Captivating. That's really all I can say about Merchant of Venice. I loved everything about it!
Mostly the theme of timelessness.
The costumes really brought that out for me. I feel like a lot of casts (at least the ones I've seen portrayed academically) wear black. I assume it's mostly due to lack of budget, but I think the black outfits cast a dark dimension to the Shakespearian wonders. With MoVenice, though, the costumes actually enhanced the play. The top hat and the dress shirt of Antonia made me more captivated to the story. Although vivid and wonderful, the costumes were not distracting. This play could have been set anytime, anywhere.Which leads me to my next point: I love the universality they chose. Although the message of religious prejudice/conflict was lost, the idea that we, as the audience, could imagine this play anywhere, made it easier to pull the "life themes" out. Suddenly I found myself focusing on "mercy can satisfy the demands of justice" rather than "look at the Christian and the Jew fighting." Don't get me wrong, there is much to be learned in that perspective too...but the timelessness was just too apparent to ignore.
I loved the audience participation. There was something about the add libbing (and the actor's REMEMBRANCE of using the add lib in the story) that made it so.......real? I was actually listening for slip ups. After all, BYU theatre has a good reputation. Just because it was a Young Company production didn't mean they could go-a-slackin' on the job. I was impressed. They're GOOD. I think I heard only one. A "Venice" instead of a purple-what-ever-we-chose.
Listen, I'm no drama fanatic...but if you ask me, that acting was GOOD STUFF!!!!!!!!!! I dunno. What do you think, Kent? You've had experience...and I only had 9th grade theatre class where we couldn't speak coherently, let alone act...but STILL! I LOVE THEATRE and I feel like I've seen a decent amount of plays to know that those actors were sincere. Their lines came from serious and deliberate character reflection...What else distracts from timelessness like bad acting...am I right?
Segwaying right along: ANTONIA!!!!! I first heard the main role would be played by a girl before the play even started. All I could think was, "Oh great. If Kent hated LibriVox version of woman-plays-male-role, this is going to be interesting..." However, BYU-Theatre does it again. (Can I just say I love our Performing Arts here? Time and time again they deliver. No where else in the world. I swear...) Katie Jarvis was phenomenal. I think I'm going to carry her around in my pocket with me and let her read all the Antonia parts whenever i re-read the play. I never pictured Antonio being so...animated? She was so much of a classic character, I found myself wanting to listen to her more. Which is interesting for this play because I thought a lot of it was centered around Shylock. I'd never really focused on him that much before. Kinda cool...The kids! What a way to change things up! I talked to Professor Burton afterwards and he said he actually saw it twice. He commented that the kids in the previous show's performance had a bit more attitude/excitement in their roles. I thought the kids in Saturday's version were a bit timid. (Can you blame them?) I guess nothing adds to timelessness like the innocence of children's character.
 |
| LOOK HOW MUCH DIFFERENCE THEIR COSTUMES MAKE!!!!!!!! COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FEEL! |
I heartily agree with you. I think the fact that the kids were timid just helped you see how good the actors are at what they do. It takes talent to work with a shy kid. I was especially impressed with Portia. Her little maid was very quiet, but by the end I could hear here asking soft questions in the background and Portia was sweet enough to quietly answer all of them.
ReplyDeleteI thought the acting was fairly good. It was built the way it was for the needs of the audience and that's all that matters. You can't go too deep if half of your audience is under the age of 8.
DeleteHonestly the part of "Antonia" didn't bother me at all. It thought she did a great job. That part in particular wasn't a gender essential role. Now, Henry the Fifth, KING OF ENGLAND,needs to be a man. that's a historic fact that shouldn't be altered. There were just too many references to his own boyhood and what it meant to become a man that made it fall apart in the LibriVox.
I quite agree with the rest of your review though!