Review of Plays- Warning: Extremely LONG Post Skip if you have a short attention span

You see, I typed quite a lot in the UK, but had no chance to write anything on my blog. So now I'm literally dumping everything out. Heres a blow by blow account of the plays we watched. If you get bored, move right down to the pictures. Does this excess of words satisfy you, ade?

The Crucible
We were giving a choice of watching this or Feydra, a Greek tragedy. Of course, I chose the more famous one, me being the fickle-minded shallow person I am. And I am sorry to say, that I fell asleep in the theatre. I fell asleep. In my defence, I was NOT the only one who fell asleep. Lots of other people watching the play fell asleep too, some even slept through the whole play (at least I only slept through one quarter). The people watching Feydra fell asleep too. The play was actually quite good. But the theatre was warm, and dark… zzZZZZzzz
Religion as an excuse
For the part I DID pay attention to, what I gleaned from it was that the people were so caught up in their beliefs that they used religion as an excuse to justify all their accusations. Religion can be used, and against that ultimate reason, no one, innocent or not, can prevail. It was terrifying, the power of religion and authority figures, and I was suitably frightened to hope that I would never fall into the hands of such people. You can die bewailing your innocence, knowing that you are right, but the hysteria of the masses and the voice of authority damns you to death. And all in the name of justice. What a cruel fate. However, the law today is a bit like that. If you know how to work the system, you’ll have a better chance of coming on top. However, even if you know how to work it, theres no guarantee that you’ll come out unscathed. Maybe that’s why lawyers are disliked, and so many lawyers come to sticky ends. Bleargh- maybe I shall be one. Just joking.
Full Theatres
The theatre where we watched The Crucible was a tiny one, but it was packed. It was just one of the many small theatres in London. And I was amazed by the theatre going culture of the British people. That such a small area like London could support so many theatres, and there are so many plays and musicals going on at the same time, and many of them are sold out. Singapore in comparison, is dull and lifeless. Perhaps it takes time for the Arts scene to develop and to mature. I hope that I’ll be able to see plays and musicals in many parts of Singapore and that the theatres will be full when I go there, not half empty.

Titus Andronicus
Very very very bloody play.
When first told that I would have to stand shivering in the cold for three hours, I was extremely reluctant to watch the play at all. In addition, a small group of us (including me) had foolishly opted to stay around the tower of London instead of going back to the hostel. It rained cats and dogs and the weather was miserably cold- remember, it was before summer had set in.
However, the performance exceeded all our expectations. The cast was marvelous and made use of the arena extremely well. The Shakespeare Globe was a recreation of Shakespeare’s original theatre (Shakespeare in love was filmed there I think), and it was open air. We stood in the pit, and the actors were pushed around. It was extremely fun to have to move or be pushed around to make way for the actors- then we could see them up close! There was real audience involvement and the actors were very engaging. They were totally into their characters, and being close up, we could see each tortured emotion, each nuance clearly. I was hooked.
Being in the pit was also great in that we could choose to stand really near the stage. At first, me, Huiling, Daphne and Linmin were right at the back, but as the play got increasingly bloody, we moved up to the front after the interval in order to enjoy the blood fest (hehex). Some people fainted or felt nauseous because of the tremendous amount of blood split in the play. At any time, one could see green-faced people making their way towards the toilet, signaling that they could not take it anymore. It was tremendously amusing- to me at least.
Anyway, about the play. Its about this Roman general, Titus Andronicus who returns victorious from Rome. He sacrifices the Goth Queen Tamora’s son and Tamora vows revenge. She becomes the queen and has Lavinia, Titus’ daughter’s tongue cut out and her hands cut off. Titus’s sons are also killed off except for one. Titus begins to act strangely, and Tamora lets down her guard. Tamora’s two unsuspecting sons are killed by Titus. And in the last scene, Tamora eats pie containing the fingers of her son, Tamora, the king, Lavinia and Titus are all killed or die. And everyone dies happily ever after.
Yes, extremely bloody indeed. The part after Lavinia’s tongue has been cut out was the bloodiest and most disgusting part- very like WWE. The actress was extremely good. She was jerking and then dribbling out lumps of red coloured things, which looked like blood and bits of tongue mixed together. Fantastic stuff.
Oh, and one of Titus’ sons injured himself while he was being ‘killed.’ He was killed, but could not get up and had to be helped off the stage. Tremendously amusing. The actors were good sports though. Titus asked the audience to pretend that the body was still on stage and then recited his part with only the tiniest hint of irony.
Another great theatre part was when Tamora’s sons were killed. They were hooked upside down onto a bar, and the ankle cuffs were the coolest things, they had hooks on one side that allowed the actors to be hooked up, but the audience could not see that. And when they were killed, the actors took care to slash and smear blood while their bodies were blocking the view of the audience.
So fun! So cold!

Midsummer night’s dream
This was a rehearsal held in an open field. Once again, I was extremely reluctant (hehex) and had to persuaded by Aditi, though again, I was very grateful that I was persuaded in the end. Yea, I seem rather unenthu at the beginning of the trip- my reason for being reluctant was that I didn’t want to sit in the wet grass and get cold- rather lame really. Anyway, the play was performed by an all male cast, and I was amazed by how well the male actors played female roles. Their gender was not obtrusive and did not mar the direction and flow of the play. The cast was extremely small and all of them had to double up. Shakespeare was really great in crafting his play such that a small group of performers could manage to stage the play- just like small traveling troupes would have to do so in the past. There was no fancy orchestra or acoustics, instead the actors sang and hummed. The effect was very good, and the harmonization fantastic- see I still can’t run away from music.
All I can say was that the actors, the music and the stage were great. It all came together and really made the play work.
Aside: We were sitting near the front and the manager came to ask us to move to the back so that the actors can project their voices. I think he’s gay. He has that earring in the ear and a way of speaking that almost has me convinced. Hehex. Random and absolutely boh liao thing to notice.

Julius Caesar
A disappointment. It was by the Royal Shakespeare Company, and we had gone on the backstage tour earlier. The theatre and costumes all seemed fantastic, and it being the RSC, we had high expectations. However, the play turned out to be rather draggy. They used a minimalist set with use of lighting and colours. The actors were quite good. The theatre part was good, but the play was not. It should have been. All the parts were there. However the characters were not engaging, the monologues seemed too long, the scenes too draggy. I was struggling to keep awake for the second half, and while one could hear rustlings and see people fidgeting during the first half of the play, none of that was evident during the second half- the people were all knocked out KO. Even the teachers were struggling to keep awake.
I liked that Mark Antony was played by a black man. He had a loud, booming voice and great stage presence. Portia’s speech was also good. But otherwise the play was just a boring blur (I’m really sorry to say that. Ok, actually I paid attention to the first part of the play cos I knew the plot then I lost focus in the second half where I couldn’t get head of tail of what was going wrong- but the play REALLY was boring. I’m just trying to list all possible externalities.)
I really can’t pinpoint what exactly was wrong with the play. Perhaps it was that what were supposed to be the most dramatic parts turned out to be the opposite. Perhaps it was too self-indulgent, with too many dramatic pauses and time given to the soliloquies were nothing was happening.
However, Julius Caesar the play was also insightful and instructive. It sheds a lot of light into human nature and how to manipulate it, as well as leadership. I remember thinking during the play of jealousy, of manipulating emotions through speeches, and the options left open when one knows that a rival a jealous. I came away resolving to be the best of myself, not to worry about what is leadership or what is the best way to lead. Trying to be a jack of all trades brings no success, rather, it is by being the best of yourself that you can best the best of others.

One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest
It’s a play by Oxford students, and I think it was better than Julius Caesar (a play by PROFESSIONALS.) The play is about Jack a misfit from society who has been sent to a mental hospital by authorities who have no idea what to do with him. The mental hospital is run by the domineering Nurse Ratchet. The patients are put through humiliating group therapy sessions and are dosed with medication to keep them docile. Jack quickly shakes things up and goes into a series of confrontations with Nurse Ratchet. The play ends with Jack given surgery. He dies and a patient escapes.
While the settings and lightings were simply used, the play WORKED. The pacing was good and I was constantly on the edge of my seat. I didn’t fall asleep, but then Mr Reeves sitting next to me may have been a factor too. =)
Open rebellion vs quiet subversion. Which one is better? In real life, if you rebel openly, the authorities crack down on you really harshly and you come to a sticky end. However, a life of confirmitiy means that the status quo remains and in a sense, you are allowing bad things to be done to you. If you never try, you never know. To really rebel, one must really NOT care about anything, to have a spirit that transcends the controlling nature of others. And, part of me does want to confirm, yet while confirming, I want to rebel at the same time. Its contradictory, like wanting to be close and distant to people.
Like taking risks. Life is about taking calculated risks. We can’t control everything, nor can we treat life with reckless abandon. When I decided to just ‘heck it’- to quote myself, the recklessness got me injured and out of playing for some time. So, the lesson is learnt and I’ll have to continually remind myself- be cautious but not too cautious.

Note: we watched two more plays- Antony and Cleopatra and The Royal Hunt of the Sun. Reflections not typed yet. May be up if you find the above interesting.