--you still need to think about what you're saying...
Picture it...sunny, cool, Saturday afternoon in suburban Ottawa...I got a good deal on a theatre ticket to see Hamlet 2011--I modern adaptation of Shakespeare's famous and beloved play. I dare say everyone has heard of it and can probably recite some part of it...
I went to the show to see the play...yes, I brought a notebook and a pen...but I hadn't totally committed to taking notes...and when I discovered that "general seating" meant the first two rows infront of the stage, I figured I probably shouldn't as it might distract the actors...so I sat six seats in from stage left and eagerly awaited the house lights to fade.
Fade they did...
Then the McFarlandesque banners of cloth came shooting down, the fog machines got kicked into high gear and the actors slowly filtered their way onto the stage literally like zombies on a walk through town...fine, I kinda get that image for the play...
Opening scene is the end of the play...Horatio explains the events leading up to what we are witnessing will be explained in the play...
At this point I'm still not taking notes...
Then all the actors leave in blackout and the "tale of woe" begins...
So the play officially opens about three pages or so into the play...with Horation, Marcellus and Bernado (or Bernadette as he was played by a she)
At this point I have a few beefs to point out:
1. If you are going to cast a woman in a man's role, do it tastefully...with this, she was dressed similar to Marcellus but with a pony tail under her cap and she answered like a butch woman in a dark club...granted she was maybe 17...but also, Horatio refers to her and Marcellus as "gentlemen"--you can't tell me this couldn't have been edited as there were several liberties taken with the text..."dead letter perfect" was not to soup de jour...but in some ways I don't really blame the actors...
2. I have to wonder if McFarland and his actors actually took the context of the play into consideration...there was very little mention of it in the play---the fact that Denmark is on the brink of war and has just come out of one with Norway...everyone is on guard (or are supposed to be)...I felt that the behaviour of the guards (Marcellus and Bernardo) were a little "whimpy"...they were scared of the ghost...unable to act rationally...sure the characters are scared, but they take their job seriously and would rather stay and fight than run...my money would have been on them running if push came to shove in this production...
Suddenly the Ghost of Hamlet appears (played by Claudius)...he's in the upper balcony area, roaming through the catwalk aisles...covered in cobwebs, dressed in a winter overcoat and wearing a "flesh covered" mask...I don't know why...Marcellus was extremely loud (strong presence and would probably be great at Othello in a few years and more classes) and a little too controlling of his words (Horatio would speak, and either Marcellus would anticipate the line and jump in too soon with his, or would hesitate a split second and cause a skip in the fluidity of the pentameter)...
Here I have to say that I found Horatio to be "off voice"--too controlled by his nervous excitement so that his voice rose about an octave and he was all but hysterical in saying his lines...a deep breath into his stomach using the back of his lungs would have helped bring him back to centre--every actor knows this if they took Voice class...Directors know it too.
Believe it or not I haven't taken any notes yet.
Next scene is the "wedding reception"...
Where we catch our first glimpse of Hamlet...who is frantically focused on his blackberry for some unknown reason (distraction? Maybe but no knowledge of what he's doing--texting someone, who? writing something, what?)...a woman in the balcony dressed in period costume is singing "When I fall in Love"...Gross but hey, it's not my wedding...all the attendees are nicely dressed but I really couldn't understand why they were there except to fill the space...Hamlet at one point plops himself down in the middle of the stage crossed legged like a spoilt little child and everyone just kind of ignores him...then Claudius and Gertrude enter...fine, great, good.
"Seems, madam! nay it is; I know not 'seems.'
'Tis not alone my inky cloak, good mother,
Nor customary suits of solemn black,
Nor windy suspiration of forced breath,
No, nor the fruitful river in the eye,
Nor the dejected 'havior of the visage,
Together with all forms, moods, shapes of grief,
That can denote me truly: these indeed seem,
For they are actions that a man might play:
But I have that within which passeth show;
These but the trappings and the suits of woe."
-- this section of Hamlet I always took to be sarcastic---like biting, dry, almost revealing too much truth about Hamlet's disatisfaction at her wedding and choice of husband so closely following the death of his father whom he's still grieving after (I guess he really loved him...wonder how Hamlet Senior felt about Hamlet--you don't find out in this production because it seems as though all the emotion and loyalty was taken out of it)...for some reason the passage was directed like a weepy drip of a young man in the midst of a temper tantrum, not a highly intellectual yet severely depressed heir to the throne...
1. How old is Hamlet? 16, 20, 22? He's actually 34, 35--and this is proved by what the Grave digger says about Yorick...but I didn't get this tidbit of information from this production either because that part was cut out or because it was delivered unimportantly...
Now Hamlet directs the above passage to his mother who he isn't happy with at this moment...what I had a problem with is: Does Gertrude have any guilt or discomfort for having married so soon after her first husband (whom she dearly loved) died? At first I thought "maybe McFarland is doing the -- Gertrude and Claudius were having an affair before Claudius decided to kill Hamlet Senior"...but this was not the case--it's just that Gertrude had no opinion...like it was a natural course of action to take: "when your husband dies, you marry his brother within less than a month of his death..." Sarah Botsford is a strong actress...capable at playing this part and possessing the range of emotion and intellect to do a fine job of it...which is why it makes me wonder just how much of the "acting issues" are a result of the direction (or lack thereof) they were given...
Then Claudius has a few words with Hamlet...actually a lot of them...but what I found really weird was:
Claudius was too nice...genuinely nice...like I saw no reason why Hamlet should have a problem with him...it was as though there was no reason for Hamlet to be so upset...which I guess should be the whole dynamic of the wedding reception scene, but not seeing any hint of the recent events they speak about (Hamlet senior's death, the recent remarriage) it was as though either expected or no big deal....
This was another issue I had: Hamlet is the Prince of Denmark...not Ritchie Rich...to me having the play set in modern times took the "status" of the characters out-of-context...it lost the sense of "nobility" and replaced it with the sense of "priviledge"...if you allow the audience to forget that regicide was performed and that the future of Denmark is at stake (lest we forget Fortinbras and his army) than the sense of urgency is killed and the play lacks intensity--which it did in this production...Fortinbras in fact is never mentioned (that I recall)
Now to the first of Hamlet's sililoquey's...
"O, that this too too solid flesh would melt
Thaw and resolve itself into a dew!"
I don't know why this wasn't curbed in the rehearsal process but Hamlet never stops moving during his silioquey's and I found it hugely distracting...and I thought he lost intensity because he wasn't grounded...yes, I know Hamlet is upset but...I couldn't grasp how upset because his emotions were either forced, hysterical, or disjointed...in this silioquey the audience should understand the depth of his melancholy and feel the rage in his heart--not to mention sympathize with him a little at the situation.
Sure he was upset, but again it was as though Hamlet were 16 unable to steer away from uncontrollable wailing--which was my perception...again, something a director could have worked with (change tactics, control the emotion don't let it control you, etc...)
There were no peaks and valleys to his words...yes the lines were said correctly, but the words spoken were not heard by the speaker, the thoughts evoked were not felt by the speaker...
Then comes the infamous "Laertes speaks to Ophelia and Polonius speaks to Laertes" scene...
My first impression of Ophelia was: she's 13...with earbuds in her ears, listening to music no care in the world...then Laertes warns her about Hamlet...she's like "yeah, no big deal"...they have a cutsy little chase 'round some chairs which was weird...then Polonius comes in and does his father farewell bit---with the kids mocking his famous speech--funny, yes...I chuckled but only because it was a cheap way to get laughs...the set up was insulting and unnecessary, I thought...
After this scene, I started taking notes...
Next scene was when Hamlet sees the ghost of his father for the first time...he rushes (and so do the other actors) through his lines, getting caught up in the "shock and awe" of seeing his dead father in ghost form...(the prayer which is a real one, was not taken as a prayer but more as a gesture) the ghost for his part, never did much but wander along the balcony moving his hand at Hamlet...no sense of recognition except for a slight hesitation in step...no love, no sign of commanding him to follow...Hamlet also had no means to stop his friends from preventing him from following the ghost--the audience isn't stupid, but it's as though we were made to "pretend that Hamlet is threatening his friends to let him go"...
1. The ghost had very little precense...as though the mask stole it for the actor...if the light and the actors hadn't pointed him out, I would never have seen him.
When Hamlet encounters the ghost and it speaks, the ghost never speaks directly to Hamlet...he either has his back turned to him, or is in profile to him...and I'm not sure why this was...
"Oh my prophetic soul"...didn't get the depth of that line and it's a pretty good line for Hamlet...
Another thing I had a problem with in this scene was that the ghost really didn't seem to have much to say of interest...at least that was how I heard the lines...his soul's been ravaged in hell, he's in misery...he can't describe what he endures except to say "O, horrible, O, horrible, most horrible"...said correctly that's enough to scare the crap outta me...but in this production, it was sped over for a reason I don't understand...and then the ghost decides he better go and off he does...weird...very weird...
The speech where Hamlet says he'll put on an "antic disposition"---it was played for laughs...which is different than playing the comedy...which I found a pattern in this production...
So Hamlet gets into "character" in the next scene by frantically taking his clothes off while rock music plays loudly overhead...wouldn't you know, he's wearing bright white CK briefs...
1. I have a seriously problem with wearing white underwear on stage...why couldn't they be navy blue or something not so stark and distracting...the play is not about Hamlet in his underwear, or his sexuality...yes they appeared to be nice underwear, but not necessary to the story...
Wouldn't you know, Ophelia interrupts him, and what does he do? Just looks at her and backs up out of the room...staring at her...weird...very weird...(not madness weird...more like serial killer weird)...
So then Polonius finds out and has a talk with Claudius and Gertrude...
In this production:
1. Polonius is not dottering enough...he's too smart for his own good...
2. Ophelia is not submissive to her father (the world in general), but rather she is innocent...not the same thing...and one is a stronger character choice than the other...
3. The servants were dressed in white tops, black bottoms---like Howard Johnson servers
Enter Rozencrantz and Guildenstern (next scene)
Gertrude had two glasses of "whatever" in the span of about five minutes...I thought "OK maybe she's a drinker in this show"...nope...she was just thirsty I guess...
Gertrude's Line: "more meaning and less art" was a throw away when it was chalk full of comedy...
Also during this scene, Gertrude expresses her thoughts that Hamlet is upset because of their marriage, etc...does not hint at any guilt on her part...does she even have an opinion about her marriage to Claudius? Why didn't they wait? Does she have feelings or is she like Lady M? I dunno, but she's the closest to a Stepford wife I've seen in a long time, and I don't know that that was intentional.
So we get to the next scene where Ophelia helps to "trap" Hamlet by giving him back his gestures of affection...I was hoping this would be intense...it was not...
But first "To be or not to be, that is the question"...dressed as a SK8RBOY...Hamlet is how old??? Would not have believed his was university educated, nor heir to the throne of Denmark.
He speaks in the audience, to the audience(?) about suicide...I saw no hint of Hamlet seriously comtemplating his own mortality and the taking of it...none whatsoever...and that's a little insulting...the sense of the speech was totally lost and the need to care what was being contemplated was non-existent...Mr. Director, were you asleep during the rehearsal process?????????
Enter Ophelia
1. "Orisons" what is the proper pronunciation? Is it: "Or-I-zons" or "Or-EE-sons"...
Moving on, Ophelia holds out a gift given to her by Hamlet.
"Well, well, well"--would have helped Hamlet to have said these lines to convey his shock, disappointment, and suspicion at Ophelia's sudden desire to redeliver his token of love...instead they were said blankly...then somehow he ends up pining her on the ground and straddling her, and yelling at her about being a bitch---okay so, Hamlet doesn't have any love for Ophelia?
1. Madness doesn't mean, the person is angry all the time...it also doesn't mean the person is contantly whiny, weepy, or prone to outbursts...it can sometimes but it's not everytime the mood hits him...and the running around the stage...I am still boggled by that--madness does not mean aimless fits of running for no reason.
Hamlet's line to Ophelia: "that suck'd the honey of his music vows" -- great line, 10 pts...but in this production, the line was bulldozed for some reason...still wondering why and how it happened...perhaps not enough emphasis on the words and their emotional value...
And Ophelia...she's freaked but isn't crushed by his attitude, or by her father's insistence that she play a part in his deception against him which Hamlet may or may not have discovered in this scene (not clear in this production)...she's innocent yes, but controlled by everyone in her life (brother, father, king/queen)
1. Too much exposition in this production...by all characters...not enough invested in the lines, in the relationships or in the stakes involved...energy was flatlined.
Now come the Players...
Hamlet explains his acting preferences to the Player King---in a gaudy smoking jacket/bathrobe, in bare feet....WHY?????? Because it conveys "madness"? Maybe if we're going for the cliche...
Then Hamlet address his friend Horatio...and ends up kissing him on the mouth...I could see it maybe if the speech proceeding the kiss was an intense eruption that led to the kiss (a natural progression) however this was as though they had a mark to hit and it came at the end of the speech...not out of the plays circumstances...BOO Hiss...
Horatio yes is shocked...but Hamlet never acknowledges it happens ever again (even when he dies in his arms)
The play "the Mousetrap" is performed as a Farce (exaggerated movements and speech)...but the players are "tragedians" or "tra--gee-dee-ans" as was the pronunciation used...
The "Lady, shall I lie in your lap" lines are comic and saucy gold...but not in this production...they were spoken with spite and malice...I don't know why...and Ophelia reacted as though she were a bothered 14yr old...
The play goes off without a hitch until the plot is revealed at which point, Claudius gets visibly nauseated...up until now, there's been no hint of any discomfort with regard to his crime...and yet he's about to confess in a monologue he's riddled with guilt...weird...
So Claudius freaks and everyone leaves---what I found weird and unacceptable was that a few of the "minor" characters actually left ahead of Claudius/Gertrude...big no no if these two are the King and Queen of Denmark...but maybe they weren't in this production...
Next scene Claudius confesses to the audience his crime...he eventually falls to his knees and if that weren't bad enough, he goes into semi-child's pose with his ass in the air...so that Hamlet can aim his gun from the balcony at it...
I found the choice of putting Hamlet in the balcony a good thirty feet away form Claudius a weak choice compared to having him come up behind him with a bat or something else...immediate, intense, emotional, strong...Direction is yet again the weakest link.
Next scene "Hamlet, thou hast they father much offended"...my favorite scene in Hamlet...and one I did in college...again use of curtains flung down from the catwalk...
Believe it or not, it was blocked in a similar fashion to how my scene was in college (and weirder that McFarland directed a few shows there during my time)...however in this version, Hamlet ends up stratling Gertrude...sigh...
1. The killing of Polonius -- no sign of madness...only shock and adrenaline at having done it...it would have been nice to see Hamlet progressively being swallowed by madness as the play progresses to the end, as the body count piles up...however in this production the madness never builds or carries over...
"The counterfit presentment of two brothers"...still no sense of guilt from Gertrude...like her marriages were really no big deal...
The Ghost arrives (from under the curtain which Polonius was killed behind)...fairly effective "entrance" I must admit...however, his costume was so distracting...seriously distracting...who gets buried in a winter coat? And where did he get the cobwebs from--he's only been dead two months!
Gertrude's line: "Where doth thou look" -- no where in this scene did I get the sense that Gertrude and Hamlet were mother and son...no motherly concern for her son's behaviour--looking at something which is not there...
"O, step between her and her fighting soul:
Conceit in weakest bodies strongest works:
Speak to her, Hamlet."
It would have been nice to have seen some kind of semblance that the Ghost and Gertrude were once in love with each other--and married...just because the ghost is dead, doesn't mean there couldn't be a bit of tenderness expressed (even with the face covered with a weird mask)...
"I must be cruel only to be kind"...said like a weepy teenager...looses the maturity and irony.
"I'll lug the guts"...yet another line said weepy...no deadpan, just pathetic...
Gertrude is left crying in a heap on the ground at the end of the scene...in the black out, she just gets up and slowly walks off stage...would not the stronger choice have been to stay in character and give yourself a reason to exit offstage? Just because it's a blackout does not mean the audience can't see you or that the play isn't in session...
1. Hamlet actually infers that Hamlet Senior was murdered...but there was no hint of that discovery in Gertrude...as though she were impervious to guilt, or dread...
INTERMISSION--thoughts
1. Unneccessary Movement
2. Their definition of Madness?
3. Relationships -- where are they?
4. Where is the guilt?
5. Where is the love?
6. Why do all the men (in this production) act like cowards?
7. Why do all the women act like "mechanicals"?
8. Entrances/Exits have no purpose
At the top of the fourth act, Hamlet enters and I noticed again what I had noticed at the top of the show: Hamlet's hands...as though keeping time with the Pentameter, Hamlets hands twitched throughout his opening lines/speeches...
The whole "where is the body" scene was high energy...however I wonder why now Hamlet decided to act crazy or "mad" (wobbly feet, hoddy up, weird speech pattern, buggy eyes)...
This does not last past the end of the scene.
When Horatio tells Gertrude Ophelia wants to see her, Gertrude says she doesn't want to---WHY??? never got the answer to that...
Then Ophelia enters in her "mad" state...OMFG...Ophelia's performance from this point on, I do not put on the shoulders of the actress playing her...I blame the director entirely...
My notes on this are: "drunk American Idol contestant"...she was singing her lines alright...but in a contemporary song fashion, almost as though they were real songs (ala taylor smith or someone similar)...she was swaying and standing still for most of it (no visible movement of her feet I mean)...but never a hint that her "madness" was grounded in anything "real"...hence why I thought she was drunk or on something..."being mad is not like being high"...Ophelia mentions bits of things about her father...surely that would trigger her emotions...no...she would just start singing like Amy Winehouse or someone similar...at one point I thought I heard the tune of "killing me softly"...I would not have voted for her...
"He is dead and gone Lady, he is dead and gone" -- Ophelia laughs hysterically.
Near the end of the scene Ophelia says "my brother shall know of it"--then Ophelia again laughs hysterically...strong choices or weak choices?...they played weak in my viewing of it...
So Ophelia stumbles offstage laughing all the while...
Enter Laertes, fit to be tied.
Reenter Ophelia shortly thereafter with a handful of freshly picked (I mean freshly picked) fake flowers...
Now, depending you can read the text and think Ophelia really is handing everyone on stage "real flowers" or you can read it and think she is using objects to "represent" real flowers...it was really weird to see Ophelia handing everyone pretty flowers...and not understanding what it was she was saying to each of them...
Also it is not specified in the text to whom she is addressing as she hands out the "flowers" and their definitions...however what she says provides the player with clues...
"There's rosemary, that's for remembrance" -- maybe to Gertrude due to her guilt?
Ophelia's line: "They say he made a good end" -- easily could have injected a bit more intensity so the audience and those characters on stage could have felt the weight more intensely...
The rest of Ophelia's bit, if anyone has seen the scene in the show Slings and Arrows that is referred to as the "wrong way to play her" you will see a similarity (even down to the horrible tune used) in this production's performance--and again, I don't blame the actor--the director should have done something to fix it...
Horatio, who's been witness to all of this and was even given some flowers...does nothing...in this production I think he was supposed to be a closeted gay man...if so, I expected him to be more caring toward Ophelia...instead he was shy and just kept looking at her with puppy eyes...not effective, dude.
1. How long has Ophelia know all these characters? Gertrude, Claudius, Hamlet, Horatio...that's what I thought...
Next scene (well second next scene) Laertes and Claudius have decision on how to revenge Polonius' death and get rid of Hamlet...when asked how much Laertes loved his father and how badly he wants revenge, he responds with "to cut his throat in the church"...now granted in today's age, this isn't as big a deal as it was 500 years ago...back then that was blasphemy and not said lightly even when in a rage...so watching the actor in this production say it like he was saying "nice to meet you", it lost it's affect...
So then enters Gertrude to tell Laertes that Ophelia has "drowned"...
1. Where has Gertrude just come from?
2. How does she know all this information about how Ophelia died? Does anyone buy that a guard relayed these "tragic events" to Gertrude, in this much detail???
This is what bothers me...it's a great monologue...but suspicious too...Gertrude knows an aweful lot, and because she is the one telling Laertes to his face that now his sister is dead (suicide, accident, murder?) you'd think there would be some deliberate stepping...nope...it was as though she were remembering her favorite scene from Steel Magnolias...
Laertes "tries not to cry"...every time the men in this production go to cry, it's painful to watch...their entire bodies tighten up, their chests become barrels, and their faces scrunch up into old man sour faces...seriously do they not teach proper vocal/movement technique in theatre programs anymore??? There is a reason for those classes!!! Technique may not be for everyone, but there's gotta be something there to assist in the production of what is required by the play!!!
Now comes the Gravedigger scene...
I was disappointed by this scene...it's clear comic relief/genius and it was moderately successful in conveying this---nothing against the actors in this scene...they were/are competent...it just didn't go far enough to get some geniune laughter from the audience beyond the "haha, that's a joke" kind...
But I had a problem with a few things.
1. The "grave" was a sand box dead centre in front of the first row---I did not take notes during this scene as I was all but in the scene myself.
2. The skulls were concealed by a dome of soil -- two peaking out of the sand box.
3. Clown #1 had Yorick's skull in her knapsack...WTF???
This is supposed to give Hamlet another chance to contemplate his own morality/life in general...which it looked like he was going to do...however he invested nothing of himself in this scene (as in all the others)...as though none of this were about him and his own demons/issues...
1. Hamlet nor Horatio had any reaction but "oh wow" to the skull...it's a person's skull...the skull of a person they knew once in life...that's kinda creepy, isn't it?
(The intensity of this scene (as with all of them) was lacking and I think it had a little to do with the fact that none of the actors had any connection to any of the objects or people they were working with...)
So then comes the funeral procession...with Ophelia being carried on the shoulders of her "pall bearers" (nice touch)...except for a few things...
1. The priest was a woman...I get that it's a modern adaptation...however, this would have to be an "orthodox"-type church because the lines about suicide being wrong were kept--so in order for there to be a Christian burial there would have to be a visible arguement...not just any church would have a problem burying someone who may or may not have died by their own hand...
2. Ophelia was in a black body bag...that's friggin' offensive!
"I loved Ophelia!" -- did Hamlet??? From what I gathered in this production he didn't care about her at all...and even when he speaks these lines, I get no sense he means any of it other than "she was a nice girl and I feel bad that she died."
Again once this scene ends, Hamlet does not carry forward his multiple woes...he was played more as a "whiny playboy" than a "melancholy dane"...
Next scene Osric comes to tell Hamlet he is being challenged to a duel...
1. Why was Osric dressed as a clown? Complete with rainbow shirt and yellow tie--and a feather in his cap????
Horatio says the line: "You will lose this wager, my lord." -- sounds like he's worried about the safety of his friend, right? Then why was the line unnoticeable???
Another line follows shortly thereafter: "If your mind dislike any thing, obey it: I will
forestall their repair hither, and say you are not fit."
They kissed in a previous scene, Horatio is being played like a closeted gay man...even if he wasn't it's okay for friends to be worried about friends...why didn't I get the sense of apprehension??? Because it wasn't there!
Now the end is near...Final scene--the duel...
After a few words about "forgiveness" which totally had no meaning to either the actors or to me, the sparrers assume the "en garde" position---only Laertes was NOT in en garde position!!! It wouldn't matter so much if there hadn't been a big deal made about it in previous scenes about them both being accomplished fighters--but it was! Proper stance is essential--I had to take an entire year of stage combat and that was drilled into me!!! Unacceptable!!!
By this point I was giving up on taking notes so I only have a few more (I swear!)
Gertrude goes to drink the cup that Claudius has poisoned...Claudius (no hiding anything) screams at her not to drink...she does anyway...Claudius turns away to say his line: "It is the poison'd cup: it is too late." He doesn't face his wife as she drinks the cup...just because this line is noted as an "aside", does not mean the actor has to turn away to say it!!!
1. To me this solidified in my mind that Claudius was a complete coward and that if he had actually killed his brother, he either hired someone to do it OR had done it accidently...think about it: it's creepy to think he might "get off" on watching people die...by his hand...
Then Gertrude dies (surprise), Claudius is found out as having poisoned the cup and what happens?...he opens his hands up and lets Hamlet run him through...totally anti-climatical...
Claudius is supposed to be a conniving, manipulating, ambitious man...surely he could have tried to avoid being killed...maybe just a little...
1. This version of the play was toted as a bloody version a little like the "Saw" movies...this was nothing like a "Saw" movies...there was very little blood (if you could call the red marks on the shirts blood)...disappointed in the gore department
Finally, Hamlet dies in the arms of Horatio after wandering halfway across the stage (not to be by his mother, not to say goodbye to anyone in particular...just to get his lines out)...there's no progression of dying with Hamlet (loosing of faculties--sight, hearing)...and the way Horatio is cradling him and "trying not to cry" (gross!) what peeks through visibly beneath his ripped Skater jeans???
Pure white Calvin Klein briefs...FML!
Major Points I conclude with (there are more but "brevity is the soul of wit"):
1. Voice and Movement are dying skills that need to be revived...so does the art of performing Shakespeare--it's not just about Iambic Pentameter or Rhyming Couplets, or quirky characters
2. There have to be stakes, consequences and reasons that drive people to do what they do
3. Relationships have to be real (between Claudius and Gertrude for example, or Hamlet and Ophelia)
4. Thinking on the line, does not mean "say the lines quickly and piss off to pub"--you still need to think about what you're saying...
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Swimming in a Tsunami of Fate's Making...
Wow...I have real problems accepting change when it comes as a result of an outcome I had not previously considered...
Such is the situation I now find myself in: abandoning an original course of action in favor of an alternative I was convinced I'd never be presented with.
Am I happy about this? It's been two weeks since the offer was made and I am as uncertain about my decision as I was two weeks ago...
Everyone has something to say--something they want me to consider, a point of view they need me to take into account...
I'm not happy...I haven't been happy for a while...maybe a decade--and even then the feeling of happiness only lasted maybe a few days...sporadically placed in the span of three years...
What do you do when nothing gives you a sense of pleasure? Is this considered depression? I dunno...I've been depressed before--but I don't feel as though I'm sinking in quicksand...I feel as though I'm being held back...by inner and outer forces.
I am so bloody tired of not feeling inspired by what I'm doing!!!!!! I'm starting to doubt I will ever feel inspired again--and blaming myself for feeling this way.
I'm getting told to "grow up", that I'm 35 this year and at some point I'm going to have to find direction in life and settle down...settle down to what???? Why are people who puport themselves to be my friends telling me to give up on what I've dreamed my whole life of achieving? Why do I feel like the last ten years of my life have been viewed by many people in my life as wasted time??
What the fuck ever happened to encouraging loved ones to persue happiness and never give up on themselves?! I do that for them, why can't they repay the favor?
Someone very close to me once said: "life is the search for a place to belong" -- they never said if finding it was the ultimate outcome...I don't know where I belong...I don't feel like I belong here--I feel like I'm treading water or running in place, but not getting even an inch away in a forward motion...how long am I supposed to endure this feeling for?
Yes, finally I have been offered a full time permanent accommodation--a day shift that people with 27 years seniority are still dreaming about while they stand by a machine at 3:30am. People with kids, mortagages, cars, and spouses they barely see or have much use for anymore...
How do I know if staying here is the right decision for me? I don't hear my heart saying anything to me...as though it's giving me the silent treatment for treating it so badly for so long...
My parents are completely devoid of empathy for my situation...they prefer instead to drill into my head that I have to think about my responsibilities and maybe getting my own place here and having my things and my cats with me is the best solution...why then do I not feel confident in that suggestion? The last thing I want to do is go through the process of packing my crap up and driving my cats back to
O-town...what's wrong with that though? I can still get my degree...it would just take longer than 16 months...it would take closer to 32...
I'm so tired of wasting time...granted I remember that the last two years I did everything I could to not waste time -- I wrote, I created, I travelled, I learned how to stand up for myself, I nursed myself back to reasonable health...but did I get a degree for doing all that? Did I receive any kind of reward for demonstrating the indomitable spirit of humanity? No. And apparently because my situation has now changed I may get no satisfaction in seeing my oppressors get what's coming to them.
Even my ex is telling me to be reasonable in my expectations...I've been rubbing pennies together for so long, I forget what it feels like to not have that worry...
I've asked for signs...I was given a resounding "hold off they hand" with this new development (even tried canceling my cellphone and got pressured into keeping it) -- but what the hell to I have here besides a job that I've had to walk through hell to get?? I'm homesick, lonely, unsure of even myself let alone what I want...and life in general seems to be falling apart.
There's an election looming...my union is poised to go on strike at the end of next month...
Theatre in this city is no longer something that inspires me...it irks me...everytime I think about it I either wanna punch the wall or recite every speech in Hamlet as a way to express my dissatisfaction with the whole scene...I haven't worked as an actor in over almost a year...my soul has shrivelled up...I can't even tell where it is anymore.
Will this feeling of emptiness ever go away? Stay or go, I will still have to live with myself...
Such is the situation I now find myself in: abandoning an original course of action in favor of an alternative I was convinced I'd never be presented with.
Am I happy about this? It's been two weeks since the offer was made and I am as uncertain about my decision as I was two weeks ago...
Everyone has something to say--something they want me to consider, a point of view they need me to take into account...
I'm not happy...I haven't been happy for a while...maybe a decade--and even then the feeling of happiness only lasted maybe a few days...sporadically placed in the span of three years...
What do you do when nothing gives you a sense of pleasure? Is this considered depression? I dunno...I've been depressed before--but I don't feel as though I'm sinking in quicksand...I feel as though I'm being held back...by inner and outer forces.
I am so bloody tired of not feeling inspired by what I'm doing!!!!!! I'm starting to doubt I will ever feel inspired again--and blaming myself for feeling this way.
I'm getting told to "grow up", that I'm 35 this year and at some point I'm going to have to find direction in life and settle down...settle down to what???? Why are people who puport themselves to be my friends telling me to give up on what I've dreamed my whole life of achieving? Why do I feel like the last ten years of my life have been viewed by many people in my life as wasted time??
What the fuck ever happened to encouraging loved ones to persue happiness and never give up on themselves?! I do that for them, why can't they repay the favor?
Someone very close to me once said: "life is the search for a place to belong" -- they never said if finding it was the ultimate outcome...I don't know where I belong...I don't feel like I belong here--I feel like I'm treading water or running in place, but not getting even an inch away in a forward motion...how long am I supposed to endure this feeling for?
Yes, finally I have been offered a full time permanent accommodation--a day shift that people with 27 years seniority are still dreaming about while they stand by a machine at 3:30am. People with kids, mortagages, cars, and spouses they barely see or have much use for anymore...
How do I know if staying here is the right decision for me? I don't hear my heart saying anything to me...as though it's giving me the silent treatment for treating it so badly for so long...
My parents are completely devoid of empathy for my situation...they prefer instead to drill into my head that I have to think about my responsibilities and maybe getting my own place here and having my things and my cats with me is the best solution...why then do I not feel confident in that suggestion? The last thing I want to do is go through the process of packing my crap up and driving my cats back to
O-town...what's wrong with that though? I can still get my degree...it would just take longer than 16 months...it would take closer to 32...
I'm so tired of wasting time...granted I remember that the last two years I did everything I could to not waste time -- I wrote, I created, I travelled, I learned how to stand up for myself, I nursed myself back to reasonable health...but did I get a degree for doing all that? Did I receive any kind of reward for demonstrating the indomitable spirit of humanity? No. And apparently because my situation has now changed I may get no satisfaction in seeing my oppressors get what's coming to them.
Even my ex is telling me to be reasonable in my expectations...I've been rubbing pennies together for so long, I forget what it feels like to not have that worry...
I've asked for signs...I was given a resounding "hold off they hand" with this new development (even tried canceling my cellphone and got pressured into keeping it) -- but what the hell to I have here besides a job that I've had to walk through hell to get?? I'm homesick, lonely, unsure of even myself let alone what I want...and life in general seems to be falling apart.
There's an election looming...my union is poised to go on strike at the end of next month...
Theatre in this city is no longer something that inspires me...it irks me...everytime I think about it I either wanna punch the wall or recite every speech in Hamlet as a way to express my dissatisfaction with the whole scene...I haven't worked as an actor in over almost a year...my soul has shrivelled up...I can't even tell where it is anymore.
Will this feeling of emptiness ever go away? Stay or go, I will still have to live with myself...
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Ranting on an Aging Desire
I'm a little aggrivated...mad some might say...I can't decide whether I'm mad like Hamlet or mad like Medea...(although it could be said they both are crazy).
I've been doing a little "undercover work"...trying to light the fire of debate under some people's arses to generate discussion regarding the current state of Theatrical Affairs in this part of Ontario...specifically Ottawa. Having not worked in the area or had anything to do with theatre directly for over a year (at least) I thought this would give me enough cause to have an objective opinion.
Granted going "undercover" may not have been the most "honest" ways of soliciting opinions from some people, I thought it might allow for more discussion as whatever people thought about me would be irrelevant.
But having done some recognizance work last week, I am starting to wonder if there is no interest in discussing issues that involve the current state or even the future state of affairs in Theatre--
Unless it involves a change to their status, money, publicity, or something in return...
Does this mean the dying art is being eaten by it's own creators?
I am not sure I've done enough investigating to definitely say.
How can theatre companies charge $30-40 a ticket to a show that's mediocre and not have any interest in working to better the quality of their product for future runs? Where are the apprenticeships, where are the master classes? Why does it seem that "company ensembles" smell of elitism in an art form that is suppose to reject elitism in favor of expression?
I don't have the answers to these questions...yet.
The response I did get from those I managed to solicit a response from refused to debate matters they could not directly link themselves to (and perhaps rightly so), but they also insisted they furthered their own growth as artists by finding courses/classes outside the National Capital Region...how does this solve the problem that shows are becoming uninspiring hardships to have to sit through?
I wanna debate these issues with people! Why do I feel like I'm talking to myself?
Tell me I'm wrong, tell me I don't know what I'm talking about! Take off the fake smile and give me some honest to goodness real emotion! I can take it, in fact I wanna hear what you have to say!
The world is becoming a different place than it was even ten years ago...it's our jobs as artists to take up the mantle and express the feelings of the ordinary citizens.
Since when did fresh-out-of-theatre-school graduates ever get paid for non-professional work?! The whole idea of paying dues seems to be an abstract concept these days. I am not bitter, in fact I'm glad I had to start from the bottom and work my way up...but there doesn't seem to be a need anymore for people to satisfy their need to create art by expressing it wherever and whenever they can by the most economic means available. Nowadays it all comes down to what grant you got, whose name is in the lead role, and which theatre has the best audience attendance record.
I think we're missing the point. But maybe it's always been like this and my ideals are too lofty to achieve...somehow I don't think they are though...
'Nuf said.
I've been doing a little "undercover work"...trying to light the fire of debate under some people's arses to generate discussion regarding the current state of Theatrical Affairs in this part of Ontario...specifically Ottawa. Having not worked in the area or had anything to do with theatre directly for over a year (at least) I thought this would give me enough cause to have an objective opinion.
Granted going "undercover" may not have been the most "honest" ways of soliciting opinions from some people, I thought it might allow for more discussion as whatever people thought about me would be irrelevant.
But having done some recognizance work last week, I am starting to wonder if there is no interest in discussing issues that involve the current state or even the future state of affairs in Theatre--
Unless it involves a change to their status, money, publicity, or something in return...
Does this mean the dying art is being eaten by it's own creators?
I am not sure I've done enough investigating to definitely say.
How can theatre companies charge $30-40 a ticket to a show that's mediocre and not have any interest in working to better the quality of their product for future runs? Where are the apprenticeships, where are the master classes? Why does it seem that "company ensembles" smell of elitism in an art form that is suppose to reject elitism in favor of expression?
I don't have the answers to these questions...yet.
The response I did get from those I managed to solicit a response from refused to debate matters they could not directly link themselves to (and perhaps rightly so), but they also insisted they furthered their own growth as artists by finding courses/classes outside the National Capital Region...how does this solve the problem that shows are becoming uninspiring hardships to have to sit through?
I wanna debate these issues with people! Why do I feel like I'm talking to myself?
Tell me I'm wrong, tell me I don't know what I'm talking about! Take off the fake smile and give me some honest to goodness real emotion! I can take it, in fact I wanna hear what you have to say!
The world is becoming a different place than it was even ten years ago...it's our jobs as artists to take up the mantle and express the feelings of the ordinary citizens.
Since when did fresh-out-of-theatre-school graduates ever get paid for non-professional work?! The whole idea of paying dues seems to be an abstract concept these days. I am not bitter, in fact I'm glad I had to start from the bottom and work my way up...but there doesn't seem to be a need anymore for people to satisfy their need to create art by expressing it wherever and whenever they can by the most economic means available. Nowadays it all comes down to what grant you got, whose name is in the lead role, and which theatre has the best audience attendance record.
I think we're missing the point. But maybe it's always been like this and my ideals are too lofty to achieve...somehow I don't think they are though...
'Nuf said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)