I would like to first start by saying that the two theater events were probably my favorite things we’ve done in this class so far. I especially enjoyed our Shakespeare workshop. I’ve been enjoying Shakespeare’s works since I started going to Shakespeare in the Park with my mom. And while I, like every other English-speaking student, have been studying Shakespeare since 8th grade, and even thought I was fairly adept at understanding the meanings of his works, I left the workshop looking at the experience of reading Shakespeare (specifically King Lear) in an entirely new way.
The workshop had a clear emphasis on the process of the actor, and how vital the playwright’s script is in aiding that process. Even the slightest change in word choice, or, to pick a specific example from our analysis of Lear, an editor’s decision to make a certain line an aside when it was not intended to be, can alter the entire meaning of a scene. And if the scene is vital to the story, seemingly harmless changes like that can alter the meaning of the play itself.
I have to say, I was especially intrigued by Mr. Cottier’s interpretation of Goneril and Regan not as “bitchy” or conniving, but rather as frustrated and confused, if exceptionally manipulative, young women. This interpretation, while it indeed felt far more genuine than the typical reading of those characters, was one I had not encountered before. I was also fascinated by how he took it a step further and began discussing what the actual ages of many of Shakespeare’s greatest female characters would have been; this changed my interpretations of many of those women (e.g. Lady Macbeth) more than I would have thought such a discussion could have.
As for Penelope, I am so pleased that we were able to see that play. It reminded me why I love straight, contemporary drama, and not just musicals, or the Elizabethan or Victorian classics. My main critique after watching the show was that I, as an audience member, had a hard time focusing during the long-winded monologues. Even with regards to that, our class discussion after the show made me realize that this could have conceivably been intentional, and that the the point of the monologues was not to keep the audience focused on the specific “point” of the speech, but rather to create broad philosophical strokes, that would create a certain mood within the audience. If that was indeed Enda Walsh’s intent, I am even more impressed with him as a playwright.
While the story itself was obviously an intriguing one, I was most captivated by the way the playwright and actors dealt with tension and suspense in the play. The sharp shifts in tone, from light, witty banter to dark philosophizing and back again were extremely well-handled by the highly capable actors. Some credit, of course, is due to the playwright in this area as well. The way Walsh would build up the tension in a scene, causing tension and anxiety amongst the audience, only to bring it crashing back down with a one liner from one of the protagonists, was incredible, in my opinion. The tense moments never went on for too long (though they naturally dominated the last half of the play), but were never cut short, either; the audience was allowed a break from the heavy thinking going on in the play, but was never permitted to forget what the characters–and we–were really there for.
