The Tempest Project
Theater UNCA at the Diana Worthan Theater.
It is possible for a brilliant and insightful director to face off against a great play and a great playwright, and, by opposing, find fresh nuance and unsuspected relevance in old and familiar words. This is not what happens in Theater UNCA’s The Tempest Project. Directors Laura Facciponti and Pamella O’Connor have, instead, devised a sort of bizarro-Tempest which, aside from being bad on its own account, violates the play at just about every point, apparently wilfully, blithe in its disregard for scholarship, reading skills, and even correct pronunciation. It was as if these two women had looked the Bard in the eye, without knowing precisely who he was, and snarled “I’ll show you how it really should be done.”
Actually, for the first few minutes, I thought The Tempest Project was going to be wonderful. Katie Fuller’s costumes were brilliant, the set beautiful and almost functional, and the opening dance magical and evocative. Then the actors opened their mouths. Poking up under a big cloth like bubbling oatmeal, they chanted “What kind of play is this? What kind of play is this?” The question was not rhetorical. They had no idea.
The big cloth was part of the “Object Theater” concept, in which certain objects are used repeatedly to unify action and to provide visual novelty. The cloth was great to watch, sometimes Prospero’s robe and sometimes a ship at sea. But how this differs from the innovative utilization of materials at hand that is the mark of much good theater is difficult to see, how it warrants re-naming as a whole type of theater. In the UNCA production it was employed to camouflage the lack of directorial insight. “We don’t know nuthin’ ‘bout no Shakespeare, but we can make sensational balloon animals.”
The production is billed as theater for young people, but one hardly sees how that can be. Having cut Shakespeare’s masterpiece to an hour, the production still manages to be boring. And, if I were an eight year old I would find it frightening and confusing. No shred of context or motivation remains after the script butchery. Prospero is an insane magician whose main occupation is the idle torture of those around him. He’s an evil wizard out of a video game, and his sidekick Ariel is a mincing fop, the kind that would sneak up behind you on a desert island and stab you with a golden quill from its unaccountable head. The island is ruled by two perverts and invaded by a bunch of grievance-gnawing stuffed shirts; Miranda and Ferdinand are so bland and diffuse that one forgets they were ever on stage. The only character with whom one can have the slightest sympathy is Caliban, and that is because Cody Magourik, the actor who portrays him, has gone of campus and learned how to act, and manages to infuse stubborn insight around the edges of very bad direction.
Plus–teachers beware-- one would learn very little of Shakespeare. The first quarter of the play has no Shakespeare at all, but rather excerpts from Auden’s “The Sea and the Mirror.” Why? I have no idea. My guess it was something that popped into one of the directors’ heads, and, once there, seemed as sacred as every other misstep and misinterpretation. Then Ms Facciponti and Ms O’Connor commit the cardinal sin of Shakespeare production. They change the words. And not for any good purpose. Their changes do not simplify or clarify; they are merely ignorant and wilful. For “We are such stuff as dreams are made on, and our little life is rounded by a sleep” we get, “We are the fabric dreams are made of, and our life ends with a dream far away.” When Miranda says her iconic line, “O brave new world that has such men in it,” she is meant to be answered by Prospero’s’ earth-shattering “‘Tis new to thee.” When she utters it on this stage, there is silence. Children can handle complication. Children know when you are lying to them, when you are patronizing them, when you are “serving their needs” without any more understanding of their needs than, say, of Shakespeare.
The Tempest Project is billed as “experimental.” I suppose it might be if it were 1970.
This was a production marked by arrogance, disrespect, and incompetence, and all those qualities must be laid directly at the door of the directors. Ms Facciponti [should]... learn how to ...understand a play, before she “experiments” with even so much as the intermission munchies[.]
--Crow
[The editor apologizes for, but stands behind, slight content deletions. --BG]
10 April 2008
The Tempest Project
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I wholeheartedly agree with most of what the reviewer said. While I'm no stranger to odd interpretations of Shakespeare, or for that matter the Tempest itself, (Prospero's Book being one of my favorite Shakespearian adaptations) but this production was one of the most horrific butchering of his work I have ever witnessed, and that's saying a lot having been in some notoriously bad Montford productions myself.
Actually I found the staging and technical aspects of the show to be very engaging. I especially liked how the fabric became various objects such as the boat, or the sea, or Prospero's cloak. I also liked how the garments Stephano and Trinculo get distracted by seemed to hover in the air. Another thing I liked was how the toy boat became a real boat cutting through the thick fog like a ship at sea. The lighting and sound design were striking, and really helped enhance, or even provide all the mood and atmosphere of the play. However I must ask; couldn't a real good production do without all those things. Theatrically I think it would have been more impressive to only use the fabric to create everything, much like Shakespeare's R+J, another quality adaptation. In this production however I felt the actors were hiding behind this wall of technical wizardry.
Now you take all that wizardry and apply it to a more conventional cutting of the script and you might have had a pretty enjoyable show. However, it's very hard to enjoy the language of a show when the people who are adapting it seem to have no reverence for the words or the structure of the play. I mean to change such an iconic line as; "We are such stuff as dreams are made of, and our little life is rounded by a sleep” borders on blasphemy, not to mention it ruins the meter of the line, the alliteration, and thus the poetry.
Not that I think there was much concern for that in this production. I think that too much time was focused on the technical aspects of the show, and not enough on teaching the actors how to speak Shakespeare's (if one can call it honestly call it his) language.
Then cutting lines such as; "This rough magic I here abjure...", and Caliban's wonderful; "the isle is full of noises,
Sounds and sweet airs, that give delight and hurt not.
Sometimes a thousand twangling instruments
Will hum about mine ears, and sometime voices
That, if I then had waked after long sleep,
Will make me sleep again: and then, in dreaming,
The clouds methought would open and show riches
Ready to drop upon me that, when I waked,
I cried to dream again." conveys to me a very superficial understanding of the play.
Then there was how they chose to begin the actual play; not with the energetic and exciting sea-storm, but with probably Prospero's most boring speech where he tells Miranda of their flight from Milan, which is pretty much nothing but exposition anyway and maybe the one thing that could have been cut and explained in the "prologue" the way they did for most of the characters, except strangely not for Ariel or Caliban. Also is it really necessary to change a log into a stone. (Thus missing out on one of the funniest inside jokes; “I’ll bear your log a while.”)
Obviously most of the cuttings were done probably for time concerns, but honestly if someone would have told the actors to pick up the pace of their lines and cues, probably half of the cut stuff could have been put back in. It felt like pulling teeth waiting for some of the actors to say their lines.
Then there were glaringly bad choices that were never addressed like; the choice to let Caliban use a made up accent somewhere between Jamaican and French. I enjoyed Cody's movement and textual work, but I thought the accent made the character seem cartoonish, and killed Caliban's menacing, and dangerous nature. Also I was confused why Ariel’s “spirit” (a disembodied face, stolen directly, from Julie Taymor’s production of the play) never sounded like the Ariel on stage, and why when Miranda and Ferdinand played with the “chess set” the characters it was controlling didn’t go flying across the stage. That might have been funny.
Not that I thought all the actors had no idea what they were saying. I thought Caitlin Moseley did an admirable job in her extremely butchered Trinculo scenes, and I thought Forrest Mason had many moments of inspired work as Prospero, but most of the rest of the cast seemed to be lost at sea.
Crow -- First of all, how dare you post a slam like this without the courage to use your own name. If there is "arrogance, disrespect, and incompetence," it is in your review.
Second, to both Jason Williams and you: take a look at your program again. What is the title? Is it "The Tempest"? Is it "Shakespeare's Tempest"? No, strangely enough, it is "The Tempest PROJECT," which means that it is NOT an attempt to faithfully produce Shakespeare's text -- which I, too, have directed in a professional production in Minneapolis -- but a play that takes as its starting point Shakespeare's story in combination with Auden's "The Sea and the Mirror." So the very foundation of your fluffery concerning this production is based on a false premise: that the attempt was to produce Shakespeare's text.
Goethe had three questions that must be asked about a production: 1. What does is the artist trying to do? 2. How well has the artist done it? 3. Was it worth doing?
You did not ask the first question, but instead judged it based on what you thought the artist SHOULD be trying to do.
Third, you should remember that, like all UNCA productions, this one was done for pedagogical as well as artistic purposes. It should be judged only partially as a product -- and certainly judged within the context of undergraduate STUDENTS learning how to act and design. Would you swoop into the Creative Writing classes and write scathing anonymous reviews of the mostly abominable plays and short stories being created there, comparing them to the work of O'Neill or Updike?
Prof. Facciponti and Ms. O'Connor committed themselves to exploring a physical, image-based approach to a classic text -- a free interpretation that combined other texts and -- gasp -- even rewrote some lines. [As a sidenote, there are very, very few productions of Shakespeare that go unedited -- so few that those that do go unedited are commented on.]
As the former Associate Artistic Director of the Illinois Shakespeare Festival, I have enormous respect for the Bard. and I think I have a pretty good handle on what makes a good production. But I cannot help but recoil from Jason's call for "reverence" for the text, as if it were some holy artifact and not a living text. Even the Bible has been retranslated, and verses from the King James text -- gasp -- changed.
Ultimately, I didn't think this production worked, either. I wished that the creative use of objects that made the first 20 mins so fascinating might have been carried through to the rest of the performance, instead of shifting to a more traditional performance of the text. I thought that the production shifted the focus to the lovers and diminished Prospero's role.
But I also think that the experiment was worthwhile, good for the students to experience, and whether ultimately the production was successful as a PRODUCT is secondary.
Again, I question the ethics of anonymous reviews on this site, and I call for a change of policy.
Dr. Scott E. Walters
UNCA Drama Dept.
Who is on sabbatical and not at all involved with this production
I understand that Shakespeare gets edited and rewrote constantly, but changing one of the most famous lines in the play, in my opinion, is almost as bad as changing, "To be, or not to be" into, "To live, or die." Yes in means the same thing, but it's perfect the way it is. Nothing is gained by the change, and I think the intelligence of the line is lost. Why even bother with the actual text to begin with. Why not create the text the same way you created the movement, organically, from a loose concept. I can handle cuts. I'll even grant you such changes as Gabardine into cloth (although Gabardine is such a fun word) but I'm sure I'm not the only one was disappointed by the choice to re-write or omit some classic lines.
Truth be told this was probably not a show designed for someone such as myself, a Shakespeare junkie, who brings with him a lot of preconceived ideas about the plays. Perhaps if I knew nothing about the play, as I suppose is the target audience here (young audiences) I might have enjoyed the production more. Unfortunately it's hard to separate the Shakespeare from his work, and no matter how experimental you call a Shakespeare production, there will be people coming to hear the Bard's words, and most of the time they will be disappointed. Also while I know it should be viewed as a learning experience, and I came mostly to support my Alma mater and my fellow actors, it's difficult not being focused solely on the product when you pay $15 to see it.
I've actually never seen or read The Tempest (I know), so I went into this pretty blank slate and didn't know lines had been changed until discussion followed my viewing. That said, I do wonder what the reasoning was behind the changing of the lines; of course I expect abridging and editing length, but it is sort of odd to just change a word here and there. I think I kind of like Jason's idea of starting with the loose framework of The Tempest and then having everything, including the text, re-conceptualized for the sake of the "project," (those are BBC quotation marks, not ones to denote sarcasm) if the intent was not to do a faithful production of The Tempest. As my hazy memory recalls, this is more what was done when UNCA did the Frankenstein Project some years back.
With The Tempest Project, I very much liked the visual spectacle of the show, but I am not sure what the artist was trying to do, so I cannot speak to how well the artist has done it. Again, not being familiar with the show upon which this was based, I feel like I got a very basic plot thread and a good bit of confusion. I recently heard that more puppetry and more of, I suppose, the "object theatre" advertised was originally planned, and I wish I had seen more of that. I loved the effect of the boat towards the beginning, and, in retrospect, I liked the idea of the mask representing Ariel, but I thought that could have been made more clear and effective by establishing theme music for Ariel earlier on and by having the voice of the mask be at least more similar to Ariel's.
I do think critiquing a public performance - an off-campus public performance at that - is not nearly the same thing as going into a classroom and lambasting writings in progress. I think high school theatre has even been reviewed on this blog before, though I suppose most of us would be reticent to slam a bunch of teenagers' mediocre acting skills. As a pedagogical vehicle, this play was probably excellent in technical aspects especially. But by its nature as theatre, I don't think it is entirely unfair for audience members to judge the product as well.
I would also condemn the following comment as unprofessional, unethical, and flatout wrong: "The only character with whom one can have the slightest sympathy is Caliban, and that is because Cody Magourik, the actor who portrays him, has gone of campus and learned how to act..." And Jason, as someone who was himself trained at UNCA, you might have pointed out the error.
One of the reasons that theatre has become so stodgy and unimaginative, and especially productions of Shakespeare, is that people have made a fetish out of their favorite lines and interpretations. They carry all their baggage into the theatre with them, and then are upset when the artists don't follow their preconceptions.
Regardless, it is valid to disagree about any production. What is NOT valid is to do it anonymously, and to do it in such a personally insulting manner. Is there no sense of ethics, courage, or accountability on this site?
As a company member of TheatreUNCA and also an individual deeply involved in this production, I would like to point out (especially to 'Crow') that everyone involved worked very hard to put this show up.
No, what you saw was not our finest work. I wouldn't even say that I am particularly proud of the show itself. What I do take great pride in, however, is that a group of students were faced with a tremendous challenge and accepted it as it was.
In addition to the sheer amount of time spent in rehearsals and shops, putting this show up was a huge emotional drain on everyone involved. We didn't sit around at rehearsal and bitch about the ineffectiveness of the process or the chaos which ensued. We didn't let our frustrations put the creative juices on hold. And, trust me, this was no small feat.
Please consider that, however misguided the concept or direction, a company is only as good as the person (or people) calling the shots. We did the best we could with what we were given.
Crow, we would all appreciate an apology. To think that a group of students can change the course of an ill-fated production is erroneous. Remember, our directors are also our professors and advisers and most of us were being graded on our people skills during this process. Your comments were thoughtless, rude and unproductive. I would expect better from a reviewer than to stoop to the baseness illustrated in your comments.
When did artists become afraid of criticism? When did we decide that it is better to coddle every creative endeavour for the sake education? Students should hear the negative thoughts about a production just as much as the good. We don't learn from praise we learn from constructive criticism. With that being said, cowardice or should I call it crowardice negates your ability to comment. If you want to be a critic then have the guts to throw your name on your opinion. Kudos to Jason for having the balls to put his name to his comment. Kudos, as well to the students for going through the process and getting through it, but don't call for apologies for every bad review you get, thats part of this business (the one we call show). The bad ones come with the good ones. Everyone's opinion is valid (when the sign it), even if it differs from your own.
well said, Drew.
Drew -- I agree with you, and I don't think I was calling for no negative reviews (perhaps you are responding to KEHersey, though). I absolutely think that strong criticism is good for artists, as painful as it can be at times. That said, the criticism also needs to consider the context and purpose, so that the criticism is relevant.
Yeah, sorry Scott, I could have set that up a bit better. My comment is in response to KeHersey's comment. Also, forgive the typos, should have looked over it again.
To Crow, I would like to point out that I lost any serious feelings toward your statements after you misquoted Shakespeare numerous times in your our complaint about changing lines. I assume you have access to the plays, use it.
Post a Comment