Sunday, October 28, 2007

EEK-quus

I find the abuse of animals in anyway distasteful, regardless of circumstance or reason. So yeah... I gasped and groaned through gritted teeth when Alan Strang first got off on and then blinded six horses in last night's performance of Equus. That's because the production (on a whole) was so damn good, it made me forget that it was a bloody stage play, and I got way too worked up over the story rather than watching the actors itself. And that rarely happens to me when watching a play, because my little experience in drama usually makes me immediately watch out for the technical glitches and individual performances from a critic's point of view, rather than letting the magic of it all take over me like it's supposed to.

So a standing ovation goes from me to His Lordship Steve for giving me my money's worth of entertainment and thought-provoking theatre. I've been reading the criticisms and comments from fellow audience members on other sites, and I have to say, I didn't care about the lack of originality in the local production. There were plenty of little things, in retrospect, that I have critical opinions on, but I was blown away by what I saw in the totality of the production, regardless of all that.

And now onto my OTHER not-so-positive personal opinions about the nuts and bolts of the Equus machine. By the way, I'm no expert... and these are only my viewpoints, and I do not, in any way, represent the mass audience or expert critics.

The Venue

SUCH a pain to go to. The show started at 7.30, and I was there from 6.45 trying to find parking, which wasn't available. The auditorium itself is marvellous, and ideal for this kind of intimate theatre experience, but I wish they'd done something on the logistics front, because it was annoyingly inconvenient.

The Organisers

Rude and inhospitable, from the point of ticket purchase to sitting down at the show. It's a good thing the show was good, because they certainly didn't do much for my enjoyment. There's professional efficiency, and then there's downright obnoxious.

The Script

Aiyo. For the average theatre-goer like me, the script had little to offer, save big words I didn't know the meaning of, and an ending that left me grappling for explantation. I'm used to the 'beginning, middle and end' concept in storylines, and this play made me question the point of it. It was one of those scripts that was so blatantly 'avante-garde' to me, that I figured I had to be an abstract artlover type to see sense in it. OK, so we figured out why this kid did what he did... er... so what? We question 'what is normal'... so what? What is this play supposed to DO for me, as an audience? The script left me unsatisfied.

The Set, Lights and Sound

Nice. It worked for me. minimalism focused on the intensity of the story rather than distracting the eye. The lights didn't shock my system, though, and I've heard some experts say they were predictable... but then again, do you go to watch the lighting, or do you go to watch the play? I did, however, wish they used more reds to bring out the passion and dangerous mental conflicts in certain scenes. But that's just me trying to be stereotypical.

The Acting

Ok.... THIS area I have plenty of things to speak on. But before I do, I also have to respect this cast for holding an audience captive for 2 and a half hours, despite the shortcomings. This is just me nit picking, but from an overall perspective, this cast outshone any other I've seen on the local stage.

I have never seen Rohan Ponniah act, but throughout my life have been told some marvellous things about him, so I went to see this play with great expectations. And... I'm sorry to say, I was bloody disappointed. The souvenir informed me of his many acting credits, but I failed to see the glory as many others did. To me, all he did was articulate and say everything in the same way. It was an ACT, and his portayal of Dysart lacked sincerety. Just too affected for me, and I say this without any bias, because I was so sure the man was the God of stage acting before watching Equus. It was tedious, and I personally felt he could have delivered some of those lines in better ways, but props to the man for having learned all of them! And his over-emphatic articulation did get my attention when it came to every single detail of the story.

Tracy shook her head around too much that it often distracted me from what she was saying. I don't know if she did that on purpose, to give a mild eccentricity and epileptic personality to Mrs. Strang, but it didn't work for me. Again, I felt there was too much 'playing', and less truth in her performance. Even Shanaka's acting was not really upto what I've seen him do in the past. I felt he could have done much more with his role, and I know this guy is a damn good actor. All in all, the parents were lack-lustre to me.

Subha wasn't seductive enough for me. A little too subtle. Ranmali was too wooden in her delivery. Not quite convincing enough for me. Janice, I thought, was awesome as the nurse. She needs to be on stage more... I would love to see some future peformances. Dominic came and went, but made his mark. As always.

The horses weren't all that, I afraid. At least not for me. I thought the visual representation was beautiful, but I didn't see the grace and power coming out of their movements, and they walked like they were blind before actually being blinded. Knowing full well of Shannon's ability as a dancer, I'd have expected so much more in the leg work and body movement to bring out the sexual elegance of a horse, but sadly I didn't see it last night.

And last but not least, Hiran as Alan Strang..... he stole the show. There is not one thing I found wrong in the guy's performance, except maybe for his gorgeous body which I found positively sinful. My hat is off to Hiran, for outshining and completely outdoing all the 'seasoned' actors on that stage last night. There was such truth and beauty in his portrayal of Strang, that I almost wept in sympathy by the end of the show. Enough said.

So there it is... my take on Equus. Negative nit-picking aside, it was a brilliant production on the whole, and one that justified my love for theatre. Would I watch it again? No. It was memorable enough to last.

5 comments:

Klutz said...

Yes, Hiran was fucking amazing.

Anonymous said...

i must agree on your comment about the front of house crew. they were extremely high handed and did not seem to know the difference between discipline and pure rudeness. as you said their attitude succeeded in throwing many audience members completely out of synch. i also agree with your comments about rohan and hiran though i thought tracy's performance on wednesday was outstanding.

Anonymous said...

"Would I watch it again? No."

This maybe where you're wrong. Watching more than once may have helped. Equus is a complex play, and even after my intimate involvement in it, I found that, even on the final day, it was still speaking to me; I was hearing new things, things I had never heard before. Equus is difficult to understand on first impression. It's a lot to absorb and Dysart is full to brimming with profound statements, it's hard to keep up.

I wonder if you read Richard Simon's review? He made some very crucial points, points that I think it is very important for audiences to note. Especially audiences of a younger generation. He said "Alan’s character provides the high drama of Equus; Dysart provides the interpretation". I quote him because I couldn't say it better myself.

Everyone can immediately appreciate a good portrayal of Alan Strang as they can a portrayal of a good Romeo. It's dramatic. It's emotional. It's out there. But what of Dysart? The man who directly speaks his thoughts? How can an actor portray thought?

Before understanding Ponniahs performance, you need to understand the script. Dysart is a self-indulgent, confused character. He talks non-stop, and it's always about him; his life, his doubt, his worries, his thoughts. On top of this, Shaffer wrote him in an almost classical language.

People say he was declamatory; well he NEEDS to be. How can one say lines like "...blinking our nights away in a non-stop drench of cathode" and "Normal is the indispensable murderous god of health and I am his priest" without being declamatory and somewhat stylized? One would end up sounding utterly ridiculous and unbelievable. That was the character Shaffer wrote. A narrative, almost.

I suggest you pick up the script sometime and read it, atleast twice over. If after that, you still can't see why it's called a masterpiece, then that's a personal opinion, but give it a shot.

dramaqueen said...

Electra- There is no doubt that the production was par exellence and took my breath away. think I've said that. the negativity was purely my own opinion, and I don't speak for the more attuned theatre person.
For me, theatre is a one-time experience only and going twice or thrice to understand and analyse a script or individual performance kinda eats up the novelty and magic for me... it gets too technical and ceases to surprise. For ME.
I read Richard's review. But I'm still entitled to my own opinion, aren't I?

Anonymous said...

Of course you are. I was merely suggesting ways in which to better enjoy Equus. Sometimes I myself think it's a play to be read and not performed.