The stage was set mechanically between scenes, with all actors in full light bringing things out and placing them, almost as in a rehearsal. Also interesting was the fact that for nearly all scenes, a wall was brought down so that the scenes used only half the stage. The sense of claustrophobia in this was apparent...although it did sort of make me feel sad that there was so much wasted space.
Now the show itself....I've thought this through awhile. I think my feeling is that I liked the script and design, but not the direction. This play's core is about disengagement; that the overbearing and controlling nature of our day to day existence (particularly that of the poor or underclass) drives us to be de-sensitized to extremes, and specifically extreme violence. This was driven home by the disengagement of the audience from the play via the set and mechanical setup between scenes. But the characters didn't convey this. Rather, particularly Pam, but most characters played at a high pitch of anger throughout the play. This made it exceessively difficult for me to believe that their response to the stoning would be cold indifference. Given the level of anger at everything, I expected this to bubble over into a response against what happened....or at least a defense of it. But this didn't come.
I wanted to be shocked. I wanted to be made to think about the kind of person who could let this happen and not do or say anything. I even entertained the idea that nothing happens on purpose; that they very point is to make me mad. Maybe it was. But I am not sure I appreciated this. One must assume that if the playwright is doing a talk-back on the production, he condones the interpretation....so maybe it is just me.
here are some links to others' thoughts on the play:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2011/oct/09/edward-bond-saved-original-cast
No comments:
Post a Comment