I’ve just seen “The Flies” written by Jean – Paul Sartre. What a great play must I say!
The plot is set up in Argos (Greece). The main character, Orestes, the son of the king, long ago killed by Aegisthus, returns to the city with his tutor to avenge the death of his father.. He returns to the city drowning in flies, the great creatures of Zeus, that are as prosperous as sins of the very comrades-residents of the city. Ruled by a murderer, and hated by the daughter of the killed king (Electra) and Orestes’ sister, the city is pretty much looks like hell on the Earth.
Right now I’m looking at a fruit fly, not yet dead in the tropics of the heating system, and wondering why doesn’t Zeuse’s magic trick of getting rid of the flying misdeeds work out. And this transfers me back to the great decorations of the performance.
Argos in director’s eyes is a surprisingly bright place: the sun is shining, the sandy colors of buildings made from stone suggest one that people living there are very happy, but that’s just an irony of appearance. In some scenes the stage is all dark and black with only basic objects mentioned by Sartre standing there. At other times one won’t be able to see the difference between the reality and the world established on the stage. Meanwhile, the flies, which are of main importance, are invisible for the audience, be it the realistic scenes or the black ones. It may be due to the fact, that sins are invisible in their nature. When done – you cn’t see the original, and so are flies: when created you “can’t see” them. Another interpretation of such move may be that these flies are the punishment only for the residents of this fallen city, the viewer who, supposedly, has not done such crimes, is not punished by the flies.
As for the actors, their performance was sometimes misleading: they changed the attitudes too suddenly, or didn’t act in full range of emotions, or just repeated some parts of the play twice. However, having seen it already, I suppose this was caused by the director wanting the audience to form the opinion itself. It’s an uncommon approach to the performance: a director usually tries to show his/her opinion on the topic. I, for example, have seen “Anna Karenina” for the first time only after reading a book, I was surprised by the new insight given to Stiva Oblonskij, which didn’t seem as honest and kind but lost as I’ve understood him. In “The Flies”, however, the director didn’t dare to take a responsibility of deciding what’s the true meaning behind the words upon himself. He rolled this burden over to the audience, which was required to think along with the performance instead of dissolving in it. Such approach also goes back to Sartre’s philosophy of the essence after existence for any kinds of objects. The performance is an object and if a director interpreted it before showing, it would mean that it has “essence prior to existence” which is characteristic of subjects only (humans). So, the performance as an object gets its essence only after being interpreted by the audience.
Back to the actors’ performance, I find what was done to the “Zeus” character (whose portrait or sculpture appeared several times during the performance) especially interesting . The actor “performed” the role of sculptures or portraits along with the character itself. Such endurance is phenomenal: it’s hard to stand still with your hands up holding some kind of sword or holding the frame of the “painting” for even several minutes, and he was able to do that for 20-minute scenes!
Another unusual move was many intermissions. There were about 6 of them. That way the viewers were able to think about what they’ve seen, discuss it, and also fulfill their food and alike needs. One can’t concentrate and think without having a good meal (as Virginia Woolf proved in one of her texts). Moreover, there is lways a moment at the end of the performance, when people are just too tired and wait for the end of it, because it’s simply hard to sit for so long. With several intermissions the viewers were able to wander around the theater and enact their muscles and consequently concentrate on and enjoy “The Flies” in full (and may be finally see a flies in a cafe).
Overall, the play is definitely worth seeing. I’ve heard of nothing like it, and one can think of it as a play with the performance of teh play. People have (UNFORTUNATELY) got bored with the “standard” theatrical techniques. However, the “modern” ways of production may teach people to think about the things they watch themselves (because sometimes all the modernity doesn’t make any sense at all) instead of just adopting (or not) the point of view of a director without any reasons or arguments behind. In fact, the “modern” productions may finally lead some to value the classical theater and see it in all its beauty.
The production goes every day, the only thing one needs to see it is $8 and Amazon account or $15 and a bookstore nearby to by a copy of “No Exit and Three Other Plays” by Jean-Paul Sartre. This way you can have your own performance taking place in the vast spaciousness of your mind. This one by directed by me, with the actors whose real names no one really knows (they’re not any famous). My theater space is called “Mindy theater” and open at evenings or during the subway times. However, one can purchase a ticket beforehand and so choose time in cooperation with the artistic director and founder Asya Romanova.
(Published at 1.16 PM actual time)
