I love modern theater. The more I read, the more I am intrigued by it. While thinking whom I should take as a date to a certain formal event I had, the thought of taking my English professor popped into my head. He is in his 30s, skinny and appears shorter than he is because of his visibly negelcted posture. The strictly ordered decor of his office and his faint accent make it clear that he is German. His gold tooth shines with every smile and his parted, slicked back hair only serves to accentuate his unibrow. So why the attraction? Well, he's just so garn smart. And I'm a sucker for accents. Plus, he's the one who has introduced me to a new perspective on the world of modern theater, and I'll be forever grateful.
Yet, my new-found fondness towards modern theater has unexpectedly altered my opinion of traditional theater. While watching our school's prodution of Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice, I was oddly disappointed. This production was performed in a rather modern way. The costumes were modern, and there was extensive use of videos and visual technology. In between each scene, the audience saw artsy montages of images projected on a massive screen hanging from the ceiling in the middle of the stage and on small TVs to either side of the stage. It was rather well done, and the cast was truly talented. However I realized that the constraints of traditional theater are hard to overcome, and that suits and laptops on stage just aren't enough.
It's true that I never liked this play's script or plot or lack of resolution to the societal queries posed. However, what bothered me most was the unavoidable rigidity that all shakesperian plays pose. Firstly, we're forced to listen to endless speeches and warying monologues. Secondly, the cast consisted of at least 20 actors, and yet most of them said and did nothing throughout the entire play. It just doesn't seem efficient to use people with busy lives as the background of a scene. For instance, in the court scene where Shylock attempts to enforce his bond, there were 15 really talented actors sitting on the stage, all doing a wonderful job of doing nothing. The "best" actors were those that were sitting the stillest, completely committed to their position of silent but engaged spectator. They reminded me of the cliched role of 'Tree' in elementary school plays.
The use of three women attendants also bothered me. These three ladies stood still for the majority of the time they were on stage. Except for one scene where they sang a beautiful song in harmony, they did great jobs of doing nothing. What's worse is that I'm sure artistic liberties were taken by the director to put the song in the play in the first place. As far as I know, Shakespeare didn't included songs in his texts.
What's the point of all this complaining? I'm not sure. Maybe my perspective was skewed after a long day of drinking and Snoop Dogg on the slope. Maybe I'll never be able to look at Shakespeare the same way again, after working so closely with modern theater. Maybe I should stop looking for meaning in this blog, and get back to my paper...
In any case, I sure am glad that theater has moved on since Shakespeare's days, and it's pretty cool that we have such a variety of styles out there today.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment