Take away the busybody stage, the glamorized costumes, the abundance of actors and whatever else makes Broadway the spectacle that it is. Give me the talent of actors and that alone will grant you my utmost respect. Mahayana Landowne’s directing of Euripides’ “Medea” does just that.
The air holds to the audience with a chilling grip. The theater is big enough to hold a crowd but small enough so that the farthest row can connect with the spectacle. Though the pillar at the back of the stage is small, it sure does create the ambience of the good old days in Greece. I might as well take some creative liberty to say that the pillar serves as a sort of metaphor. The theater requires a sole pillar to create an unforgettable experience. That pillar relies on the connection between the audience and the actors.
Talk about a connection. The actors move to and fro on the stage and in the rows. The audience has no choice but to turn right, left and move closer to the action. There is no forgettable part in the play. In fact, there are a few revelations about theater itself. For example, the chorus is as a vital as Medea and Jason. This detail doesn’t translate when reading the text alone. Somehow I didn’t recognize the chorus because of a preconceived notion that the chorus is there for musical enrichment. To witness the chorus interact with Medea rather than be in a group somewhere in the corner of the stage is to witness ingenuity at work.
Another new experience is seeing actors read directly from the text. At first it seems like there is no rehearsal involved, but through the performance the reason for this technique becomes clear. Because the actors read from the text, the performance is fresh. Rather than having to memorize the lines, the actors give the text a whole new enthusiasm that translates well with the audience. There are times when the actor looks down and it appears that the rhythm might break. These moments, however, are overcome by the simple realization that the patrons of the theater are captivated. The audience wants the actors to progress. It isn’t like waiting for a crash at Nascar.
For me, details such as lighting, costumes, and scenery are distractions. I find that an imagination is a terrible thing to waste. That’s why I appreciate the lack of distractions in the performance. Light did not set the mood because it didn’t need to. The actors did just that. The somber yet simple attire keeps the attention on the actors. If their attire isn’t so simple it is hard to notice the change in sashes, which signifies a different character. The use of sashes is another technique that takes the viewer to way back when. The scenery is simple and minute. This is another detail that forces the audience to focus on the actors.
A point of controversy in the play is the use of masks to replace children. I appreciate the replacement because children can be hard to deal with. I also believe that the audience connects with the children on a deeper level because they have to use their imaginations to create them. The audience can also choose to treat the masks as hollow objects. It all depends on how far one is willing to open to theater.
If all theater had these attributes, I might go once in a while for curiosity. There’s no doubt that I’d recommend this production because it’s different (in a good way) from the common notion of theater. Greece is as good of a place as any to start a patronage to the theater. The actors know what they’re doing, and there’s comfort in that. There are no distractions from what theater is supposed to be: a connection between the spectacle and the spectator.
