Hello class! Post your theater reviews here and comment on those of your classmates!
Mark Spergel on Aug 31st 2010
Welcome to Blogs@Baruch!
This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging.
Filed in Uncategorized | 14 responses so far
14 Responses to “Hello class! Post your theater reviews here and comment on those of your classmates!”
Hi, this is a comment.
To delete a comment, just log in and view the post's comments. There you will have the option to edit or delete them.
“Medea”
Overall, I liked Euripides’s play “Medea”. The play itself was not too long and it stayed true to the play of Ancient Greek times. I thought that the production was a well-produced play. The cast kept many of the Greek elements, which I appreciated, and it also had an interesting plot. Having read the story was helpful because it allowed me to see how the words in the play were captured on the stage. However, there were also surprises in “Medea” regarding the props and use of the stage that I did not expect.
When I first arrived, I thought that the overall setting of the stage looked small, drab and unfit for a Greek play. It was a simple, two-toned open stage with a moderate amount of audience seats. It created a homey and comfortable atmosphere, which helped me adjust. On stage, there was only one visible prop I could see, a Greek pillar. The walls were cement colored and the doors were like storage compartments except they were built in. I could not figure out where the play took place. It would have been better if the set design crew had placed a painting on the wall or a desk to show its setting. One downside to the sparse stage was that I had already fixated in my mind that the play would be boring. However, it was nothing of this sort. Soon, I came to realize that “Medea” did not need a bigger stage. I was able to focus on each character who was speaking and not get distracted by the props and actors a bigger stage would accompany.
The play started with a nurse, a woman dressed in black, walking to the middle of the stage and lamenting all that has occurred since the present crisis in the city . The first thing I noticed was that she was not memorizing the lines. Instead, she was reading from a book. I found this unusual because all of the plays I have attended were not like this. However, I liked how the cast used the scripts instead of memorizing the lines because it maintained part of the Ancient Greek originality.
Although the actors had scripts in their hands, it did not make their acting any less believable. In my opinion, I think they did as well as actors who memorize their lines. For example, I think Medea was the most successful actress because I was able to hear her voice clearly and fluidly. Medea’s tone and expression before and after she killed Jason’s Glauce and King Creon were clearly visible and different. At one point, I felt pity and sadness for her even though I only heard her voice and saw her limited hand gestures. I also liked how producer Mahayana Landowne only had Medea dress in a full colored outfit, further emphasizing her as the protagonist. Everyone else in the cast was wearing black.
I liked how the producer subtlety changed Medea’s outfit to mean different things. For example, when Medea was trying to understand the reasons behind Jason’s betrayal to their marriage, I noticed that her shawl was held around her shoulders. I thought that this symbolized her obedient and civil nature to the husband. However, once Medea kills BRIDE and her father, she wears the shawl in front of her. I think this signified a new, independent, and stronger Medea. One thing I did not get was Jason’s costume. I did not understand why he was also dressed in black. I think Jason is another important character in the play because he is the one who loses everything, including his manhood. So why did he dress in black like the chorus?
One of the other unexpected things that happened was the other people of the chorus who joined her. It was interesting because I expected the actors to come out from the stage entrance, not from within the audience. For example, the chorus, the messenger, the tutor, Aigeus, and Kreon, all walked down the audience’s stairs and walked up to the stage. Although it was strange to see each of them walk at different times and places, I was able to see the support for one another. All of the actors, especially the chorus, were intently listening to one another. The chorus’s black outfits also accentuated their unity acting as a whole and later, as the background for when the protagonist, Medea, and Jason converse. Even if there were not much elaborate gestures and props shown, the feelings of the actors were clearly visible to the audience. For example, when Medea speaks to the chorus about her plans to kill the bride and father, I noticed that the chorus was displaying their feelings of sadness through their faces.
Another element the producer used to maintain the Grecian style was with the masks used in place of the children. I was surprised when the children first came out because I was confused as to how they fit in the play itself. It led me to think that the inanimate prop was used to symbolize the children’s innocence in the knowledge of Medea’s conniving plan. In my opinion, I think the children were another unifying aspect to the play because they were the transitions to the next place the actors had to be. For example, every time the nurse went behind the walls, she took the children with her.
The whole play was great to watch. Although the scenery was too simple, and the decorations were lacking, the actors made up for it. All of the actors captivated me by their loud and clear voices. The show’s use of scripts and minimal facial and hand expressions gave Medea an original and traditional flair. Despite the actors reading straight from the scripts, “Medea” is still a captivating and alluring play to watch.
-Christine Yung
Review of Euripides’ “Medea.”
I was thrilled to be able to watch a live production of this play. After reading different plays all month, it was rather nice to watch the story unfold in front of me.
That being said, I think the production was pretty good. The first thing I thought upon walking into the theatre was “wow it smells nice in here.” Then I looked up, and noticed that the walls looked like a bunch of prison cells lined up. I feel like this served as a good scenery. Something about it matched the somber mood of the play, as well as the small stage. I don’t think the size affected any aspects of the play. The small space provided for an intimate production, although a larger space would have lent itself nicely to a more epic version of the play. The lack of backdrop in the theatre worked, because it let the audience focus entirely on the raw emotion of the play.
The play began with the woman playing the nurse. She walked out with her script in hand (which we had been warned about before the show started). Maybe I should have been able to get over this by the end, but it really just bothered me. I think the actors held their scripts in hand because they had not rehearsed very much, which is understandable, but it still proved to be distracting to me. Nonetheless, the performances that the actors gave didn’t really seem to be affected by their cumbersome scripts.
Several actors started the show sitting in the audience, and when their time to speak came, they stood up, causing everyone to look around the room and try and find them. I like when directors use this idea, because it gives a whole new dimension to the production. On the whole, I thought the direction was great. The movements the actors followed seemed very natural, and the flow of each scene connected seamlessly with the next. (My only critique would be about the director’s choice in outfit. Her pajama pants underneath her dress bothered me a lot. During the Q & A, I found myself distracted by them. But I’ll get back to that later.) Another thing I would like to comment on is the decision to use masks as children. It fit the play, especially on the small stage. If the production was any larger, I don’t think it would have been a very good idea.
The woman playing the lead was great. You could feel the real emotion in every line she delivered, from the pain of losing her husband to the delirious anger in her plotting of her revenge. Maybe this is a bad thing, but the role seemed to come to her very naturally. I hope she isn’t like that in real life. I thought the rest of the ensemble did well also, just not as well as she did. It was nice to see one person play two different parts, and actually have two different characters. So often, I will see a play where a person takes on two roles, and plays them in the exact same way. Not only does it sometimes prove to be confusing, but it takes away from their performance. Thankfully, there was no such problem here. The only actor who left much to be desired was the man who played Jason. His lines all seemed very forced and awkward. Unlike the rest of the cast, it did not seem like he felt the part he was playing. It seemed like textbook “angry” acting, like “I am angry, and now I am yelling.” There was no real emotion. The worst part was when it was revealed to him that his children had been murdered. He was supposed to be completely distraught, and to show that, he awkwardly lay on the floor, fake crying. It was just very strange.
The costumes were perfect. The colors used were all very bland, and went well with the rest of the colors of the theatre. This brilliantly aided the drama of Medea murdering her children. The red cloth that represented the blood of her sons stuck out against everything on the stage, bringing a solid emphasis to it.
I would like to bring attention to the lighting in the play, or rather, the lack there of. The same lights were kept on during the entire production. I would have preferred a slight change every so often to emphasize different emotions. For example, when King Creon tells Medea that she is to be banished, a slight dimming of the lights would have given off an aura of helplessness and despair. On the other hand, the consistency of the lighting kept the play flowing. It helped it all seem like one complete and unified thing. It was also a very honest lighting. The actor’s faces could always be seen, and the raw emotions were left in the open, with nothing to hide behind.
All in all, I did enjoy this production of Eurpides’ “Medea.” At the end, I asked who decided on the cuts of the script. The director had come with an edited version of the script, and then the actors helped decide what to keep and what to get rid of past that. The shortening of the play worked very nicely. I almost didn’t notice anything that was missing. They kept everything that was remotely important. Ironically, by cutting out pieces of the play, they were able to give the production a very full performance.
I would like to see a production of this play on a larger stage, using an actual scenery and props. I think it would be an extremely different production, even though it’s the same script. And speaking of scripts, I would really love if the next play didn’t use them on stage. But ultimately, this cast did justice to “Medea,” and I applaud a job well done.
Review of Euripides’ “Medea.”
I was thrilled to be able to watch a live production of this play. After reading different plays all month, it was rather nice to watch the story unfold in front of me.
That being said, I think the production was pretty good. The first thing I thought upon walking into the theatre was “wow it smells nice in here.” Then I looked up, and noticed that the walls looked like a bunch of prison cells lined up. I feel like this served as a good scenery. Something about it matched the somber mood of the play, as well as the small stage. I don’t think the size affected any aspects of the play. The small space provided for an intimate production, although a larger space would have lent itself nicely to a more epic version of the play. The lack of backdrop in the theatre worked, because it let the audience focus entirely on the raw emotion of the play.
The play began with the woman playing the nurse. She walked out with her script in hand (which we had been warned about before the show started). Maybe I should have been able to get over this by the end, but it really just bothered me. I think the actors held their scripts in hand because they had not rehearsed very much, which is understandable, but it still proved to be distracting to me. Nonetheless, the performances that the actors gave didn’t really seem to be affected by their cumbersome scripts.
Several actors started the show sitting in the audience, and when their time to speak came, they stood up, causing everyone to look around the room and try and find them. I like when directors use this idea, because it gives a whole new dimension to the production. On the whole, I thought the direction was great. The movements the actors followed seemed very natural, and the flow of each scene connected seamlessly with the next. (My only critique would be about the director’s choice in outfit. Her pajama pants underneath her dress bothered me a lot. During the Q & A, I found myself distracted by them. But I’ll get back to that later.) Another thing I would like to comment on is the decision to use masks as children. It fit the play, especially on the small stage. If the production was any larger, I don’t think it would have been a very good idea.
The woman playing the lead was great. You could feel the real emotion in every line she delivered, from the pain of losing her husband to the delirious anger in her plotting of her revenge. Maybe this is a bad thing, but the role seemed to come to her very naturally. I hope she isn’t like that in real life. I thought the rest of the ensemble did well also, just not as well as she did. It was nice to see one person play two different parts, and actually have two different characters. So often, I will see a play where a person takes on two roles, and plays them in the exact same way. Not only does it sometimes prove to be confusing, but it takes away from their performance. Thankfully, there was no such problem here. The only actor who left much to be desired was the man who played Jason. His lines all seemed very forced and awkward. Unlike the rest of the cast, it did not seem like he felt the part he was playing. It seemed like textbook “angry” acting, like “I am angry, and now I am yelling.” There was no real emotion. The worst part was when it was revealed to him that his children had been murdered. He was supposed to be completely distraught, and to show that, he awkwardly lay on the floor, fake crying. It was just very strange.
The costumes were perfect. The colors used were all very bland, and went well with the rest of the colors of the theatre. This brilliantly aided the drama of Medea murdering her children. The red cloth that represented the blood of her sons stuck out against everything on the stage, bringing a solid emphasis to it.
I would like to bring attention to the lighting in the play, or rather, the lack there of. The same lights were kept on during the entire production. I would have preferred a slight change every so often to emphasize different emotions. For example, when King Creon tells Medea that she is to be banished, a slight dimming of the lights would have given off an aura of helplessness and despair. On the other hand, the consistency of the lighting kept the play flowing. It helped it all seem like one complete and unified thing. It was also a very honest lighting. The actor’s faces could always be seen, and the raw emotions were left in the open, with nothing to hide behind.
All in all, I did enjoy this production of Eurpides’ “Medea.” At the end, I asked who decided on the cuts of the script. The director had come with an edited version of the script, and then the actors helped decide what to keep and what to get rid of past that. The shortening of the play worked very nicely. I almost didn’t notice anything that was missing. They kept everything that was remotely important. Ironically, by cutting out pieces of the play, they were able to give the production a very full performance.
I would like to see a production of this play on a larger stage, using an actual scenery and props. I think it would be an extremely different production, even though it’s the same script. And speaking of scripts, I would really love if the next play didn’t use them on stage. But ultimately, this cast did justice to “Medea,” and I applaud a job well done.
-Travis Crowley
Haumin Lum’s Medea Review
I don’t know what to define as good theater. I guess it would be too shallow to say that props and looks define acting, but it does add a good touch. In the case of Medea, the props and looks department vs. the skillful acting department was poorly balanced on the theater seesaw, with the latter nearly scraping the stratosphere and the props and looks stuck hard to the ground.
To start, something can be said about the choice of actors. I couldn’t really take Jason all that seriously, his deep grating voice reminded me of Richard Romano from Everybody Loves Raymond and whenever he was putting on a “in deep thought look” or listening to Medea whining he stared blankly towards the ceiling like he was witnessing Jesus’ second coming. The nurse looked like Velma from Scooby Doo with a serious case of emotional problems and indigestion, Creon looked like Ganandorf from Super Smash Brothers Melee, and the two younger men from the chorus looked like Donnie Darko and a really white raccoon. As for the children, I think it’s safe to say that the concept of “out of sight, out of mind” was not lost over the centuries.
All looks aside, the acting in the show was superb. Starting from the high pitched shrieks from the side of the stage to wildly hysterical emotional outbreaks to the cruel killing of the mask-children, Medea created an extremely powerful impression of a woman driven to desperate actions because of betrayal and unrequited love. And although Jason liked looking at the ceiling more than someone’s face while speaking to them, his patronizing manner and demeanor made an accurate image of an uncaring and selfish man. Also, the chorus’ synchronization and individual characters were very well crafted, each one demonstrating strong feelings despite being just chorus members.
However, I do have a bone to pick with the nurse. I have a thing about overacting, which I believe can be just as bad as under-acting. Throughout the whole play she was writhing and moaning about like an exorcist patient going through a crack withdrawal, which drew a lot of attention off from the main action of the show from Medea. I actually thought that the nurse showed more sadness than Medea did, even though latter was the one going through heartbreak and the desire to kill her own children. The nurse even managed to fit in some emotional facial expressions while praying to the gods; she looked towards the sky and knelt down like she was Usain Bolt getting ready to run the Olympics.
But all god worship scenes reminiscent of prison rape scenarios and an over flirtatious version of Medea aside, I actually liked this form of theater. With the open readings off binders, good chemistry between most of the actors, and a few unscripted laughs, this version of Medea took away the pretentiousness and snob of theater productions. Although this effect was probably unintentional, the less formal approach actually had a stronger impression upon me. This being said, I would rate this show as two thumbs way up, something I’ve never done for a theater performance.
-Haumin Lum
Bianca Rosario
“Medea” Review:
The BPAC production of Euripides’ Medea was definitely a pleasant surprise. The direction was excellent. The actors were very much believable. The use of props was creative and effective. The whole production, despite the short time in which it was created, was absolutely impressive.
The play never lacked in energy. From the moment it began up until the moment it ended, there was always something interesting happening on stage. There was never any idleness in the production. The actors made use of the space well, without making it look too scripted or contrived. Even if it was an abridged version, the play had a flow to it, which was particularly enthralling to witness.
The cast projected their voices well, and interacted believably. The transitions were smooth and were executed perfectly. The actresses were especially engaging. They had great stage presence and their energy was very much palpable even to the audience. The actress who portrayed the title character, Medea, was notably brilliant. She gave a much-appreciated depth to the production. Her portrayal was believable and even.
It was unusual, but interesting, to have the roles of the children played by two masks. It was difficult to imagine at first, but the props worked out well in the scene where they are murdered by their mother. The red cloth was used very tastefully, and successfully relayed the message of death without being gratuitous.
The cast was made up of very effective actors, with the unfortunate exception of the actor who played Jason. He brought down the production a couple of levels because of his exaggerated expressions and acting that was corny at times. Despite that, however, the play definitely impressed.
Anastasia Medytska- “Medea Review”
I was excited to be able to see a live performance that would reiterate what we have been doing in class. I was surprised, however, when I found out that it was a reading and not an actual memorized performance. Nevertheless, I still found the experience enjoyable for the most part.
The character of Medea, appropriately, was one of the most outstanding performers in the play. Denise Ann Pelletier, the actress portraying Medea, never went out of character and conveyed subtle emotions even when she was not in center stage. The fact that it was a staged reading and not a play also provided a challenge for the actors, namely being able to read text but bringing life and emotion to it simultaneously. Medea provided the right balance of both of these actions- her intonations, pauses, and emotions provided an convincing portrayal of Medea while almost making the audience forget that she was actually reading text, not reciting it from memory.
Aigeus was another favorite character. Like Medea, his emotions and facial expressions placed emphasis on acting, rather than just reading. You could see him thinking about the text, and simultaneously the character would put on a thoughtful expression.
I found two characters to occasionally be overly dramatic, namely the Nurse and Jason. I felt that at times the emphasis of emotions and changes in volume were misplaced in the character of Jason, particularly in his second scene onstage. He seemed fluctuate a bit between reading and acting. In terms of the Nurse, her first speech was a bit melodramatic. However, the Nurse remained onstage throughout the play and despite having minimal lines, she remained in character the whole time.
A similar situation occurred with the Chorus, as they portrayed subtle reactions to what Medea was saying. However, with these superfluous characters onstage, some of the movements on-stage became awkward, particularly with the Chorus when they were not speaking lines and just standing as supporting characters. At times, they seemed to get in the way of the main characters onstage, having to walk off the stage stairs to let other characters pass.
One thing I particularly liked was when the Chorus (and other characters) would directly address the audience and make eye contact with the viewers. It made the connection between the actors and the viewers much more powerful, transforming the audience into Greek citizens.
In terms of setting and stage, the space itself was rather small and seemed somewhat limiting, perhaps that explains the awkward movements of the characters onstage. However, they attempted to overcome this by making use of the whole room as a stage, having characters enter from the aisles beside the seats, which I would say was successful, despite being a little distracting having to turn this way and that to see who was speaking behind you.
A topic that sparked some discussion in the Q&A after the play was using masks to portray the children. Although I would have liked to see actual children as characters, I think that in an abridged reading of the play such as this, using masks was perfectly acceptable. The children are not major characters and had practically no lines so it worked out in this particular production.
I think in general the performance provided a great, abridged version of Euripedes Medea. Despite it being a reading, the actors got their points across and conveyed all the important parts of the play.
The staged reading of “Medea” was a pleasure to watch. It brought to life the play that we had read for class. I’ll have to admit that it was very similar to what I had imagined while reading it.
The actors did a great job for a production that was pieced together in a short amount of time and with a bare minimum of props. The Chorus definitely surprised me in the beginning with their sudden appearance from within the audience. I would have never guessed that they were actors in the production. The actors also did a great job of breaking the fourth wall. Throughout the play Medea and several other members of the cast continued to turn and speak to the audience. This technique caused me to stay alert and engrossed in the play.
The lack of props seemed to pose a challenge to the actors but they pulled it off excellently. They never hesitated to refer to the two masks as children and their strong belief that a prop was alive forced me to believe as well. Also, there was barely any scenery besides a small Ionic column in the background. The lack of scenery also made it harder for the actors to create a believable performance, but they pulled it off nonetheless.
Denise Ann Pelletier did a great job as Medea. She certainly portrayed the madness within her character quite well. The reversal of Medea when she goes from self-pitying to revengeful was well played. Another character worth noting would be Kahleen Turco-Lyon as the Nurse. I feel as if she did an excellent portrayal of the Nurse and even though she did not have many lines, her presence was felt throughout the play. The actors within the Chorus should also be noted because I believe they had one of the toughest jobs of all. Many members of the Chorus were playing dual roles and were sometimes forced to switch characters instantaneously. The characters all interacted well with each other, which caused a more realistic play. The only character whose performance was lacking would be Jason’s. He did not seem to be in character, he seemed to be a man pretending to be somebody he is not. In other words, his performance was no as believable and I have to admit caused me to lose belief in the play as a whole.
In general the play was well performed and well directed. Though there was a lack of props and settings, the actors made up for it through their performance.
Lulu’s “Medea” review
At first, I was a bit apprehensive about watching a reading of the play “Medea.” I’ve only seen readings done in classes that I’ve been in, and they don’t really create any emotion and the readers don’t usually immerse themselves in the play. However, I would say this production was pretty well done considering the time they had and the things they had available to them.
I came late to the performance but was still able to understand where we were in the play. The speeches themselves were nicely said and pretty smooth considering they were reading from the script. All actors projected their voice and created a very powerful feel to their words, which are characteristics of the people they are portraying. I really loved the voice of the old man. It was both powerful and soft at the same time, and just had a really great sound to it. I didn’t really like Jason’s voice as much though. It rang false and really arrogant. I guess that’s part of the character but it still didn’t rest well with me.
Although I liked their voices, some of the actions they did bothered me. I know that it is a reading of the play and not a complete production, but some of it was still too obvious. The woman playing Medea kept exaggerating her movements to the extent that I couldn’t focus completely in the plot. In theater movements and expressions have to be larger than in movies because the audience is farther away, but it was even too much for that in my opinion. She would not only move her arms overdramatically but also do it slower than in real life. Gesturing can sometimes be too much. Maybe it is just my preference, but I prefer more subtle movements to get the point across.
In general I believe the actors fed off each others characters pretty well. They responded to the person addressing them. I do think they could have worked on establishing a bigger connection but I think having the script in their hands probably created a barrier from doing so. It was a short production which also probably prevented them from really establishing a connection.
The actors and the director mentioned something about how props and setting was scarce which kind of brought them back to the original feel of the play. I saw that and respected it. I really liked that the children were represented as masks. “Medea” is all about her need for revenge against her husband, and the politics and ethical choices that are incorporated into the whole ordeal. In my opinion the children don’t really have a say or dominant position in those points, so the fact that they literally were just objects was a cool twist.
I definitely liked the decisions of the director to incorporate the audience and the seats as part of the stage. I always like when the characters/actors come off the stage. It makes me feel as though I’m still watching the play but it is also as if I am witnessing the whole thing. I also liked how she kept the original way of killing the children; offstage. It was a little startling but that was the point of the whole scene, you should be shocked at the deed she has just done. It also got me a little more focused because at a few points in the play everything was the same tone and volume.
Overall, I think this was a pretty good version of Medea given the resources and time the cast and crew had. They were definitely inspired and eager to make it something more than just a reading, and I appreciated their efforts. I liked the general mood of the rendition and there were a few creative twists that made me further enjoy this theater experience.
Theatre Review for Medea by Euripides
Walking down to your seat, the small wooden stage gave a personal feeling already between the audience and the actors. Coming to the show after discussing and reading Medea by Euripides, I had a feeling seeing the play would be the same as reading the play, which was not exciting as expected.
When the show began, the audience already felt as if Medea’s emotional struggle was their own, even though the actors were reading from scripts. Medea’s character, Denise Pelletier, was successful in acting out the issues Medea was going through without over exaggerating and being obvious. Pelletier’s costume, which was a sleeping gown, helped express Medea’s role as the upset lover, almost as if she was in bed weeping all day before the play. All the characters put so much emotion and influential body movements to set the tone that helped attract the audience, especially the character playing the Nurse and the actors playing the chorus. All the characters, especially the play’s minor characters, used the small stage well to maneuver and help the audience feel as if we were in Medea’s castle in Ancient Greece. The live performance was a success because the actors only had one hour to act the story of the play by reading the script on the stage and revealing emotion at the same time!
I disliked the way Jason’s character, Bryn Magnus, portrayed Jason. What disturbed me was how Magnus had a big role in the play and was not as passionate as the actress playing Medea. Magnus had great body language but he was not as expressive and did not communicate well with the audience. I feel like Magnus had much more potential since his role is enormous in expressing the playwright’s points of women’s roles, murder, anger, and love. Even though Magnus was my least favorite actor, the way he and the rest of the actors worked together with the masks as children was remarkable. I enjoyed experiencing the way the actors ‘normalized’ the masks and made it comfortable to refer to two masks as children.
What I realized in being part of the audience of Medea by Euripides was the fact that symbols and themes in the play itself was noticeable compared to the analysis when reading Medea. I enjoyed the play and recommend students of theater and literature courses to visualize their courses readings by watching this play. The opportunity after the show to speak with the actors helped us understand the process of play production and helped us delve even deeper in the world of theater.
Review of Medea
I have always respected theater for its approach to evoking emotions in the audience and portraying a grandiose story through acting. It has been a very long time since i had seen a theater production, and i was fairly impressed after watching Medea. It was a play that had a minuscule or no budget and relied heavily on its direction and acting skills.
Medea is a play that is very difficult to act out due to the immense emotions present in all the characters. The actor who played Medea did a tremendous job of portraying the emotions Medea felt throughout the play. These emotions are very difficult to act because Medea murders several people, she is betrayed by her husband and kills her own children. The actors’ facial expressions, nervous movements, and speech show the state Medea is in the play. Because of the acting the audience is able to feel what Medea is going through during the play, the audience is able to establish a connection with the character of Medea. The gruesome killing of her children are given a justification due to the maddened state Medea is portrayed as on stage.
The maddened state Jason is left in the end of the play is also portrayed fairly well by the actor. Jason finds out the death of his
family by Medea and is left in this complex state of pity, grief and anger. The actor crawls on the floor, having no hope left and screams in grief and his eyes filled with anger to get revenge on Medea.
The direction of the play also enhances the experience, considering the lack of budget. The children in the play were presented as merely masks, but the director does a wonderful job of creating a illusion that real children are actually present on stage. The actors also comfortably leave and enter the stage on Que. Their movements on stage express the emotions their characters are feeling. The director also overcomes the fact that the actors are holding the scripts in their hands. The actors look to their scripts when necessary and it don’t let it interfere with their performance.
Medea is a ancient Greek play that has been performed for centuries throughout history. Considered one of the greatest tragedies of theater and consists great amount of emotions behind the characters. The theater production of Medea that class 1014C saw was amazingly put together considering the fact, that very little time was given to rehearse the play. The audience could feel the emotions that the characters were feeling through the play and kept the audience interested in the play. I give it 4 stars out of 5.
Review of Medea
Overall, I enjoyed this production of Medea. I thought it was very well directed, and the editing was superb. Reading the actual play was decidedly tedious, so to be presented with a version that was streamlined and essentially more to the point was great. It made the overall experience much more enjoyable, as I do not believe the meaning of the play was diluted through the educated cuts made; it was simply made more exciting.
I appreciated the minimal costume design, as it took the play from being something antiquated and foreign to being completely relatable. The storyline could easily be applied to a modern situation, and the lack of period clothing made that connection much plainer to see. The props were also fittingly minimalistic. I must admit that when I first saw the mask-children, I thought it was a little silly, but when the live actors began to interact with and invest emotion in them, I was convinced enough to take them seriously. It was this kind of emotional investment that the actors placed in each character (their own and the others) that convinced me of the play, as a whole.
As far as the script-in-hand acting goes, I disagree with many of my classmates when I say that I think it was perfectly fine and not distracting. To me, the scripts almost disappeared during the performance, and when the actors became particularly connected with the emotions the words conveyed, the physical script became virtually invisible. When one of the actors dropped his script and lost his place, however, it did cause a break in the theatrics, which disturbed the flow of the fantasy playing out in front of us. Aside from this one discontinuity, it was a non-issue.
Of the performers, I was most impressed with the actress who played Medea, as I noticed that even when she was not speaking, she was still acting and reacting to what other characters were doing or saying. Her speaking parts were also very well punctuated with emotion and her tone of voice was a very good representation of the intended feeling of the script. Most importantly, she did not over-act, and even during the parts in which she was screaming, her acting remained honest and believable.
Medea’s vivid cry as she stabs her children inside the house, Jason’s anguish, visible on his face, these are the enrapturing images I saw on stage of Euripedes’ Medea. While it was only a staged reading and not an acted out – off the book production, I thought the experience was marvelously entertaining. I was gripped throughout the whole story as the events unfolded around Medea’s household. It was interesting the that the cast chose to have most of the events and acting revolve around Medea’s home and to just symbolically portray the death of Medea’s children instead of having live people act it out. The cuts from the plot itself seemed very natural and not a single piece of the essence of the story was left out. All the feelings of irony, bitterness and betrayal are all there in this production of the play.
I thought that the choice of actors was well made. Jason was a tall, swarthy man and spoke with a very slick and manipulative voice. The actor’s choice in tone and attitude certainly helped us believe that he was Jason himself trying to convince Medea that his actions were for their household’s betterment. I particularly enjoyed Medea’s quick reversal of moods and attitudes toward other characters as she plotted behind their backs to finally achieve her revenge and how she portrayed deliberating over whether to kill her children or not. The love of a mother for her children was keenly felt in that scene even though the children were just masks.
The masks were also a central key to the play’s success. I saw the minimalism in props at first as a hindrance but later worked out in the actor’s favor because of their attention to small gestures such as caressing the cheek of the mask as if it were a child.
Once again, I come back to the actor who played Medea. She is an astounding actress as her emotions were very clearly portrayed in her stance, gestures and facial expressions. Her wailing was quite believable and even in her extreme bouts of plotting, she managed to make us doubt Medea’s sanity as she screamed. However, she also managed to show Medea’s rationality when she was deliberating about murdering her own children. These two conflicting states being portrayed so skillfully surely attests to her acting prowess.
The chorus was quite admirable in them being able to perform in all the various odd roles that needed to be done such as the tutor suddenly becoming the soldier announcing King Creon. All of their role switching was done in a very believable manner and in such an effortless way that the flow of the story was never interrupted.
All in all, this production was extremely entertaining and I hope to go to others on par with this one’s performance throughout the year.
Revenge , jealousy, and grief are the three carnal emotions that underlay Euripides’s Medea . No matter the interpretation, they are always at the forefront. So is the case in Mahayana Landowne’s rendition at the Baruch Performing Arts Center.
Despite a small cast, lack of set, few props, and a minimalist approach to costume, Landowne is able to evoke the same emotions in her staged reading as conveyed by larger-scaled productions.
Medea is well-cast, with each actor delivering a strong performance. Though a good portion of the cast undertakes multiple roles, the actors are able to get into character with relative ease.
Denise Ann Pelletier’s performance as Medea is particularly awe-inspiring, as her vocal intonations during her scenes of despair are both spine-tingling and authentic.
Kathleen Turco-Lyon’s performance as the nurse is also noteworthy, with special reference to the distress she is able to emanate while background acting in Medea’s infanticide scene.
However, Bryn Magnus’s portrayal of Jason could use improvement, as there are instances in which his enactment seems contrived; the most obvious example of this being when he hears of his children’s deaths. Magnus immediately begins his dialogue after the messenger gives him the news, leaving the viewer wondering whether he even had time to digest this heavy information. A few pauses timed at the right intervals can remedy these situations. However, it should be noted that Magnus did recover quite well after dropping the script in the abovementioned scene.
This leads to the topic of the performance being a staged reading. In this rendition, Landowne decided to mobilize her cast, giving them similar stage presence compared with customary performances, save the fact that they are carrying scripts. Her blocking of the actors is superb and makes excellent use of both the stage and theater. Her placement of actors in the audience is particularly captivating.
While the chemistry between the cast is on the mark, especially between Pelletier and Magnus, the nature of the staged reading impedes the ability for the actors to wholly connect. Every few seconds the actors look down at the script and break eye contact. The script also prevents the actors from gesturing and relating well physically. The scene in which Kreon (Mort Koos) banishes Medea is awkward, as Pelletier is made to grasp Koos’s knees one-handedly. Koos himself can hardly convey the regality one associates with a king, as his arms are not free to flow gracefully. This lack of mobility is one of the only flies in the ointment of the production.
In terms of props, the only one employed is a two-faced mask on a stick, used to represent Medea’s children. This tool is surprisingly effective in the scene in which Medea holds her dead children for Jason to see. The simple insertion of red cloth in the masks’ orifices is able to induce shock and justification for Jason’s bottomless grief.
The costumes are modest, with all the actors dressed in black except for Medea (in white), who is also alone in her bare footedness. This physical contrast between her and the rest of the cast really emphasizes her status as an outsider. The addition and removal of sashes to elevate and lower social status as the actors change characters is also charming.
Mahayana Landowne’s unique adaptation of Medea is definitely worth seeing. Without excessive pomp or glamor, she is able to engage the viewer and focus the attention on the most important part of Medea – the emotion.