May 5, 2011

Literature 010

Cinco De Mayo Thursday

7:59 P.M.  We rush inside, into the dark, to find our seats, as the lights begin to fade in.  Music sets loose from the piano man in the corner of the stage.  Lights gleam on and light the stage like a Mortal Kombat platform.  And so the play beings, with an brief introduction of all the kins, actors: Bruce Turk as Antipholus’, Jerry Kernion as Dromio, Abby Craden as Adriana, Annie Abrams as Luciana, Michael Stone Forrest as Egeon, and others.  This interludic introduction along with the ragtime musical score creates a window, to implore the era of 1884, way back then, when Vaudeville be the bee’s knees in entertainment’s history, setting off a comedic theme, right off the bat, at the drop of a hat.  Not only does this Vaudeville frame add an interesting layer to the already interesting Shakespearian comedic play Director Michael Michetti also brings out a few extra tricks up his sleeve. 

An interesting performance choice is made during the telling of the Egeon’s story.  Director Michael Michetti chooses to use a film to accompany the telling of the tragic tale.  This choice of performance gave a very informative and humorous sense for the melancholy anecdote that prolonged his death sentence.  The movie clip also helps decipher the archaic and poetic language of Shakespeare that may not be familiar to audiences of today.  This film clip is shot in black and white, to retain the time frame the director wanted to capture, that of the past, before color, from the years 1880 to 1930, when Vaudeville was all the rage in theatre cities.  This film is one of the many effective performance choices made in the Noise Within’s production of The Comedy of Errors.

Another interesting director’s choice that works well in the comedic Vaudeville theme is the implementation of burlesque dancers.  During the early 1880’s to the 1900’s burlesque dancers were a big hit in the entertainment industry.  This choice of characters seals the deal on the Vaudeville feel, by not lines but rather actions and presence.  These dancers star in sideshows during multiple changes scene changes, giving a lucrative impression of “a play within a play” to the production.  This choice of directing pans out quite nicely to the frame the director was portraying.  It gives a whimsical lively feel that makes being in the theatre a ride of its money’s worth. 

Within these sideshow performances the very controversial topic is presented.  During one scene change, a dance erupts between three nuns and three burlesque dancers.  This dance number is not only hysterically entertaining; it had a sense of deepness that conveys the idea of good versus evil.   Good being the nuns and evil, the burlesque dancers.  This small snippet of action shows the power a director has, even when working in the confines of a Shakespearian script.  This scene does well in both entertaining the audience with its witty charm as well as walking the tight rope of moral ethics between what is considered permissible.  The director took this one step further at the end of the play.  As all the actors were leaving towards their appropriate exits, the nuns and burlesque dancers mistakenly switch their routes.  The nuns moved towards the burlesque house; meanwhile, the burlesque dancers walked towards the abbey and at the very last moment the characters realize their mistakes and returned to their fitting exits.  This quick quirky qualm leaves an impression on audiences: maybe we are not so different after all.  A direct influence of the director is witnessed, as this is packaged somewhat subliminally into the story.  With this creative scene, I learned the influence a well-educated individual could provide to the theatre world.  This has opened my eyes to the potential possibilities that are possible to all interpretations of text.  Not only has this expanded my view of the dramatist and literary world, but also I am applying this perspective to I do and see, allowing me to interact both directly and passively with the entire world around me.  I see the world now as a marvelous canvas that is eager to be shaped, molded, and painted into a creation that I feel is most natural to be.  And I believe that is what Michael Michetti intended for his audience to see as well.  With applications of framing, layering, and impressive directions of characters and a lively sense of the Vaudeville era is created; however, there were a few things that could have been better.

The ventriloquism act is an interesting director’s choice that solves the unraveling scene of the play; though, there is one complication with this choice, the volume of the ventriloquist’s voice.  This scene requires both Dromio and Antipholus to meet their twin brothers, thus solving the mishap of mistaken identity.  And the cast does this in a very innovative way by using full-size dummies to play the part of the twin brothers.   Yet, the ventriloquist’s voice was too low during Antipholus’s lines and was not well projected in a theatre full of laughter.  There were points within Antipholus’ speech where words could be neither heard nor understood because of laughter from the audience.  On a positive note, the voice of Dromio’s twin was excellent.  Rene Ruiz, the ventriloquist, was spot in capturing the voice of Jerry Kernion, Dromio.  I was shocked when hearing the puppet Dromio of Syracuse speak, it sounded just like him!  More work could have been put into making the puppets because they were a bit flimsy while on stage.  Making the puppets more solid and sturdy could have been easily done, along with a different system of mechanics to move the arms of the Dromio and Antipholus action figures.  Yet, I understand it is not entirely necessary for the director’s comic vision of the play and this is clearly shown during the last scene.  I would have made the puppets better. 

The experience of watching a live Shakespearian play has enriched my understanding of Shakespearian language and drama.  As Jerry Kernion, said after the show, “Shakespeare is meant to be seen not read.”  And after seeing this live performance, reading a script is an entirely different experience.  I now am more in tune with the multiple story lines and open performance choices.  These open actions expand in my mind as I incorporate them in different and creative ways.  I am able to appreciate new interpretations of performance choices and further construct my aesthetics. 

In conjunction, this project has taught me the power of teamwork.  As Margaret Mead once said, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world.  Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”  And this play is exactly proves her point.  Although, the cast and crew did not change the world, they however did change my view and potentially many others’s view of the Shakespearian play The Comedy of Errors.  Thank you.