or
 |home| |
We saw Much Ado About Nothing last night at Berkeley Repertory. I was a bit skeptical because the Oresteia was not everything I had hoped it would be, but my expectations got a little out of hand, and I read two translations of the plays before viewing them, so I was a bit over-prepared.
Much Ado was wonderful though, the acting was especially good, it seemed that everyone was at a very high level. It was much more together than the recent production of King Lear put on by the San Francisco Shakespeare Festival.
One could tell that the choreography and set had been thought out extensively, sometimes I felt that it was a little too much like "Oh, look how clever we can be!" It just seemed a bit humorous, the way they carefully choreographed people to take away props on the set, running and spinning, silhouettes in the dark making pretty shapes. Then toward the end they had to get the Leonato crypt off the stage, the lights didn't dim and a stagehand simply went across and pushed it off. I wonder if that was a mistake, it seems silly to go through all the effort of setting up this complicated system of getting things on and off the stage, developing a certain aesthetic, and then just breaking it off. The set was altogether surreal, the opening scene uses two huge netted screens with painted birds flying; the backdrop is a painted blue sky with fluffy cumulus clouds; there is a hanging Georgian mansion stage right, that is all gables, windows, and false columns; and in the foreground, a slope with cloth long-stemmed red roses standing each on end. It reminded me of Magritte, a very strange dream world. The women's clothing was pretty, but not historical, and the men simply wore uniforms or suits. There is a masked ball that is also very lovely. I could have down without all the strange noises that were used for no apparent reason, that sounded like Philip Glass or bad Avro Paert.
As I said, the acting was quite excellent, especially Beatrice (Francesca Faridany), Benedick (Sterling Brown), and Leonato (Julian Lopez-Morillas). I especially liked when Leonato curses his daughter Hero, when he thinks she has been untrue to Claudio. Lopez-Morillas is an incredible actor, it was interesting to see him in a very different part than the Duke of Gloucester in King Lear. I thought the young actor that played Claudio was not as comfortable in his role as the others. He was also painfully thin, and it made me cringe to see him in the bathing scene they use for Act I, Scene I.
We had seen Geoff Hoyle, who played the Constable, in ACT's Juno and the Paycock as Joxer Daly. He was funny, although they put typewriters into his interrogation scene, which wasn't particularly funny.
Sometimes I wonder about the poor behavior of my fellow audience members. I sat next to a couple, the female of the pair took off her sneakers during the performance, and rested herself in a very strange manner upon her mate, it wasn't gross, it was just weird. The male of the pair kept massaging the small of her back, which caused a weird noise against the fabric of her clothing. From where the woman's head was, it didn't look like she could even see the play, because the people in front of her would be blocking her way. Why bother going, is what I want to know.
Tuesday, November 13th, 2001Last weekend we went to see a friend in Romeo and Juliet. She was excellent as Friar John, she made an extremely convincing young boy, not only because she is lithe and small, but because of her carriage. I really liked how she draped her upper body on the gates, especially during the last scene. The set used for the production was beautiful and clever, it was in the California mission style. My biggest complaint about the play was the strange use of accents. Only Juliet and the nurse did not have accents, the rest of the Capulets had a Southern accent, which didn't make sense to me as the play was set in California, not Georgia. The Montagues had Spanish accents. It might have worked if they had modernized the language of the play, but in Elizabethan it just got really garbled. Plus some of the actors were better at doing their accents than others, some couldn't keep consistent with themselves. It is a beautiful play though, Romeo and Juliet, I never expected to like it as much as I do. It made me cry, which was surprising.
It was a rather quiet weekend in which dinner with relatives ensued. There was a picnic and much lostness. The Asian Art Museum closed in Golden Gate Park after 35 years. It will reopen in the Civic Center, across from the library, but not until at least January 2003. There were so many people there saying good-bye. I walked through the Arabic calligraphy from Turkey exhibit again, looking out for letters I knew, scanning the letters from right-to-left, marveling at the tiny pocket calendars, the small paintings, and the gold-tooled leather book covers. Also went and looked at the Japanese Zen paintings, which I didn't care for. Wandered around upstairs and sketched some Indian statues, giggled when the guard stopped a lady from leaving Lord Ganesha an offering. Most of the Chinese jade collection was already tucked away, so no last look at that.
Last weekend we went and saw Thomas of Woodstock and Richard II, down at Pacific Repertory again. They are very different plays, but worked together nicely. The choreography was solid and the fight scenes were just amazingly done. All the acting was incredible, from the way the actors held themselves to the delivery of lines. Thomas of Woodstock is a lot more comic, because Richard II's advisors are so ridiculous, though it also has a tragic element, as England is being oppressed by her own and Thomas of Woodstock is mistreated and eventually is murdered. There weren't many people in the quiet audience, and they were most excited by the courtier's horse, with whom Thomas speaks to in a very sad but funny scene in which Thomas is mistaken for a groom and not the master of his house. The choreography was solid and the fight scenes were just amazingly done. All the acting was incredible, from the way the actors held themselves to the delivery of lines. Thomas of Woodstock is a lot more comic, because Richard II's advisors are so ridiculous, though it also has a tragic element, as England is being oppressed by her own and Thomas of Woodstock is mistreated and eventually is murdered. There weren't many people in the quiet audience, and they were most excited by the courtier's horse, with whom Thomas speaks to in a very sad but funny scene in which Thomas is mistaken for a groom and not the master of his house. The company used a different ending than the one I had read, which didn't surprise me much, since the original ending is lost. Apparently, there is only one copy of this play in the British Museum as a source. They also changed a few details of the play since they are playing the histories as a series. They kept Anne of Bohemia alive for Richard II, although the queen in that play is Richard's second wife, Isabella. This worked fine, it didn't disrupt anything.
Richard II was played out-of-doors in the Forest Theatre, and that was very nice, as the stage was a fine size and there were fires. They made use of the front sides of the theatre as well. I did get quite bitten by insects, but it was well worth it. Richard II is more tragic than either Edward III or Thomas of Woodstock, and more powerful. The character of Richard II is easier to sympathize with here than in Thomas of Woodstock, because he is a fallen king instead of the horrid, uncaring tyrant he was previously.
One would think it would be tiring to see two plays in one day, but it wasn't at all, it was exhilarating to see so much good theatre all at once. I just wish I could go out and see Henry IV now, but I must wait until next summer.
I'm in a really strange space right now. I feel overly well in a way, as if my mind were hovering just above my body. It reminds me of one of the case studies in The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat, the Cupid's Disease story.
Last night we went to see San Francisco Shakespeare Festival production of King Lear. The play is just incredible. The production was good. The staging was done well and the set was nice but simple, though the space was not ideal. The choreography was excellent throughout and this came out especially in the fight scenes. The acting was adequate, some actors were really amazing and a few were clearly not as good. One thing that was bothersome was that the Fool was played by Gerald Hiken, who is a fine actor, but I had really pictured the Fool as young, since Lear refers to him as a boy and lad throughout the text. Then again, "boy" could also be used because the Fool's position is that of a servant. The Fool also has a true and almost noble quality to him, and he was played more as a buffoon in this production. Hiken played Firs in The Cherry Orchard, and was wonderful in that role as an old servant who is devoted to his masters and is forgotten by everyone in the end. In Lear it was often hard to understand him because he mumbled quite a bit.
Gloucester was played hauntingly by Julian Lopez-Morillas, he was probably the best actor of the whole play. His sons, Edgar and Edmund (Jonathan Rhys Williams and Will Springhorn Jr.), were also very good. The blinding scene of Gloucester, and Edgar playing at being mad were especially wonderful. Ray Reinhardt, Lear himself, was a bit of a disappointment, he was adequate. He did look very much the part, and his crazy scenes were the better ones. The bad daughters, Regan and Goneril (Jenny Lord and Kay Kostopoulos), weren't terrific, but they came across as very bitchy, which I suppose is appropriate. But Cordelia (Shannon Barry) was cloying, and didn't have much stage-presence at all.
As an aside, something very strange happened at the performance. The fire alarm started going off during Act II, Scene IV, while King Lear was arguing with Regan and Goneril over who he would live with, and how many knights he should have. The cast was very good at ignoring the alarm, and no one left the audience until the stage manager or someone directed the actors to stop and for us all to file out. We waited in the cold for several minutes, and it was very disjointed.
Last Wednesday we made the trip down to Carmel for the first play of their ten play series of all Shakespeare's histories. King Edward III has been recently accepted by some scholars into the Shakespeare canon. It was played in Pacific Repertory's Circle Theatre, which is tiny and round, and the audience surrounds the stage on four sides. They made excellent use of space, all the choreography was superbly done and all the actors were able to carry off the choreography well. The play itself is good, though not all together historic. The basic storyline is Edward III going to war with France to claim the crown, since his mother was sister to the previous king of France. The actors were all very good, especially John Oswald, who played Edward III, and David Mendelsohn, who played Prince Edward. Three of the actors in this production were also in The Cherry Orchard during the summer, and it was nice to see how good they really were at acting, as they were barely recognizable in their Shakespearian parts.
Monday, August 6th, 2001This weekend I bought too many books. I also read and saw Iphigenia in Aulis. The performers pronounced "Iphigenia" differently than Merriam-Webster.
If you are in Berkeley next weekend, I highly recommend going to see the Shotgun Players in their production of Euripides' tragedy. It is a free performance, and is about 2 hours long with a 10 minute intermission. Do get there half an hour early to get a seat, and bring blankets. They sell some food, and you can also buy a program for $2. Initially, I was very skeptical about the whole thing, being a free performance, if nothing else, the audience would most likely be obnoxious. This was true, people laughed for no apparent reason, even though the actors weren't even trying to be inappropriately amusing. They also put on a goofy prologue about the family history of Agamemnon and Menelaus, tracing the line from Tantalus to Atreus, as the audience probably did not read the play before hand and know its history.
The use of masks was excellent. Some of the actors had masks, and others did not, but it worked really well. The costuming was not impressive, for the most part consisted of simple tunics and painted-over sandals.
The choreography, most notably in the chorus, was very good, despite a bit of awkwardness in some of the actors. They were able to carry it off naturally and beautifully, even though they all had different body types and levels of dance ability.
The sound, provided by the Goatsong trio, was also done well. The percussive accompaniment really added to the whole experience.
The acting was at an even level, very consistent. Clytemnestra and Agamemnon were especially good, though there were parts when Clytemnestra was in hysterics and the acting hit a few brief false notes. The part of Achilles was made rather buffoon-like, but not horribly so. All the main characters had to play multiple parts, and they were convincing in each of their parts.
It should be mentioned that they do use the spurious ending that scholars agree was written by an interloper. It involves an Abraham and Isaac sort of "Oh nevermind, let's kill this goat instead of your child" finish.
So we managed to get tickets to The Cherry Orchard after a rather tiresome series of events involving early rising, extensive driving, traffic, waiting in line, waiting in general, and being crowded. We only got in by the skin of our teeth, ten minutes after the play started, even though we had arrived at the theatre an hour before the play was supposed to start. We had to look for seats, but thankfully, there were two seats on the aisle of the second row. However, the people who had bought tickets for these seats arrived late, even though the play started 15 minutes late, and forced us to give up our seats, since they had been sitting in the very back. So we moved, but to better seats in the center.
At any rate, it was all worth it, since the production was amazing. All the actors were consistently good, and the whole thing came together very well. It was the best play I've seen since we saw Long Day's Journey Into Night at the ACT in Spring of 1999.
The rest of the weekend was quite fine as well. I read much, painted, and went walking on the waterfront for a few hours. There are all manner of odd paintings at the waterfront that are a cross between Goya and Chagall. Strange, but it is fitting for the area, which is very urban and falling apart.
So last night I went to see The Clouds, the Ocean, and Everything In Between, a play by Michael Premsrirat of 18 Mighty Mountain Warriors fame. It's a play about identity and the nature of modern life, how there aren't answers. I have to say, I was really impressed. The acting was really good and the play had a sense of rhythm to it, all of the resonating cadences came together well. At the same time, it wasn't a pleasant or easy experience, it wasn't "entertaining". And I count that as a good thing, but by the time the play ended I felt drained and off-centre.
Premsrirat's ethnic background is Filipino and Thai, and all the actors in the play are also of mixed heritage. One issue that was brought up was phenotype vs. genotype, the idea that society identifies and categorizes people on racial lines by how they look, such that there are people of mixed heritage who can pass as white, and there are those that simply cannot. How different are the experiences of these people on opposite sides of the mixed hertiage spectrum are.
|
|home| |