In the last week (and 2 days) I have seen a short-story film noirish Coranado, a brand new cops angst ala TV in A Steady Rain, an extreme post-modern Thyestes, the wildly entertaining So Good It Makes you Wanna' Holler, a traditional but finely wrought Suddenly Last Summer (featuring exquisite set design and costumes and some chilling acting), Kurl Weil-Berlin to Broadway (a review) and Hello Dolly with a stripped down cast. You can't say Chicago is not indulging in the full gamut of genres.
The two pieces that demand the most attention here are the Thyestes and the musical/review Makes You Wanna' Holler, Old v. New Style.
I note Thyestes because it disappointed, which probably says more about me than the production. I came away with a sense of stridency, shrill delivery from an actor not noted for shrill, a sense of two men mis-cast (though upon reflection, aren't we all somewhat mis-cast in our lives?).
A friend recently noted: ...to simplify this issue with two questions: Is Thyestes a striking, artful piece of theatre--why or why not? Could Akalaitis have done more with the very ingredients that she herself selected? I think I see untapped potential in this production....Perhaps Akalaitis, whom I admire, actually did not go conceptually far enough. One thinks here about the "Theatre of Cruelty" popular in the 60s. She is surely aware of the fad. I wonder how this might have helped Akalaitis with focus. Even choices.
The theater of cruelty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theatre_of_Cruelty) offers some good insight into what Akalaitis might be trying to achieve with Thyestes. The upfront cruelty that Seneca portrays stands as his commentary on past and present employers (Caligula and then Nero, under whose employment Seneca was ordered to and did in fact commit suicide). The play itself is about cruelty, who are its perpetrators and its victims. And the pitched attack that Atreus plans and executes against Thyestes is in keeping with the play's theme.
What I found lacking was character development in either Thyestes or Atreus. They each portrayed static men, already bound in the present reality of past choices. So from a dramatic standpoint, the play is rather dull because it is unrealistic to expect Thyestes to get smart and head for the hills. Neither does any rightminded individual believe that Atreus will relent and refrain from tormenting Thyestes, he won't change course, but he sure doesn't have much fun with it either. I like my tragedy to be the worse with possibility of alternate routes away from disaster.
What I did take away from the production was that pushed beyond endurance, we are all like one or the other of the brothers, either melodramatic-to-insane (I'm not talking road rage, but in truly terrible circumtances), or wooden and innefectual on decision making that will change the course of the future. And of course one suspects our director is commenting on our national leader(s) who seems to be perpetually either willfully cruel in pursuit of war to the cost of all other programs under his pervue or a dullard.
At the other end of the spectrum, Makes You Wanna' Holler so far exceeded expectations because it has both giant entertainment value and a seriousness in both story telling and production quality. There is tension on what the outcome might be and the ensembles (new style v. old style) are powerhouses of talent. It is both a joy to see and hear and just so much fun I wanted to get up and join in (some of the audience were in fact invited to and did so). It's easy to play down the value of a show that offers so much sheer fun, but this show has both, though I would like to see a bit more dramatization to more the story forward.
I learned more from Thyestes because I had to thrash out my lessons and grind my teeth on the tough sinews and bloody soup of the play itself as well as the production. But I'm revisiting Makes You Wanna' Holler as often and with considerably more enjoyment of its lessons.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
PUSHING ALONG THYESTES; Some Questions
1. Did Akalaitis intend this as a realistic production? Is there any evidence from what went on at the Court to answer this question? [Your post seems to suggest via character development that realism was at work]
2. If Akalaitis did opt more or less for realism, was this a good choice given Seneca's material [his narrative and potential through-line that involves multi generations]? What might be the nature of that through-line? Does it suggest any demands on how theatre should handle things? What one can and cannot do?
3. If not realism, what other stylistic alternatives/modes of production were possible as part of the search for focus, unity, and theatricalism? A rendering in terms of conceptual art? Surrealism?
4. If one hopes to pull off Seneca in the theatre, especially Thyestes, what hurdles from the standpoint of an audience does one have to take into account? Then how do you circumvent them? In fact, did Akalaitis pay enough attention to her potential audience, and did she manage these needs well in her production?
5. Since "cruelty" of one kind or another figures strongly in Thyestes, what is the nature of that cruelty? Is it physical? Psychological? Sociological? Political? Philosophical? Metaphysical? Cosmic [a cruel universe]? How do you bring all of these together, if at all? Which of these these dynamics of cruelty best encapsulates what Seneca/Akalaitis has to convey? How does the multigenerational figure into this "cruelty dynamic?" Has Akalaitis muddied the waters here?
6. Narrative seems to figure strongly in the Akalaitis production. Much depends on how it is handled. Was there too much linearism at work in the staging of Akalaitis, in her rendering of narrative, the "plot?"
Perhaps just play with one question. I am very interested in all of this. Thanks.
Audience expectation: (your question 4, great question). I think the U of C crowd on opening night was really in the know in terms of play content, previous productions, genre of theater of cruelty. As a result, I felt I enjoyed the production less than most of the audience. In that sense, she probably hit the mark. I wonder if she in fact taught a seminar prior to opening night or if courses in the fall pointed to her upcoming production, etc.
Post a Comment