310 Blog Post 1

This week has begun something that I neither expected nor prepared for, I think. This does not mean however, that I did not manage to glean meaning and ideas about both of the plays we saw. I missed many of the references until they were later pointed out, but once they were revealed, I realized exactly what I had been missing. Flesh and Bone was contemporary and enjoyable, while also creating some very important conversation through its use of language and staging. As You Like It was interesting in the staging and casting and made me excited to see both the same play under a different director with a different group of players and Hamlet under the same director. As such both plays were not necessarily what I had expected, but both forced me to think about the choices made in very different ways.

Flesh and Bone was an amazing play, and the staging helped a lot with the emotional impact of it. Having the stage be so small was somewhat of a surprise, however, having seen plays performed on such stages before, I was not really put off by the thought of the play in such a tiny place, particularly with such a small cast. The lighting helped emphasize who was the highlight of the moment and where to focus my eyes if more than one character was on the stage while also indicating what the character was trying to portray at that point. This is quite obvious in Jamal’s first speech. He kind of started out in the dark and then gradually moved towards the lighter areas of the stage. This, at least for me, sort of matched his speech, going from what was happening to him and how he felt to some of his hopes and possibly a view of himself that was not only bad. The lighting helped with distinguishing the scene with the Grandfather and Kel, as it made it clear that though both of them were talking separately they were actually on the same line. Each of the character’s speeches used the spotlights to follow them, which appealed to the idea that they are thinking about themselves and how that might affect the others around them. The lighting complemented the physical staging of the actors and the minimalism that was clear throughout. It even added to the humor and seriousness in parts, from the fight with strobe lights and all the actors moving slowly, to the end with the bright lights and the characters standing up for where they live. The lighting influenced the space and sometimes made it seem bigger than it really was without taking away the atmosphere created by the black box stage.

The black box stage created an atmosphere that allowed the audience to participate in ways that are not necessarily normal, especially for a play that creates such a commentary, though perhaps I just have not seen enough plays to have recognized this attribute. The play made the space seem larger by having the characters talk from offstage and by actually coming up or towards the audience. This did help with the commentary on the lives of the characters that were portrayed, because it made the audience seem as though they were a part of the play and that they were not mere outsiders looking in on the occurrences. In addition, the lack of props made the audience focus more on what was said and created a more thought-provoking dialogue, which props could have distracted from. Finally, the dialogue itself was important in so much as it was funny and serious, while clearly underlining issues that even now are still dealt with by many people. I thought that the writer did a fantastic job creating the space in which the audience could clearly see into someone’s life, someone who could actually be living through the exact circumstances. After the play, when we had returned home, we actually discussed the fact that many of us knew people who were in those situations and could recall people that actually fit well with each of the characters. While we ourselves did not relate to the play necessarily, we did see the idea of how the play echoed real life and brought real issues up in such a way that made the ideas seem subtle and completely unsurprising.

With As You Like It, the staging was also incredibly important to not only the success of the play, but also the coherency of the actors and the ideas that were portrayed. The actors moved about a lot, which created an air of urgency. While this normally would not be a problem, this also led to some awkward staging where one of the characters was facing with their back to the center audience. This sort of staging also had to do with the casting decisions. While I believe that casting was done well and that the play itself was produced faithfully by the actors some choices did cause a loss of clarity. The choice of Nadia Nadarajah as Celia added to the character in ways that would not have been possible otherwise, especially when Celia actually speaks out in defense of Rosalind against being banished instead of the actress signing her dissent, however, some clarity was lost as whenever she was blocked by another actor or actress it was much harder to understand what was going on during the scene as Celia explains so much. Other choices added to different effects as well. The casting choices of Jack Latsky as Rosalind and Bettrys Jones as Orlando added a comedic effect while also almost reinforcing the ideas that are inherent within the play itself, dealing with the non-binary sense of gender, that is particularly prevalent now. However, there were parts of the play where even this casting seemed a bit odd, and again led to some awkward staging. 

It will be interesting to see another director and cast’s view on As You Like It when we go to see it again in a week. Hopefully with this one still fresh in my mind I will be able to either draw comparisons or indicate specific differences that are not necessarily only the casting choice. This version introduced some modern sounding phrase into the mix of Shakespeare, and added some sections that were definitely befitting a modern audience, but not really ideas that would have been clear in Shakespeare’s time. I am curious as to whether the other version will veer further off script or whether they will be more faithful to the original. Of course, the casting choice will also be different, but the casting for this viewing was extremely well done, even with the problems that were caused, that I am curious to see if the other cast will be able to do a similar job. I am also curious to see this cast’s production of Hamlet, seeing as the use of only twelve players greatly increases the number of doubled parts that are required. This is more traditional, even though the composition of the cast is not. I am also curious if the other production will be as traditional in the use of props and the stage, which I though this one did well, especially with such a small troupe of players.

While both Flesh and Bone and As You Like It were well produced, the first was clearly the gem of the week. Elliot Warren produced an amazing script that translated extremely well onto the stage. The staging and dialogue along with the venue helped create an atmosphere that the audience could partake in, introducing a problem that many have seen and thought about. I enjoyed both plays, but was not really expecting either to be what they ended up becoming. I am excited to view the next ones and for the surprises that will most likely come with them.