THE 1041C Theater Reviews

Sorry this was so late, I couldn’t figure out how to post my review. Here it is!

I must admit, I was initially skeptical about how much I would enjoy this performance, or whether I would enjoy it at all! I have been to the theater before and enjoyed it immensely, but these were occasions where I was more familiar with the material and less tired. I had also never seen a staged reading before. It had been a long day and my patience was wearing thin, but the actors did a wonderful job keeping me awake and attentive. I am happy to say that I enjoyed this performance very much.

What really struck me was the power behind the lines delivered during the course of the play. It is such a different experience, to actually see a play instead of just reading it. Words on paper can only convey so much emotion and feeling. Hearing it read out loud was a treat; I felt engaged at all times. I was unsure of what to expect as it was my first staged reading; I am used to seeing more traditional and ‘official’ versions of plays. I’m not sure exactly what to call them, but this was an interesting break from traditional theater that I had experienced before. The minimalist approach to the play allowed me to really enjoy what was really important: the acting.

The acting was great on all parts, with casting done very well. I will say that I envisioned the actress that would ideally play Medea a little differently, but she absolutely stole the show throughout the play and proved me wrong. I felt a strong chemistry between the actors, which is always important, especially in a play as brutal and visceral as Medea. Being able to convincingly and meaningfully simulate dialogue is one of the most difficult things an actor can achieve, but it was done nearly flawlessly. The only real criticism I could possibly have of this play is that it felt just slightly rushed. I realize that they were working with a very limited amount of time and resources, so I am more than willing to let this slide. I look forward to seeing more theater in the near future.

Reading plays are not always as much fun as watching them, but I personally love to see how actors and directors choose to play out works of writing on stage or on screen. In this case, the work being played out in front of me was Euripides’ Medea. Directed by Mahayana Landowne and performed in the BPAC (Baruch Performing Arts Center), it was better than I expected. It was an edited version of the script, but I think they managed to get everything important to fit in the allotted time.

This version of the performance included the actors having their scripts in their hands. Sometimes, this got a little distracting and you couldn’t help but think “What would happen if someone lost their place and everything just fell apart?”, but with the seasoned actors involved, this was hardly something to worry about, and eventually, the scripts no longer mattered – the actors pushed through and made themselves and the story the main focus. As far as the acting went, I believe the minimalist set design, costumes, and lighting worked in their favor. I was captivated by the performances, although “Jason” could have eased up on his hyperbolic delivery of lines. All-in-all, however, the performance was honest, and the actors managed to delve into their characters’ emotions, regardless of the fact that their lines weren’t completely memorized. Even when they played two parts, for example, the men in the chorus seamlessly managed to switch back and forth from members of the chorus to other minor characters in the play. Also, even though the stage was small, the actors took advantage of the auditorium and surrounded the audience with the play.

Regarding the creative liberties the director and actor took, especially in the case of using a mask to represent the children, I thought it was completely appropriate, especially because it was a staged reading. The lack of actual children running around on stage allowed us to focus on the main characters, specifically the actress who played Medea. She was brilliant, when she was speaking and even when wasn’t. The emotions portrayed through her facial, physical, and verbal expressions were impeccable, as were those of many of the other actors.

I really enjoyed being able to see a live production of something we read, and I really hope we are able to do such things more in the future.

The performance of “Medea” accomplished the purpose of capturing the emotional aspect of the Greek tragedy. While this statement may seem only to be an indication of the caliber of the actors, it is not. Many factors go into conveying to the audience the emotional aspect of the characters on stage.

The stage setup for the performance included an empty center stage and two room compartments on opposite sides of the stage. The bare center stage is especially conducive when it comes to accenting the character portrayals. By having the actors perform in a completely open space devoid of props, the acting becomes that much more note worthy. For example, when King Creon confronts Medea about the rumors of revenge and Medea casts a suspicious look on the chorus member, both Medea’s suspicions and the chorus member’s innocence are clearly expressed. By eliminating the distractions of an overly elaborate stage setup, the director allows for the actors’ performance to take on a louder tone.

When the tutor first appeared on stage with the two masks, it was difficult to perceive the props as children. But as the characters on stage interacted with the masks as if they were children, Medea, stroking the mask as if it was her own child, and the tutor, telling the children to be quiet, I started seeing the masks as children as well. At the climax, when Medea reappears with the bodies of her children, I was able to clearly see the bodies of two small children, with blood running from their mouths and eyes.

Overall, I found the dramatic reading of “Medea” to be an enjoyable experience. The director’s decisions and the actor’s skills created a very strong synergy that captured my attention all throughout the play.

I found this production of Medea was an entertaining venture, it told its story well and most of the characters did their jobs effectively, save for one performance I had a problem with which I will address later on. Before I pick on what I didn’t like in the play, I’ll start with the positives. First off, Denise Ann Pelletier as Medea was a great performance and she certainly did a good job bringing the character to life. Had I not known better, I would have believed she actually believed every word she said and meant them with every fiber of her being. The costume choice for her served well too, making her the only costumed character in the play accentuated her prominent role, though I also felt Jason could have benefited from a customized outfit.

Some people may complain with the minimalism in the stage design, but I preferred it. Medea is not a grand production that requires flashy designs and special effects, the core of the play is in the characters and their interactions, so having the minimalist stage prevents unnecessary distractions from the actors’ performances. I also find that it is a true credit to the actors if they are able to draw you into the play with acting skill alone rather than making a visual illusion of being in the setting of the play. Also something I noticed is that the walls made me think of very impractical bookshelves and I found myself sometimes wondering what would happen if I had used that stage as a personal library and stored my books in those little alcoves, only to have them constantly tipping over when I’d pull a book out. Then again, my distraction might just be the fault of my imagination as opposed to the fault of the stage designers.

Now, some things I didn’t care for. First and foremost, Bryn Magnus as Jason was, quite honestly, laughable to me. Suitable for his name, Magnus seems to emanate a grand presence whenever he’s on stage, and not in a good way. Whenever he’d be on stage, I couldn’t help but imagine him as an uptight, elitist scumbag whose sole purpose in the play is to provide the audience with an obvious villain. I always imagined Jason as genuinely concerned for his family and Medea, but blinded by social practices that make him ignorant to Medea’s true suffering. This production just made him some jerk who impregnated a woman twice only to leave her for someone with more money, then feigns (badly I might add, to the point that he just seems sarcastic in his attempt) sympathy for his first wife. His emotional breakdown at the end of the play also seemed very overdramatic and out of nowhere. There was no progression of emotion for Jason, he was completely fine at one point, then comes bursting out screaming and yelling, then breaks down and weeps. Overall, I would not envision any Greek mythological hero as acting like the Jason in this production.

Secondly, two actors who I find underwhelming for opposite reasons. Kathleen Turco-Lyon as the Nurse and Ben Williams as the Tutor/Chorus. Both of them did perfectly fine jobs in their roles when they were speaking (though the Nurse did overdo it sometimes), but it was their silent actions that seemed underwhelming to me. Kathleen, when not speaking and simply reacting to what was occurring, seemed to overdo her reactions, acting even more extreme in her emotion than anyone else on stage. On the opposite side of the spectrum, Ben did not seem to put any effort into convincingly acting when he had no lines, and I’m pretty sure it’s not because he’s incapable because he’s a good actor when speaking and his actions match well, but when he has no lines, he just looks bored and waiting until he gets to do something again. This dichotomy led to what I found to be a humorous scene in which Medea is describing her plot to murder her children. To the left is the Nurse, visibly shaken by Medea’s words and appearing like she’s silently bawling her eyes out as she sinks to her knees, while the Tutor is on the other side of the stage, taking Medea’s words with an oddly apathetic demeanor as he simply bends his knees slowly until he is kneeling, still with a blank expression on his face.

The last thing I’d like to mention is what I felt to be a case of miscast characters. Personally, I felt the actors for Kreon and Aigeus should have been switched. Kreon is a king and should speak with force and authority, a voice that is present in Edward Furs, who also has the look for a king, standing straight and tall and generally looking like a man who can command others. Mort Kroos, who actually played Kreon, looks to be a frail elderly man who does not seem to have a kingly aura to him. In my opinion, his voice and appearance fits Aigeus better, as that character plays a kind older gentleman who provides Medea comfort, a role I can see Mort Kroos doing flawlessly as he just looks and sounds like a very nice old man.

That’s really all I can say about the production outside of what others have already said. Generally, I enjoyed it, even the things I complained about at least gave me a chuckle and some amusement.

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.

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.

Down the new age staircase to the BPAC, there sprawls a gray carpet. Around the corner and through the door is an auditorium. On the stage, in the modern amphitheatre there happened to be live performers creating a self-contained drama of sorts, a representational illusion.  The show was an Athenian tragedy by Euripides entitled Medea. I had a tuna melt sandwich for lunch, and had drops of spilled black coffee and cigarette ash on my pants.

I have no precedent to base my analysis for this performance on, and have an extremely limited knowledge of the etiquette of the live theatrical arts. I do believe that each actor made their presence felt on stage, through the means of projection and facial expression. However I will mention that I felt slightly beleaguered by the sonorous dramatics of nearly the entire cast. From a wholly subjective basis, lacking any form of objective one, I am turned off by any form of histrionic bombardment, profuse gesticulation, or hyperbolic facial manipulation. This is probably due to their experience of working vast halls where the visuals have to carry larger distances, but seemed generalized in our intimate context.

I wasn’t completely sold on the sole classical column of set design, not in the least in its brevity, but in its architecture. I remember being fairly sure on the occasion that the column was of the ionic disposition, signifying Roman roots, and not of their Grecian predecessors. Ah but alas, time has weathered the recollection of such trivialities. More importantly, the script seemed to covey the ethical overtones as well as the basic narrative well. I was made aware for the first time how a theatrical chorus actually functions, and for that alone I am indebted to the players for increasing my knowledge/ future experience of the classic literature of the ancient western theatre.

On the whole, I thought the play was well butchered lyrically, that the actors did a proficient job given their experience, and the set design was the perfect compound of Grecian disposition and terse minimalism.