We saw this production and were disappointed and unhappy. Here are some macro points and then, later, some detailed grumpies: If Shakespeare were a living writer he could take action against this production and shut it down because it is so far from the intent of his play named A Midsummer Night’s Dream. It is so uncompelling, so hostile to its audience, I have to ask myself if the director is not charlatan or an incompetent. I have participated in (usually in workshop or classroom settings) and seen performed pieces like this, but nothing that goes on for 2 hours. The fault is not in the stars, the cast, who are clearly all talented and adept at their craft. I put responsibility for this entirely on the director. I have great sympathy with opera audiences around the world that have railed against Peter Sellars. It was like he had never seen AMND and thought the script was by Strindberg or Ionesco. There is a thing called the spirit of comedy. In many ways, Puck embodies it, and it permeates the entire play. Not so in this production.
Details: the installation/audience space was cool and I liked it a lot. But afterwards, I felt that the preponderence of junk hanging from the ceiling was actually an omen of the production, that barely suspended refuse was the visual representation of the play’s style. Also a worrisome sign was the excessive courtesy of the FOH staff. They did inform that it was two hours without intermission. Okay, sighted two actors entering through the house through door stage right before houselights down–that’s fine. TBO. Lights up on tableau, 4 characters in what looks like blacklight while cacophony literally shakes the seating area. It goes on for an uncomfortable duration. The play’s opening lines are spoken one actor directly to another, and that can be supported by the text (although there are plenty of indications in the text that speech is in fact declamatory and meant to be public). The carnal nature of this relationship and its current nature ( a pillaging brute is offering something gentler to his victim) appears to be the motivating factor. It isn’t fitting together as expected, but that’s okay, that’s why we’re here, to see something different. We listen and hear the piece skip forward (there are plenty of omitted lines, but the play continues in sequence). It becomes clear what we will not see or hear: blank verse treated in stylized, old fashioned cadences, nor will line endings nor punctuation in the text be used as guides for delivery; actors will not assume conventional roles of the varied characters (ie, Theseus is noble, Bottom is ridiculous egotist, and so on) but also, there will be no effort to substitute alternate characterizations–in fact, there will be none: the lines recited in flat, uninflected tones of character A sound identical to character B even when new sections of the play begin and the actor takes an alternate role. The actors do not respond to one another very much at all–they give their attention to each other, but rarely indicate that the other person’s words and actions have any impact. Occasionally a character will explode in anger (and frankly, when this happened, I thought it was the actor venting and letting off steam that s/he had their work so seriously compromised by the director’s obscure and perverse approach to this play)
The stage is lit by coloured led strips left, right, above and below. The colours appear to change and/or cycle through colour mixes without any regard to anything. An exception to this are the lights that are used spot-light like, to isolate a specific area, and this did occur occasionally. The actors seemed to have been given very few directions, and they appeared to be: wherever possible, treat speeches as though they were excuses for sexual overtures or just get really mad and yell. (I was reminded of the advice to actors given in the book I think is was Audition by Michael Shurtleff in which he recommends that in order for an auditionee to make a strong impression, either be seductive or angry. Do this as an alternative to making no impression at all). So, it was a lot of automatons reciting some beautiful verse, and doing their damndest to remove any fun from it, and divorce it from the narrative from which it sprung.
Very rarely did this approach make any sense to me–Helena’s speech to Hermia (Lo, she is one of this confederacy) is one place though where it did work for me. Helena has been through emotional hell, and when she finds that her bosom pal girl friend has contributed to this misery, she is surprisingly rational and evokes details of their years of intimacy. Here the dispassionate delivery underscores the pain of a betrayal.
There was a plodding rhythm to this as well that one could tell was deliberate and very much at odds with the tempo of the text, much of which can be said very quickly (and there are many sections of prose, too). No props, no costume pieces, nothing to indicate the transformation of Bottom, until his return to normal state, and then the removal of his “scalp” is mimed. For me, it’s a rule–when you establish a convention (no props), you must stick to it. No props means no props. Suddenly miming non-existent props makes no sense. In Act 5 Scene 1 when the fairies are meant to be spreading their blessing/good luck spell through the house, the back wall of the stage cannot now become a significant, real, defined space, ie. Theseus’ palace.
One actor seemed so uncomfortable with all this that s/he did not face out for at least a half hour.
The uncomfortably loud sound that shakes the seats was repeated, I don’t remember when or why. It may have been Act 3 when the lovers seek to fight.
The entire piece is performed in a small grey box that may have been a reference to the famous Peter Brook production in the 60’s . That was a white box.
Oh, the microphones. This is a tiny space, seating for perhaps 150 people. These actors are trained and have proven themselves in projecting to 2000 people in the Festival Theatre. The microphones were clearly not needed but were an effect. And what was the effect? Well, they could speak very softly. One actor appeared to be making an effort to move his/her lips as little as possible at times. The effect was something like voice over in film or radio play performance.
There were many audience walkouts during the performance, which does not by itself prove anything, but they weren’t leaving because of smut or radical politics.
I was waiting for Puck’s stylized apology and invocation to the audience for their goodwill, but the play’s final speech is delivered to the other actors only. It was a like a capper–here we’ll tamper with the clear meaning and intent of the text, we’ll ignore all good sense, we’ll stand this speech on its head for no good reason and although topples over because it can’t be supported, we’re doing it that way anyway.
I do not recommend this production to anyone, traditional Shakespeare lover nor fan of new, cutting edge alternative theatre. It, beyond everything I’ve mentioned, commits the unforgivable sin: it’s boring. It’s boring because it makes no sense, and does not have the saving grace of sounding well, nor looking all that interesting.
- Additional: June 26, after opening.
Rave reviews from Kelly and Richard for this show. I was surprised. Perhaps they confused intention with execution and/or forgot their recommendations turn into hundreds of dollars of cost for anyone travelling to see this show. It doesn’t help to second guess the critics. Perhaps they are just desperate to see something new. If this is what they crave, and they want to see more of this, they can sit in on any production directed by a 3rd or 4th year university student and see similar high concept shows. Not as well spoken, of course, but “brave” and “unconventional” can be found many places, Theatre Centre et al.
I’ve been watching a UK tv show about California by American comedian Rich Hall. He constantly returns to the themes of swindling, chicanery, and grandiose con games in the history and culture of California. Can’t shake the notion that Duke and the King are still intent on staging the Royal Nonesuch and we are complicit in letting them. Switching allusions here, but do we always need a child to say the emperor has no clothes?
Now, here’s a bugaboo: do we need to import our edgy artists, or can we grow our own? This is related to the foreign worker issue, except these are highly skilled people. So, can we justify importing a NY artist to scavage around Stratford and nail junk to the ceiling and walls (btw reviewers and tweeters have all missed the walls and only talk about the ceiling-curious) and a Californian to theorize and promote a dubious re-interpretation? Don’t we have our own outside-the-box people? Who was it that did the Inuit King Lear? David Gardner with lots of Stratford Festival personnel and help.
My favorite MND was an Equity Showcase production I saw in Habourfront. It had no budget but it did have a central theme-Pygmy drum rhythms. Loved it. Titania was a Spiderwoman, and she crawled down a rope mesh (head first as I remember it) to the beat of an on stage drummer playing a large conga-like drum. She then danced an African-beat Tarantella. Bottom’s donkey mask was a head band with 2 small ears. The audience cheered every low cost or no cost innovation, because, yes, this approach put the words first.
I was disappointed, yes. I’m angry at what I see as a waste of potential, because of my high regard for the festival performers, designers and techs. I am affronted by an approach which says to me as audience member “If you don’t appreciate this, it’s because you’re not clever enough to recognize how clever we are.”
Links You Minx 