Catherine Bennett resumes the weekly look at the performing arts world, with the sad end of Jerusalem, the luck of a cabbie, and French revolt. Do you hear the people sing?
Adam Alcock reviews Nigel Kennedy playing Vivaldi's Four Seasons and his own Four Elements at York Opera House.
Catherine Bennett highlights the trends in the performing arts world today.
Jonathan Cridford reviews 'Ghosts', one of the Freshers' plays for this year.
Mountain Language deals with the banning of the titular language by vicious guards that imprison and oppress the 'mountain people', and force them to speak 'the language of the capital'. Pinter uses this idea to explore ideas of freedom of expression, clashes of culture and the development from 'old' to 'new' cultural states, with a dashing of frustration with bureaucracy and middle management thrown in for good measure.
The ensemble group dealt with this challenging and complex subject matter brilliantly, interaction between the guards (Tom Rogers, Adam Whybray and Anna Rohde) and mountain people (George Critchley, Cheryl Gallacher, Sarah Cawley, Emma Charnley, Alice Boagey and Sophie Davies) was terrifying, and when the action spilled out into the audience, with a guard shouting "ANY COMPLAINTS" directly towards the seating, it made the atmosphere only more immediate. Pinter's hooded prisoners and people killed for arbitrary reasons obviously have a strong resonance in the time of Guantanamo Bay, Jihadi training camps and the Met shooting innocent men on the tube, but thankfully director George Critchley avoided such easy allusions as orange jump-suits and American army or British police uniforms, leaving any contemporary links to be made by the audience themselves.
Following Pinter's work was Now You Can Speak, a collection of pieces devised by the ensemble themselves. This was an inspired idea, consisting of short scenes either continuing the themes of Mountain Language, or neatly subverting them. The range of talent in the cast also meant that this section varied widely in style, swinging from monologue to dance, and from humour to deep-rooted seriousness. The insertion of a dance was a bold choice, but one that paid off in a evening so concerned with freedom of expression. The humour/seriousness contrast was particularly effective as the serious pieces, including transcripts from women who have been trafficked in the UK, had a bigger effect than they would standing alone, because they quite often started as the laughter from the previous humorous piece was still dying down, creating a distinctly uncomfortable feeling for the audience.
The evening ended with a repeated performance of Pinter's work, designed to highlight how the original pieces, with the ensemble's reactions to Mountain Language, could affect the way we viewed the play. The most striking thing here was that there appeared to be no distinct difference in quality between the end of Now You Can Speak and the beginning of the second performance of Mountain Language, a truly impressive feat for a talented company.
Mountain Language/Now You Can Speak has its final performance tonight (Saturday) at 7.30pm. Entry is free and the Dixon Drama Studio can be found in Wentworth College.
I saw this last night, it was amazing
As far as I know the Met have only shot one innocent man. I should know, since I work for them.
Watching the play was like taking Michelin-starred food and popping it in a blender - the content wasn't awful, but it was simply a pointless exercise.
Please explain your "pointless exercise" comment? I think that allowing students who study English Writing and Performance to both write and perform within their module is far from pointless and the context of the free performance allowed us to take risks which we may have usually avoided. If there are bits you didn't understand I would be glad to explain them to you! Finally, if you are going to forward a piece of criticism then at least have the courage to attach your name.
"The content wasn't awful, but it was simply a pointless exercise"
Hmm..a puzzling observation to say the least. I’d say students writing, directing and acting in their own creative work alongside the politically resonant work Pinter can only be a valuable contribution to university life. To say it was pointless denotes perhaps a misunderstanding or a certain apathy. I'm sorry your free evening at the theatre was such as disappointment.
Tom, as a critic of the play I am entitled to hide behind the anonymity that being a member of the audience affords.
With regard to the "pointless exercise" comment; theatre is essentially a medium for the entertainment of those who attend - be it intellectual, comedic, dramatic etc.
Of course, you may argue that you explored ideas of free speech, oppression and victimisation, among others, but you must always seek to entertain your audience and if they leave wondering why they came, as many did, then it does indeed become a 'pointless exercise' because you have failed to captivate them.
Comment no. 5, I accept your apology.
Anonymous, actually you just undermined your argument. The theatre being a medium for entertainment and/or education and intellectual stimulation is in fact an age old debate, and one that has never really been given a resounding answer. You can choose whichever side of the fence to sit on and stick with it, but to describe the play as a "pointless exercise" is entirely unfair.
If you didn't get the point of it, how could you possibly understand whether it was unnecessary or not?
Yes, of course you are entitled to your opinion, and truthfully, I'm sorry you felt like you had wasted your time. An hour of your life was not that long to give up.
To the writer of that tremendous little witticism: I'm rather disappointed that you, and others like you, ever decide to exert any energy into criticising the work of others with such zeal. Whilst constructive criticism is an important and vital thing in any process, what you said only had the effect of making you appear a frustrated and irksome individual. It takes balls to take the stage; what courage have you shown, my anonymous friend?
In addition to my own anonymous message, my name is Alice Boagey and I was, proudly, one of the blunter blades in that blending machine.
"theatre is essentially a medium for the entertainment of those who attend"-Anon.
Then go to a panto. It sounds like your kind of thing. You will be entertained there.
It is such a shame that #3 & #6 (obviously the same person) feels that theatre is purely there for entertainment. If only they would open their anonymous eyes and see that theatre offers so much more. I agree that panto may be more suited to you, or if you can stand to watch myself and Alice Boagey spinning round as the blender blades we apparently are then there is a musical on in Central Hall next term. Songs and dance may help to fill the void that political theatre has obviously left in your life.
Eugh. I didn't know people would actively publish their dislike for student drama.
It's a shame that the ensemble are trying to make headway into theatre that challenges the audience and themselves, while having to cater for certain people who are clearly behind the times.
It was free. Get over it.
Hello, as a Writing and Performance student, and a frequently printed reviewer of the arts on campus I feel I can add something to this debate. A "member of the audience" is indeed entitled to hide behind anonymity but as "a critic of the play" you have launched your opinion into the public domain, and therefore are open to have your comments reviewed openly, as I am subject to each time a review of mine is published. Therefore "Anonymous" your first comment is entirely unsupported by reference to the performance, I would be interested to hear what moments you define exactly as a "pointless exercise". I, for one, found the piece to be worthy of deeper thought when it comes to the political situation we find ourselves in, and indeed a strong theatrical performance of Pinter's work, with interesting and sometimes very strong original additions by the students involved. To argue that all the content was of equal standard would be ridiculous, but to dismiss student drama on the basis of not being at a professional or even perfect standard would be equally so. I would like to extend my congratulations to all involved, and to reassure that most critics on campus do not use such narrow definitions of quality.
I liked the bit with the dog.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report