Blasted (Ninteen;Twenty-One)

Blasted
19:21 Theatre Company
Mossmer Hotel, SF June 22, 2008.
 

The seven of us stood in the lobby of the Mossmer Hotel on Fourth Street. We didn’t now much; all we knew was that we were seeing a production of Blasted, Sarah Kane’s first popular play. We are handed veils as we are told to put them on and place them on over our heads. There were three holes; one hole for our mouth and two for our heads. From this moment on we knew we were in for something special. We would soon be observes to something that would become more poetic than any experience I had ever had before.

What you see feels like something other than theatre. There are none of the traditions that are present in normal theatre. There is no cast list and there is no program. In fact there is no program. And appropriately at the finale there is no blackout, (the room is already dark), and no curtain call.

19;21 Theatre Company from England brings us a trans-continental cast production of Blasted by Sarah Kane. This company brings us perhaps one of the most intimate but also one of the most aloof theatre experiences I have ever had. This production of Blasted has been staged, like the real play, in a hotel room. There is no defined stage, just as there is no defined place for the viewer to be. The audience is free to move to find a better vantage point as the show is staged around them. If you want to see part of a scene better, it is your job to find a better place stand.

The acting was almost subpar at the top of the show, as the two leads did not seem to play very well together at first. The main reason there is this feeling at first is the audience is in fact not used to this style. The dialogue is not given in a particularly “theatre” style, it is given more conversationally. But gradually as you grew into the style and into this new form, the audience gradually warms up to the actors and the style of the show.

When the work shows its true brilliance it is when things starts to fall apart. As the apartment is thrown into to ruin by the entrance of the soldier the play takes on a whole new light and the performances get so much more believable. Lighting helps to play a big role in this as the lights begin to get less and less and are used to focus you on what you are supposed to be seeing. The performances of the actors too becomes all the more intense and believable.

Those of my readers who are familiar with the work of Sarah Kane know how brutal she is. Her work, thusly, is incredibility hard to stage. And 19:21 have found a new way to bring her work to life. The staging and lighting of the piece is so brilliant you don’t realize it until hours or maybe even days later. How they accomplish what the piece calls for is the most theatric part of the piece, and is worth seeing the piece just for itself. But where the piece really shines is the experience. The feelings that the piece gives the audience as we leave, unsure if we were to clap, just leave or cry. Blasted remains true to the ways of Sarah Kane and hits you dead on in the face with its unique experience. Ultimately this piece provides the perfect introduction to a new viewer of Kane’s work, but it also brings to life one of her plays in a new way that people even the most familiar with her work would not miss.

What can only be classified as “event theatre.” When it really comes down to it, Blasted is all about the experience and what the audience goes through as they journey through the play. And because of that they get away with some things that would not quite work in any “normal” production. All theatre productions should take a little advice from this production and accommodate the experience of their audience. It helps a lot and effectively engages any member of the audience. Blasted is one of the best events of the year, and is well worth the look. This is an experience you will not soon forget.

Ecstasy with the Pomegranate (Ilkholm)

An Ecstasy with the Pomegranate
By the Ilkholm Theater Group
Directed by: Mark Weil
Touring the United States right now!
All the way from Uzbekistan, the Ilkholm theater group brings us their production of Ecstasy with the Pomegranate. Ultimately they bring us a story of culture and the destruction of culture. This is something that has been done over and over again by many theater groups. However, there is something different about Ilkholm and these differences are what make the production completely worth the time and money. Ilkholm theater provides a fresh passion, and life to their theater stories that often hard to come by.
While many theatre groups are adapting old plays or rewriting, simply appropriating stories –and there is something to be said for that –the Ilkholm brings us a story that is completely unfamiliar to us. I fount Ecstasy with the Pomegranate to be not only entertaining, but perhaps more importantly I found it informative. The majority of history created these days is focused on either American or European with some focus into the areas of Africa and Asia. There is virtually nothing coming out of the regions of Russia and its surrounding smaller countries. Loosely based on the story of the artist Aleksandr Nikolaev it provided me with a fresh story from a culture and time period I am largely uninformed about. I do not know much about the culture of the bacha dancers and so watching their culture and learning about its fall became all the more interesting in what should be the human’s constant search for knowledge.
Now, I have seen many an informative production that simply became drudgery and almost painful to watch. However the technical aspects of the Ilkholm theater experience are so beautiful it is hard to look away from them, even to sneak a peak at the ever-present subtitles. Their use of projection, movement, and the acting itself were very important to the ultimate beauty of the show.
After just seeing the Rep’s production of Figaro one could be scared about how projection can go terribly wrong. It can distract from what is going on onstage and can become an immediate sign of trying to hard to get your point across. However Ilkholm does not use it to draw my focus to something and point it out making it a huge billboard for what they are trying to say. Instead they project pictures and paintings on a huge moveable skrim. These very paintings and pictures are the real life work of the artist the piece follows. Thus the projections become more than just projections, they become art that is a part of the art form. Ilkholm does not dumb down what they are trying to say and insult their audience in the process of making their points they continue to be intellectual as they suggest their points. Their work with projection becomes ingenious because it is not overstated it simply adds to the production.
To say that the moment of the company on stage is anything but exquisite would be an understatement. The bacha dancers themselves are amazing in movement, and not just in their dances, their entire attitude as they approach moment on stage provides an amazing theater experience. However what is even more amazing is the contrast between the dancers and the soldiers. While everything the dancers do is fluid, beautiful, and smooth, the soldier’s movements are abrupt, strong, and harsh. This contrast only helps to build the beauty of the moment of the dancers. Once again however this is not overstates it is simply shown to the audience and it is left to the viewer to notice what the artists were expertly doing.
The actors in the production provide a haunting look into the characters lives. I did not feel that I was watching actors portraying the story on stage; I felt that the actors were the story on stage. Each actor seemed so absorbed in the character it was impossible to not view them as one and the same. This was accomplished in a few ways. The story they are sharing is once again unfamiliar so the characters are also unfamiliar. The actors’ portrayal of them is the only reality I know of the story. But perhaps more importantly is that it is really shown that the characters have a dedication to storytelling and to the story they are telling. They appear to be letting the story flow through them at all moments when they walk the stage and they even perform in memory of a fallen comrade, their artistic director. They are emotionally connected to the story they are telling, (like the cast of Red Books was) and that makes the performances even more valid and beautiful.
In many foreign productions the story falls flat on its face when they are brought to the stage in America. Many times I feel that is because the theater companies simply try to force the explanation of their culture. Their productions would be one hundred times better if they realized what Ilkholm theatre has realized. They do not need to explain themselves on stage they only need to share themselves.

Beowulf (Shotgun Players)

Beowulf: A Thousand Years of Baggage.
Directed by Rod Hipskind.
Shotgun Players,
The Ashby Stage,
Berkley CA.

As I sat in possibly one of the coolest spaces I have been to for theatre, I could not help but get my anticipation up to see the piece. However, about twenty-five minutes into the piece I found myself severely disappointed. The Shotgun players chose to adapt the story of Beowulf in a way that I felt is possibly the only way to tell the story on a stage in the theatre format, and I was anxious to see how it would turn out. The Shotgun Players’ idea of ensemble acting sounded like a great take on the age old story. However the subject matter is such an amazing piece the theatre piece left me feeling like I was seeing nothing more than I high school production. Perhaps it is best to even leave a discussion of this type to be left to the classroom.

I felt like the premise had a lot of potential and even as the play started I was more than just a little excited. The idea of having a few panelists discuss the story and point out the ironies was brilliant and a perfect way of negotiating around some of the difficulties that are present in the story. They were by far the best actors in the production, and their ensemble choral work as panelists was entertaining to watch. Their dialogue provided me with the majority of laughter that I experienced in the show. However, as in Berkley Rep’s production of Figaro, I would have preferred to see more of them as the premise and less of the story that the main characters were referring to taking place in the background.

Banana Bag and Bodice’s use of space and their creation of the space using the props were, sufficient to say, brilliant. One of my favorite moments in the play was the use of lights to create space. They set this up from the very beginning of the production using small lights above the three panelists that would dim when the panelists were not talking and would come on brighter when they were supposed to be the focus. Their light was much different than the use of stark bright lights on the mats that created this area where the story would take place behind them. But my favorite use of lights was the use of the upright lights that illuminated the arches of the space, creating not only a frame for the whole production, but also when turned on gave an accented feel of being inside of a great hall that would have existed during the time of Beowulf.

Their use of props also added to the production. It to be honest made the production watchable. Even the microphones at times became part of the set and part of the action when Beowulf uses each one and allows them to swing in rhythm. The use of the fish tanks to illustrate the underwater battle was nothing less than amusing. Even the instrumentation became part of the props. But their best use of props was also in someway the use of the space. When the dragon is created on stage, their use of fans and then mesh flags to create the illusion of wings kept the audience’s attention.

However, despite all the tools they had at their disposal, the lack of the presence of Beowulf and the horrid lyrics and simple melodies caused the production to fall on its face. Beowulf appeared on stage as an oaf, not the strong, but tragic hero we all have come to know and love. I do understand the dramatic and literary irony this creates, but instead of producing a witty irony, Beowulf creates an irony that does not support itself, in fact it does not support anything. Instead he helps to drag the production through the floor. While the music works for some of the actors, Beowulf’s solos (which are far to plentiful) are off-key and coarse. They do not provide the same feel as Grendal’s songs, which are meant to be a little off because of the way the character is played. His actions are way less physical than the beautiful actions of the other principal characters and when compared to the acting of Grendal and Grendal’s mother. The story of Beowulf gets smashed by the inadequate lyrics that were written, they try to turn the story into a somewhat funny telling of it, however the humor, for the most part is not humorous or witty. The lyrics, instead seem to not be pushed enough in that direction and instead fall on deaf ears as only making a lukewarm statement. The Beowulf character writing does not even provide much for the panelists to discuss, as most of their discussion is concerning the three villains.

The very character the play should be about drags down what would have been a beautiful production. It is interesting to note how something with such great potential can be dragged down by something that may seem so small. That is why it is important for every production to be so tight. Instead of being amazed I found myself a lot more disappointed then I had ever foreseen. Perhaps Beowulf would have been a lot more tolerable without the Beowulf.

twid

Figaro (Berkeley Rep/Jeune Lune)

Figaro: Musical drama.By Steven Epp and Dominique Serrand, adapted from Mozart’s “The Marriage of Figaro” and three plays by Beaumarchais. Directed by Serrand. (Through June 8. Theatre de la Jeune Lune, Berkeley Repertory’s Roda Theatre, 2015 Addison St., Berkeley. Two hours, 50 minutes. Tickets: $16.50-$69. Call (510) 647-2949 or go to www.berkeleyrep.org.)


Berkley Repertory Theatre has once again brought the esteemed Jeune Lune to its stage. This time they bring the west coast premier of their show Figaro. Set 20 years after the events of the well-known opera by Mozart in the city of Paris, Jeune Lune’s own Stephan Epp has masterfully written his script that holds much relevance today. The production is placed in just the right spot to provide some much needed looks into our own society today. However, Figaro sometimes looses track of to where it is going, and unnecessarily complicates many parts of the show, making the audience loose track of what is really important in the show, the incredible acting provided by Epp and Serrand.

The play begins with Epp pushing in a huge wardrobe box that becomes an important piece of furniture for the rest of the show. The man who penned the piece, Steven Epp, plays old Figaro while Jeune Lune’s own artistic director Dominique Serrand plays the elder count. Their interaction is brilliant and is worth seeing the show for again and again. Their set suggests a minimalistic approach to the story, however hat follows is a whirlwind of actions flowing almost seamlessly between the events of the past and the events of the present. However I found myself wanting to hold onto the events of the present rather than being pulled into the story that they are remembering in the past. I would have had no problem the show continuing with mainly Ebb and Serrand on stage.

In talking with Serrand after the show he spoke about how the opera was so much of what the play was about, however I very humbly disagree with him. The story of the opera has been told over and over again and indeed for many fans of theatre and the opera the story is maybe a little too known. This new play based on the work of Beaumarchais chooses to focus it story on the memories of the now old count and aged Figaro. That is why this production works. It is not so much that the Jeune Lune’s opera is bad, it is just that the acting of Serrand and Epp is so brilliant. It makes the opera an unnecessary side thought to the story of the count and his servant. That is where the problem lies.

Theatre Jeune Lune often bombarded me with so much in trying to combine the story of the opera with that of the two men remembering it. Constantly I was trying to deal with the action onstage, the memories being acted out onstage and the subscript translating the opera. The subscript was completely unnecessary in that it tried to emphasize what was not the point of the play. This production is not about the story of the opera it is about these two men having grown old looking back on their past. Many times I found myself watching two plays onstage having a war with one another. Jeune Lune tried too hard to make the story of the opera be told and to set it apart from the story of the two men.

In an effort to be high tech and innovative they ended up complicating the play even further. Upstage of the action there stood a screen that was constantly changing position. The screen provided many a “cool” moment, showing close-ups of moments onstage on a live feed, but ultimately this was a crutch to allow for staging things away from the audience. The only time it really worked was when it factored into the memories of the men showing the son of the count, as he was a boy. Or when it showed a close up of the actor when it was really called for (ie. when Serrand finds out of his wife’s adultery). There were many times when dialogue was taking place onstage that the screen was moving into a position for another shot or was showing a moving picture background that did not provide much benefit other than distract the viewer from the action onstage.

There were, without a doubt, moments of brilliance in Figaro, but these were mostly found when low-tech devices were being employed, The moments between Figaro and the Count are some of the most priceless on stage as their dry whit and humor is enough to entertain any audience. Even when Serrand’s character leaves the stage you can still feel him present as though he was forced to leave too soon. It’s a pity the opera and the high tech innovation did take a back seat to the real action on stage. Figaro should have taken the advice of its set designers and remained a little more simple and focused more on the story of the men. Sometimes things are left better uncomplicated.

But as a final word, go and see it, if for nothing more than the performances of the leads, i could watch them all day long.

The Trojan Women (Aurora Theater Company)

The Trojan Women
By Ellen McLaughlin
Directed by Barbara Oliver
Aurora Theatre Company
Berkley CA
2008

Important theater is theater that has an impact for the audience that will eventually push the audience to action. Therefore to be classified as important theater the theater has to have a message that is relevant for the time period and also the audience.

War, and the consequences of such have always been important topics of discussion, especially as of late. In a time in which we find ourselves emotionally and fiscally invested in war effort abroad, that in the end does not really help us as Americans in the long run, you are forced to question war and to examine its consequences. We all know the consequences for the soldiers involved. Death. But what is altogether to often forgotten is the affect it has on civilians and the innocent. It is true that many an innocent person has gotten caught up into the war, and have gotten hurt. But there are deeper wounds than physical wounds that take place. Emotional wounds that come from ulterior sources are intolerable. So at least on the surface The Trojan Women seems to have a message that needs to be heard at least for the time period. However, Our world today is so focused on the protection of the week and the helpless. So I ask is a play about women and he injuries concurred during war relevant for today’s audience? Is a rewrite of Trojan woman important theater for today?

I feel there has been so much of this type of material that has been produced in the last six years that the message has lost its potency. Since the American occupation of Iraq we have heard nothing but an overload of stories about the weak and helpless that have been hurt by war especially this war. As a humanitarian and a civil rights activist I am very familiar with the injustices that take place in this world, but I do not feel that a just war creates that situation.

Ellen McLaughlin’s adaptation of Euripides script was written about the tragedy that took place in Kosovo. That was the original setting, and in that setting I see the relevancy of the text and of the play, however, the Iraq War is a beast of a completely different nature. The production was, I feel, trying to draw similarities between the Greeks going for their own gain and invading Troy and the invasion of Iraq to halt the terror that Sadam was subjecting his citizens to.

There is no question of the validity of the story. There is a reason Euripides himself focused on the lives of others than the soldiers in war. There is a valid argument that people do get caught up in war. It is also a fact that many people do get hurt in wars that were not meant to and their story does need to be told. But their story needs to stop becoming a political statement taken out of context. But we as humans and especially Americans realize this fact.

The overuse of one thing can quickly turn something that did constitute important theater and quickly turn into something that is mundane and normal. Leaving this play I have no reason to ever think about what took place on that stage, there was nothing extraordinary about their presentation of the message. It was just another anti-war play to me that I have heard time an time again. It is the theater’s job to stay relevant in a time where other art forms are becoming mundane. Theater has the ability to constantly conform and still make a statement on the society around them. However if they do not do this and create something new, they are nothing but a clanging cymbal that has already been heard.

In a quick note about the theatrical aspects though, I did feel like there were times that it was well executed. Their use of the thrust stage to create a very intimate feel was particularly. I felt they took care of the space very well at times, using a lot of intricate floor patter to create some beautiful moments. By far the climax of the vignettes was when hector’s wife had her monologue ending with her on the floor in the middle of the stage. Her floor patter was beautiful. However there were too many holes in the rest of the play to make it believable. Their setting was not solidly set up I did not feel the sense of danger to them that should have been expected. I think the small holes especially in the setting made the play feel especially irrelevant and unimportant for the majority of its audience. With a city audience, especially Berkley residents, who are usually, very well informed about the injustice in the world this “important” theater scheme has been overplay