 |
| Stratford Upon Avon always looks amazing in the sun |
What
could be more tempting than watching a play that’s rarely performed? And about the classical world? I’m a complete sucker for anything vaguely to
do with togas. So when I saw that
Shakespeare’s little staged Troilus and Cressida was coming to the Swan this
year I had to get tickets.
This
was my mum’s first introduction to live action Bard. Should we go to Much Ado? I pondered. It did seem a safer bet.
‘Mother,’
I said, ‘would you like to go and see a romantic screwball comedy with lots of
witty wordplay and an almost tragic plot but not quite?’
‘Hmmm,’
she said. ‘I think I’d prefer something
a bit more, well, sad.’
So,
Troilus it was.
 |
| A quick character map of Troilus and Cressida - yes I know, I always forget Shakespeare calls Odysseus 'Ulysses' |
Troilus
and Cressida is about the two eponymous lovers and the breakup of their
relationship, set against the backdrop of the Trojan war. They’re both Trojans, but Cressida’s father
is a turncoat and in the Greek camp. When he asks that his daughter joins him she
can’t say no. Sounds familiar? Well, this is where it all ends. The rest of the play is a strange mish-mash
of manly virtue and anger, fight scenes and anti-climax. It’s a strange beast and has won the dubious
honour of being called “problem play”.
The
2012 production is an ensemble cast featuring both the RSC (the Greeks) and the
American Wooster Group (the Trojans).
It’s part of the World Shakespeare Festival, but did this collaboration
work?
Right. First things first, I’d like to say I have
mixed feelings about this performance.
Let me start with what worked.
 |
| Stratford upon Avon. Can I move here right now? |
The
Greek Camp: The audience feels pretty safe in these guys’ hands. Scott Handy in particular is effortless as Ulysses. Joe Dixon’s Achilles is all
shades of manly. He’s kind of
mesmerising actually – the stage works by rotating and the sight of Achilles
slowly inching into view leaping around on an army bed to loud music, towel
about to fall off is er, memorable! He
comes across as a petulant boy, refusing to fight for whatever sulky reason his
teenage brain can devise.
I like
the concept of the set and staging too.
The Greeks are the British army while the Trojans, Native
Americans. But more of this later.
Some
of the Trojans are strong – Hector in particular. And I did like Pandarus’ body language and
way with words. There
are some genuine laughs too. The
excellent Scott Handy plays Helen in super-camp mode. And what better way to undercut the weight placed
on the ‘face that launched a thousand ships’ than by turning her into a joke? Paris started a war – for this? The Trojans have no choice but to step in
line, support their prince and fight.
So
let’s move onto those parts that were a bit more questionable.
If
you’re a theatre follower you may know this production got a bit of a
roasting. And it’s true, I did notice a
fair number of empty seats after the interval.
What wasn’t working so well then?
I have
to say it but I found (on the whole) the Wooster Group’s performance weaker
than the RSC’s. That’s not saying there
weren’t some great moments there, but I’m not sure I really “got” everything
that was going on.
Firstly
this interpretation as I’ve said had the Trojans as Native Americans. I did love their wardrobe – a mixture of
traditional costumes and skins married with broken Greek statues (as kind of
capes) and the detritus of western society.
I like the fact that these guys carry basketballs around and use them as
temporary seats – it’s like they were living in a bubble for years and then,
wham! their culture’s been surrounded by this new one and they’re going to take
aspects from it.
I can even go with the TV screens. Onstage large screens are positioned high in a few prominent positions and we get to see clips of documentaries and old movies. When the Trojans have important scenes the actors kind of copy or mirror the actions on the TVs. This makes for quite disconcerting viewing. So in Troilus and Cressida’s love scene instead of close actor interaction we get this kind of distancing performance where both actors are looking over each other’s shoulder and mimicking the screen. What does it all mean? I was thinking about this and for me I see it as a comment on the outside influence of the media on a more primitive society; they’re starting to look to filmic representation to work out how they should act in their own world. This distancing is amplified by the Wooster Group’s use of microphones and occasionally a distortion effect. It’s quite ghostly actually – trying to work out where the voice is coming from. But herein lies most of the problems with the Trojans – voice, intonation and projection. Not only is it hard to work out where or who each voice is coming from, but the actors’ unemotional, deliberately stilted and Dalek-esque intonation made it really hard to follow the metre, rhythm or meaning. Some parts I just couldn’t make out – lack of projection meant I didn’t have a clue what they were saying. And if you take away Shakespeare’s language, what have you got?
So I
really came away from this production a little confused. Some parts I loved: Scott Handy, Achilles’ well-documented penchant for cross-dressing, Zubin Varla’s bitter Phoenix Nights delivery as Thersites,
complete with wheelchair, wig, drag and spotlight. I was left with some really vivid and often
amusing images here, although you could say no revolutionary new ground was
covered. But for some bits in the Trojan
camp I felt oddly disengaged.
And my
mum’s opinion?
She
says she’d quite like to go and see another play, but maybe not for a while,
and maybe not Shakespeare.
No comments:
Post a Comment