Or so I thought as I watched Jerome de Silva- veteran theatre director- as he stormed out of the Lionel Wendt in undignified haste, proclaiming his all too apparent dissatisfaction at the judges of the Shakespeare Drama Competition. Yes, one of the schools he directed didn’t get in. Whoops. Tee hee hee.
Ah the heated debate that ensued in the aftermath of the semifinals- at least it was significantly more intelligent that some of the impassioned pre-provincial council crap- though in some cases, that’s not saying much. But as I was hanging around outside the Wendt, nonchalantly munching my Snickers bar, and yes, snickering (I love bad puns) at huddles of sour grapes casts and their vehement protestations of injustice (I could almost hear Requeim for a Dream playing in ze background), I couldn’t but help feeling a little sorry for those kids.
So this was my first experience of “Shakes”, as they call it-no I’m no frog in the well, I’ve only been in SL for three monthsJ- but it doesn’t take a big shot in theatre to imagine the kind of hard work and commitment that has to go into the process of
1. Deciding which play would be the best fit for the cast.
2. Figuring out the best angle/ perspective to take, judging by the actors, of course.
3. Editing the script- the bard didn’t make that one easy.
4. Conducting auditions
5. Getting everyone acquainted with the play
6. Reading/ gabbles
7. Characterization work
8. Movements/ choreography/ blocking
9. Sets/ costumes/ lighting
Why then, did the judges fail to pay the actors the simple courtesy of some halfway decent feedback? Jehan Aloysius spoke roughly two sentences, the lady read out the results, and Graham Hatch (?) bopped his head up and down like some sort of psychopathic owl. Now don’t get me wrong. I am not casting aspersions on the judges themselves, but being noted theatre personalities, they can’t expect school children to have the same level of understanding of why their performances were good or otherwise, or why they made or did not make it into the finals.
Obviously, the schools probably waited in eager anticipation of what reviews in the media would say. Again, they would probably be disappointed. The Sunday Times gave us a round- up of a bunch of simple facts that we already know- http://www.sundaytimes.lk/111009/Magazine/sundaytimesmirror_04.html
and a few days ago The Colombo Spirit spouted out a sunny review of the performances in which no one went wrong- http://www.spirit.lk/?t=fs&nid=20111010104735554.
Being moi, I decided to throw in my two cents as a comment but it looks like The Colombo Spirit doesn’t take too kindly to comments which are almost as long as the article. So I did as the Sri Lankans do- sighed, said “What to do?” and started a new blog where I could rant away to glory on all things drama. And this was my comment:
I wish I could have watched all the performances. But going by the ones I did watch, I disagree with the reviewer on some counts.
No doubt the performance by Ave Maria was a crowd pleaser. From start to finish, the cast held their audience with some well timed comedy. Unfortunately, the comedy was farcical and excruciatingly slapstick. Fie, fie, fie. Cringe, cringe, cringe. Granted, The Taming of the Shrew is a romantic comedy (albeit a somewhat dubious, possibly anti-feminist one) but Shakespeare's wit stands quite well on its own; it does not necessarily depend on vulgarity. Regardless of the obscenity however, this cast had a strong set of actors- the performance by Petruchio was an absolute stunner despite the fact that in many instances, the actress and the cast in general had been poorly directed.
Newstead College which followed got my vote just for performing Measure for Measure- a tough, tough play. All the subtle nuances of probably the most conflicted set of characters Shakespeare has ever created, were brought out admirably considering that the entire gist of the story was condensed into roughly 30 minutes. Their Angelo was fantastic, as was Duke Vincentio. Sadly their Isabella was not as convincing as I would have liked to see- she like a few of the members of the supporting cast, seemed to grapple with some diction faux pas, but the performance didn’t suffer too much. The wicked lighting sequences complemented the entire look of the production as well.
If the readers were to look at the picture above- of Cleopatra in one of her darkest moments- they can be assured that every performance of Antony and Cleopatra was packed with over-melodramatic sequences such as these; enough said.
St. Bridget's College put up a very creative performance with a super Iago. If what the article says is right and the girl who played Iago did direct, bravo.
St. Thomas' had me rolling my eyes multiple times (they still hurt from the memory of it) at the haphazard, untidy thudding on and off stage hysteria that defined their Taming of the Shrew. The one redeeming feature was their Petruchio. In general, the Petruchios of the competition were, mostly, stand out performances.
Royal College, unlike Newstead didnt get my vote but had me tearing my hair watching their stellar cast of actors make a futile attempt to pull off Measure for Measure with abysmal characterization. The characterization work for Measure for Measure has. to. be. spot on or it will right royally (pun intended) fall apart.
I sat at the edge of my seat waiting for something brilliant to happen with Jerome de Silva's Othello (not sure of the name of the school) but his very creative concept of alter egos just fell flat as a result of putrid, wooden acting and appaling diction by the main cast.
Overall, the competition- or "Shakes" as I heard it called, was a pleasantly intense experience- and entertaining too, going by the sour grapes attitude of some of the schools who didn't make it to the finals; the quality of the drama they put up outside the Wendt was more intense than that which they had performed on stage :)
I realize this is quite a long comment, but what the heck.
And there you have it. Of course I have lots more to say on the subject, but I doubt you readers out there would have the patience to plough through any more of this rant :)
You say your sorry for the kids?? Bullshit you know how hard it is to do comedy?? Ave Maria was one of the best that day! Even colombo spirit said it. And Thomas' bad??? Who are you to comment on drama anyway???
ReplyDeleteWoo hoo this sounds like a loyal Ave Maria cast member! Or maybe a Thomian :P
ReplyDeleteGet over it people its just a competition! Unfair stuff always happens. C'est la vie :)
Good review Queen but why havent you written about some of the other schools that took part? Like who else did you watch?
Anonymous, I appear to have touched a nerve. However, rest assured that my opinion is not gospel truth. For fear of sounding patronizing let me tell you that you have a choice- either agree, or agree to disagree:) It's no skin off my nose.
ReplyDeleteAmused- clap clap. I'm a fan of the C'est la vie philosophy.
Well since I'm new here, I am not sure of some of the names of the schools, but as for those who I've heard of and whose names I remember- Holy Family Convent, St. Lawrences and another girls' school which did Othello and their Iago wore a pair of interesting red boots.
Someone did Love's Labours Lost but it sort of fell flat at times.
As for the boys schools I was only able to watch St. Peters', St. Joseph's and the final batch of guys during the evening session on the final day.
That's not too bad for a first timer though, is it?
I thought the Bens did a good job. It was a really original concept and they deserved to get into the finals.
ReplyDeleteYes indeed, Anonymous the 1st. Ave Maria had the audience in fits. They did the likes of Indu Dharmasena and Koluu proud.
ReplyDelete"Madeyi Tomiya..." :P
Sad you did not watch Corealanus, am sure i got the spellings wrong again... But well, it was surprisingly good...
ReplyDeleteCoriolanus (:) ) by DS? I thought they were good too because Coriolanus is usually really boring! When DS did I finally understood what it was all about :)
ReplyDeleteSt. Bridget's is a convent, not a college.
ReplyDeleteDear Queen,
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree with you about the performance of Royal College. Yes, the acting was as you said, stellar. But why was the characterization 'abysmal'? They simply decided to play out of the box; to shed some new light on the characters in measure for measure.
Contrary to the view of the Duke Vincentio as an astute leader with a somewhat sinister ulterior motive, the Duke here was portrayed as a vacillating, ineffective and bumbling one: a rather pathetic figure. But is this not the reason why he has allowed the laws of Vienna to slip for twenty years? At this point, he needs Angelo because no one else appears capable of doing his dirty work. I would suppose that is a reasonable argument.
The conflict of emotions experienced by Angelo, I felt, was brilliant and evocatively done.
Isabel too, struggled against feelings of guilt at her helplessness in the face of her brother's imminent death, and the feeling of righteous anger at Angelo's request.
As for Claudio, I fail to see what was abysmal about HIS characterization.
I would suggest therefore, that before you cast judgements of the sort that you have done in your post, you accumulate some real knowledge of the text you are referring to.
Hahahaha!! Aiyo you think your so smart and you know everything about drama! But what about the audience huh? Arnt they the best judges and the audience also loved it...what the hell do people like you know..!! Stpid b!tch! Whts the point talking about all literary stuff if the audience doesnt like the play!
ReplyDeleteYou and the judges are the smae do you think Hillwood was better than Ave???They were boring!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYoo hoo there my lovelies.
ReplyDeleteOkay then, lets see.
Anonymous- Which play did the 'Bens' do? Sorry I'm not too strong on the names of the schools!
Gigglepuss- I have to say, that's some handle! *giggles. Nicely put. But I'm sadly perturbed about your "Madeyi Tomiya" reference :P
Anonymous- I'd have liked to see Coriolanus too, there's just so much potential in that play!
":)"- Duly noted. Like I said, I'm a stranger here =)
Casual Observer- What you say is true. Unfortunately you seem to have missed the bus. The characterization of Duke Vincentio would have been 'out of the box', had the cast/ director made use of the opening scene to point out the Duke's Modus Operandi, and to use the ineffective demeanour as a facade to something a little more sinister. When he discusses his devious little plan with Friar Thomas, it is all too clear that Duke V is not your typical ineffective leader. Admitted, to an extent he is. But to say that's all he is, is absolutely simplistic on the part of someone who claims to have an in- depth knowledge of the text. I would say this cast started off with an advantage which they failed to make use of.
And that's one reason why I liked the other adaptation of Measure- by Newstead- they had identified the different facets of the Duke, and the actress explored them. There is, obviously room for even more development there but they are on the right track.
As for Angelo- when he is absolutely confident of his position- "Say what you can. My False over-weighs your true"- do you honestly think that he would stammer and stutter like an awkward, geeky male asking a girl out for the first time? Possibly not. The only thing A is conflicted on is his standpoint where a potential sexual favour from Isabella is concerned. And that conflict does not last very long now, does it?
Isabella: is absolutely steadfast and virtuous. May I repeat- steadfast? At no point does she waver or even express doubt about her position. She is consistent in the belief that she must uphold her virtue because that, for her, is the most important thing. If you can give us a quote- proving that the melodramatic, over-symbolic dumb show with the apple was true to the text which you refer to with such obvious relish- I will stand corrected.
As for Claudio, agreed.
If you are in the mood for venturing into the arena of my alleged ignorance of the text, pick any of Shakespeare's 37 plays or sonnets and let us engage in some thought provoking, intellectual discourse:)
Anonymous the 1st: I have been looking forward to your reply, and I read it now with absolute delight. Such eloquence! Such articulation! Such an eminent turn of phrase! My friend, I salute you. Be still, my heart. My horn runneth over.
i must say Newstead did a good production of measure for measure!!!!
ReplyDeleteThey certainly did. They may need to work a little more on projection though. But all in all it was a solid performance. If they iron out some of the minor kinks and if St. Bridgets' Othello gets into character there will be some nice stiff competition between the two. I wish I'd seen the other two finalists too though.
ReplyDeleteDid anyone here watch those performances?
I agree. Having last seen the Bridgetines in 2009 where they did a fairly forgettable adaptation of A Midsummer Night's Dream (they didnt make it to the finals) I was quite stunned by the level of professionalism they displayed.
ReplyDeleteEvery minute of the production was perfectly paced, and not for a minute did the performance lag. Scene to scene transitions were navigated with effortless ease- so much so that th performance ceased to become a performance: it didnt look like they were acting but as if everything they did on stage came perfectly naturally to them. Granted, the scene in which Cassio is intoxicated did feature some very orderly drunks, and the final scene was a tad untidy but all in all it was one of the few performances where each actress pulled her weight. There was cohesion. Obvious team effort and chemistry. And of course, there was Iago. If the Bridgetine Iago and Newstead's Angelo (and Ave Maria Convent's Petruchio) are not nominated (at least) for the award for Best Actress, I will lose all faith in this competition. What a highly nuanced performance that was. An absolute treat to watch, with no hint of overacting or melodrama which is such an easy tendency to fall prey to in aplay like Othello.
Which brings me to the Newstead performance. Again, extremely well paced. There is a world of difference between a cast will do something, be it in movement or in acting, simply because they have been told to or literally forced into doing so by their directors. With Newstead,it was absolutely clear that the director had simply guided his/her cast to act in a way which is most natural to them. It shows. Like the Bridgetines there was clear understanding of Shakespeare and his words. And the chilling, lustful, sinister whisper by Angelo "I give my sensual race the rein" is one I will never forget. I agree that Isabella's character requires some work. Yet I found her portrayal rather engaging. She had a pleasant quality in her expressions and acting and though not very polished, her performance was definitely heartfelt, though tinged with a hint of nervousness.
After seeing more than one too many performances of Taming of the Shrew I have rather gone off the play. The general consensus is that Girls' High School is a strong contender. They definitely did capture the audience's interest with their well executed Sri Lankan village setting. Petruchio held the performance together, so much, in fact that I could not help but wonder if there was a little too much dependence placed on the actress' skills. I was disappointed to see that once again, the cast made the mistake of assuming that just because Katherine is a 'shrew' she must be shrill, coarse, and absolutely manic. This would have to be the fault of the director- perhaps another director would have made use of the actress' talent in a more effective way- it is clear that there is talent. It was however, misused. All in all though it was a light, entertaining performance, though somewhat lacking in substance.
I cannot comment on Hillwood, sadly. I missed that one.
Before I forget: great review. We need more balanced comments. Unfortunately I suppose the media has its reasons for remaining one- sided. Please don't let the pathetic grovelling of a handful of baboons put you off reviewing the finals performance! The schools will, I'm sure, appreciate what you are doing here.
I thought the nun in Royal's production looked promiscuous ;)
ReplyDeleteTen years ago, I watched my daughter act in the Inter-School Shakespeare Drama Competition and since then I have watched the semi-finals and the finals of the competition every year.
ReplyDeleteAs there always have been, there were upsets this time around; I would say this is particularly of the competition between the Boys' schools. It is the most natural thing for a school to believe that its cast is deserving of a place in the finals. After months of hard work, it is difficult to be completely devoid of some form of bias towards oneself. This is not an entirely bad thing. I would like to presume that a measure of bias would cultivate in the members of a cast, pride in themselves and therefore the desire to perform to the best of their ability and not let the side down.
All this is fine. However, the failing of the competition is that teachers and directors alike appear to have begun to set too much store by the results of the competition. As a result, the objectives of gaining familiarity with William Shakespeare, with drama, and of learning team work, endurance and practicing commitment (while having fun) are left by the wayside. In place of these objectives, those of getting into the finals, bagging all the awards, winning the overall category are placed on a pedestal. In the process, actors and actresses alike are severely pressured, harassed, and most disturbingly, resort to maligning of individuals who are critical of their performances.
It is all too obvious that I am referring to a certain comment in which profanity was used. Anonymous the 1st, like it or not you are no longer anonymous and it is all your doing. Even if you happen to be a mere interested observer commenting on a performance you thought was good, your ugly, coarse, vulgar, unrefined comment has distorted and done damage to the name of a well reputed school. In reading this, I hope you come to that realization, and never do so again.
You have every right to debate on an opinion and express an opinion thereof if you so wish. However, your deliberate slander upon the holder of that opinion is absolutely disgraceful.
Ten years ago, I watched my daughter act in the Inter-School Shakespeare Drama Competition and since then I have watched the semi-finals and the finals of the competition every year.
ReplyDeleteAs there always have been, there were upsets this time around; I would say this is particularly of the competition between the Boys' schools. It is the most natural thing for a school to believe that its cast is deserving of a place in the finals. After months of hard work, it is difficult to be completely devoid of some form of bias towards oneself. This is not an entirely bad thing. I would like to presume that a measure of bias would cultivate in the members of a cast, pride in themselves and therefore the desire to perform to the best of their ability and not let the side down.
All this is fine. However, the failing of the competition is that teachers and directors alike appear to have begun to set too much store by the results of the competition. As a result, the objectives of gaining familiarity with William Shakespeare, with drama, and of learning team work, endurance and practicing commitment (while having fun) are left by the wayside. In place of these objectives, those of getting into the finals, bagging all the awards, winning the overall category are placed on a pedestal. In the process, actors and actresses alike are severely pressured, harassed, and most disturbingly, resort to maligning of individuals who are critical of their performances.
It is all too obvious that I am referring to a certain comment in which profanity was used. Anonymous the 1st, like it or not you are no longer anonymous and it is all your doing. Even if you happen to be a mere interested observer commenting on a performance you thought was good, your ugly, coarse, vulgar, unrefined comment has distorted and done damage to the name of a well reputed school. In reading this, I hope you come to that realization, and never do so again.
You have every right to debate on an opinion and express an opinion thereof if you so wish. However, your deliberate slander upon the holder of that opinion is absolutely disgraceful.
Ten years ago, I watched my daughter act in the Inter-School Shakespeare Drama Competition and since then I have watched the semi-finals and the finals of the competition every year.
ReplyDeleteAs there always have been, there were upsets this time around; I would say this is particularly of the competition between the Boys' schools. It is the most natural thing for a school to believe that its cast is deserving of a place in the finals. After months of hard work, it is difficult to be completely devoid of some form of bias towards oneself. This is not an entirely bad thing. I would like to presume that a measure of bias would cultivate in the members of a cast, pride in themselves and therefore the desire to perform to the best of their ability and not let the side down.
All this is fine. However, the failing of the competition is that teachers and directors alike appear to have begun to set too much store by the results of the competition. As a result, the objectives of gaining familiarity with William Shakespeare, with drama, and of learning team work, endurance and practicing commitment (while having fun) are left by the wayside. In place of these objectives, those of getting into the finals, bagging all the awards, winning the overall category are placed on a pedestal. In the process, actors and actresses alike are severely pressured, harassed, and most disturbingly, resort to maligning of individuals who are critical of their performances.
It is all too obvious that I am referring to a certain comment in which profanity was used. Anonymous the 1st, like it or not you are no longer anonymous and it is all your doing. Even if you happen to be a mere interested observer commenting on a performance you thought was good, your ugly, coarse, vulgar, unrefined comment has distorted and done damage to the name of a well reputed school. In reading this, I hope you come to that realization, and never do so again.
You have every right to debate on an opinion and express an opinion thereof if you so wish. However, your deliberate slander upon the holder of that opinion is absolutely disgraceful.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteMorning, all!
ReplyDeleteApologies for the silence, I spent ze weekend well out of Colombo :)
Thanks for your comment, Kshanika, and never fear, 'baboons' don't get to me THAT easily!
No Vested Interests- bravo. Well said.
Also, I note that the Casual Observer didn't rise to the challenge. How very disappointing.
No Vested Interests, it looks like your comment has been re-posted a couple of times. I am taking the liberty of deleting the extra posts.
ReplyDeleteand also why didn't they announce the nominations for the best actor and best supporting actor? and whom do you think should win those this time???
ReplyDeleteIs that what is usually done? I wouldn't know.
ReplyDeleteAre these awards overall ones or are there separate ones for the girls and guys?
Its a tough question. From the performances by the girls I would pick Iago from St. Bridget's, Angelo from Newstead, Petruchio from Ave Maria as definite contenders- and from the performances I didn't watch, maybe Petruchio from Girls' High School.
From the guys performances (Again, from the few that I was able to watch) Petruchio from St. Thomas', maybe Petruchio from Trinity (I'm a little on the fence there), Antony from St. Peter's. I wasn't able to watch the performances by the other two boys finalists.
Do actors from schools that didn't make it to the finals get nominated?
nope, only the boys and girls from the finalists get nominated.
ReplyDeleteWell, that's a shame.
ReplyDeleteSadder still is the fact that at yesterday's Girls' schools' competition, no mention was given to the nominees. Granted, the two actresses who swept the boards where individual awards were concerned, were strong. Strong projection, good pace, good comic timing and reactions but oh how agonizingly slapstick that production was! Okay, okay that was how it was meant to be, and all that- yadda yadda yadda but it was all quite...commercial. In terms of really challenging acting, the main roles played in Othello and Measure for Measure had far more IMPACT (and I'm not just talking about boring well chewed morals here). And isn't that what acting is all about? Anyway, I am not discounting the performances given by Petruchio and Kate, but why oh why were the nominees not mentioned? If the point of this shindig is to encourage young acting talent, this was a fairly pathetic show of encouragement.
As for the stunning compering abilities of the vivacious, dynamic Mr. Simon Senartna... (deafening silence)
More on ze finals in a few days, my lovelies :D
Meanwhile, what comments on the performances/ verdicts so far?
Congrats Girls' High School! Awesome performance!!!!!
ReplyDeletewell, st. thomas' won the boys finals when the whole audience actually thought that DS Senanayake's amazing performance was much more better and sophisticated than st.thomas' production. but who are we to say that at the end, well congratulations to the actor who won best actor as he was simply stunning and amazing!!! But best supporting was kind of a surprise as petruchio's role goes under the main actor and why did he get best supporting actor when there were so many other actors who fall under the "supporting cast" who would've deserved it better!! ananda college production was also a different and fresh one which had a strong performance of petruchio and kate. St. benedicts, i dont think there's much to say about it as it was just a matter of wonderful direction but extremely bad execution of what they were saying and most imortantly very bad acting (if you'd like to call it acting). and also congratulations to the best supporting actor outstation from mahinda college as he deserved that award for the portrayal of emilia (wife of iago and servant of desdemona) overall it was a disappointing award ceremony but congratulations to all the schools for putting up a fabulous show. but at the end it's a question of what is the best? the school which did a challenging tragedy beautifully or the school which did a very simple comedy flawlessly? well we'll leave that for someone else to answer. bye.
ReplyDeleteTaking their performance at both the girls' and the boys' finals into consideration, would it be fair to say that this year's judges seem better qualified to judge Hindi movies rather than Shakespeare?
ReplyDeletevery true and why on earth would someone get a human trafficking officer or someone to judge a drama competition??? still confused about that part. the YMCA/ rotaract should look into this. every year it's some weird person who finally comes to judge the plays. and also, rumour goes that the ymca has been favoring the christian schools for quite some time now. i don't know whether it's true or not but the evidence is quite compelling when we look at the last couple of years, and especially this year!!!!!
ReplyDeleteMorning, viewers :)
ReplyDeleteSheri- yes, congratulations to the cast of Girls' High School for a light, entertaining performance, but I'm afraid I have to disagree with you after that.
Such disappointing results. Apparently, the Shakespeare Drama Competition is in fact characterized by these upsets. Why then, have the schools who take part, not banded together in insisting upon some better quality judging and judges? All this lamenting on the many ineptitudes of the organizers and the judging panel, while faithfully participating each year, sounds a tad masochistic, don't you think?
Having said that, Hindi Anonymous (Apologies, I have to find some way of distinguishing each member of the anonymous multitude :P) Buhahahahaha. Yes, I would say that is quite fair.Maybe they would be more comfortable watching a drama by Indhu Dharmasena, commenting on the more um, deeper witticisms of the plays.
Protesting Anonymous, search me. The point is, does Mr. Richard Danziger engage in any sort of theatre activity at present? Our wonderful compere twaddled on about his past theatre experience but was conveniently silent on the point of the present, except for his sentimental recollection of how Danziger's eyes "lit up" at the prospect of a Shakespeare Drama Competition. Aawwww.
As for this thing about Christian schools... I wouldn't know, actually. It could be a fair point, I suppose. Thoughts on that, anyone else?
Junius of Padua,
ReplyDeleteSorry I missed out on your comment.Very true. Petruchio is not a supporting role, and the boy who took the role should have been mentioned as a nominee for Best Actor. But that is one of many little surprises I suppose. D. S WAS brilliant. Coriolanus can be tough to perform, with all those monologues and lengthy discussions, but to start with, their excerpt was strong and complemented by fantastic acting. St. Thomas' on the other hand had made some progress since their semi finals performance but it was still not deserving of victory.
well after all, there's no more to be said, but we were first to the audience and not the judges. It shall be so.
ReplyDeleteQueen! Where is the promised rant on the finals?! Waiting to read it!
ReplyDeleteI have written!
ReplyDeleteHere is the my rant on ze Finals :
http://lostqueenrants.blogspot.com/2011/10/let-every-eye-negotiate-for-itself.html
Happy reading, folks :D
Dear Lost Queen. I firmly believe that theatre is subjective. Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion. I don't wish to attack your well justified views. I merely wish to present my own on the performance by Royal.
ReplyDeleteOn the matter of Duke Vincentio's characterisation, is it wholly unacceptable to view him as a bumbling, ineffective leader? For far too long, Shakespeare's dukes and prince's have been portrayed as strong willed, in control roles, especially in comedies where they are not THE central character (unlike tragedies like Henry VI). Measure for Measure has always featured a commanding Vincentio. Wouldn't it have been possible for a weak figure to have inherited the throne? Your perception of him and this new version are not mutually exclusive. It is possible for a leader with no presence on a public level to be cunning/manipulative on a personal level. Our history books are littered with such characters, so why can't the stage reflect this truth? However, it is a moot point. The excerpt didn't focus on the Duke. There is no law against relegating a character to a supporting status.
I believe that the concept was to portray the struggle that Angelo, Isabella and Claudio, face. Agreed, A is a confident character. But that confidence comes from operating within his comfort zone- his rigid principles and the law. What happens when he is thrust out of it? His soliloquy confirms that he has no experience with women ("Never could the strumpet, with all her double vigour...", "Ever till now when men were fond, I smiled and wondered how"). The text also leaves enough room to interpret A to feel an emotional attachment, along with lust, to Is ("What do I love her?" "Do I wish to hear her speak again and feast upon her eyes?"). So why is it impossible to believe that a man who has no prior experience with women and love would be awkward around the object of his affections? The self-directed guilt and revulsion would only exaggerate such behaviour. Just because he caves into desire and propositions her doesn't necessarily mean that his conflict ends. Isn't it possible for one half of your character to be at war with the other and mentally deny the very words you utter?
Isabella is vociferous in her opposition to sexuality. But this woman has never experienced it and has denied the natural needs of her body. When she is forcibly exposed to sexuality for the first time (may I repeat first time?), why does everyone automatically assume that she would reject it? Wouldn't it be natural for the urges, that have lain dormant, to awaken and consume her? It is a classic struggle for a nun. Many of the nuns who succumb are not pleasure seeking harlots, but virgins who discover, to their horror, that sex is not the demonised action that religion purports it to be. As for the text not supporting it- true, there are no lines to insinuate this dimension. Then again, there is no textual evidence for a 'white' Iago that you favoured (in terms of concept). It is possible to read between the lines and introduce dimensions through non-verbal action. It is an aspect of theatre after all.
continued....
ReplyDeleteFinally, I believe that reinterpreting Shakespeare is not a crime, as many purists denounce it to be. If Edmund Kean had not cast Shylock in a more sympathetic light with his controversial portrayal in the 19th century, then audiences would be bored to death by now of hackneyed, murderous jews. Shakespeare is timeless as his plays reflect human nature. Human nature differs from one another, leaving it open to be interpreted in different ways. I find it sad that people believe Shakespeare's characters to be set in stone, for we don't know what the Bard intended, we missed him by 4 centuries. As long as we honour him with good, sound theatre that celebrate his creativity, then I believe that we are doing him justice.
Apologies for the rambling. I hope you don't view me as a pompous douche. On a parting note, appreciated your review. Was refreshingly honest. Kudos.
Opinionated,
ReplyDeleteApologies for any apparent tardiness on my part in not replying your post- I've been a little caught up with the other blog of late:)
As you so rightly say, drama is subjective. For that reason, it is completely natural for two people to have conflicting opinions. That being said, a more mature handling of this would be the understanding that neither opinion is wrong; and so I agree with you- on some counts. I for one believe that Duke V is in fact a bumbling, slightly vascillating figure- an inept leader redeemed only by the fact that he
a. Is a fairly accurate judge of character
b. knows when the law should not be rigidly adhered to but seasoned with a little understanding and sensitivity.
It is for this reason that I felt that Royal College should have capitalized on their opening scene (in which Duke V was made out to be- lets face it- a bit of a buffoon) by editing the script in such a way that the Duke's character was not rendered as flat as it was in their excerpt.
As for your analysis of the characterization of Isabella, while it is perfectly acceptable to portray some form of conflict- in that she faces an almost impossible dilemma- the use of the apple symbol was completely out of place. Conflict? Yes. Temptation? No. And judging by the expression on Isabella's face in that scene it looked more like she was lusting after Angelo rather than simply being curious and approaching the beginning of the realization that sex is not a 'demonized action.'
Angelo too is conflicted. It cant be said though, that he has had no experience with women- what about Mariana? And what of his statement- "I have had such faults", with respect to Claudio's offence? And lets be practical here. Would Isabella really have been thrown into conflict when the argument which served in doing so, was presented in pathetic stammers and stutters? Probably not.
As for viewing you as a pompous douche, quite the contrary. I enjoy these little discussions :) Thanks for your comment, and once again apologies for the delay in replying.