Author Archives: Abhinaya Swaminathan

Tourist – Native Relations

Posted on by
Reply

We hope to examine the cultural interactions between tourists and native New Yorkers. Prevailing stereotypes suggest that New Yorkers are brash egomaniacs while tourists are cumbersome roadblocks. A palpable divide exists between the two groups. Almost 50 Million tourists visit New York annually and the number is poised to rise. By facilitating tourist-native relations, we may ensure the mutual satisfaction of both parties and promote a kinder, more gregarious city.

Our group will visit three tourist hotspots: Rockefeller Center, Times Square, and Grand Central Terminal, and film both tourists and natives to examine their modes of behavior. We will conduct interactive workshops designed to introduce tourists and natives; commonality of location will prompt conversation and establish common interests.

Group Members: Sharon Lin, Mark Stone, Camille Studer, Abhinaya Swaminathan

We would like to know what you guys think about these aspects of our production:

1)   Were our choices of locations appropriate?

2)   Did we capture stereotypes accurately? In other words, are these the prevalent stereotypes or did we miss anything important?

3)   What would have made our portrayal more effective?

Ch’ing-lish: Humor or Social Commentary?

Posted on by
Reply

Ch’ing-lish, David Henry Hwang’s play about cultural misrepresentation is brought to life in a funny, engaging and highly entertaining production at the Longacre Theatre this season. Ch’ing-lish is a highly relevant, if slightly expected, comedy in the current age of rapid globalization. A spectacular cast under the capable direction of Leigh Silverman, with help from David Korins’s creative set design, make for an enjoyable evening of theater.

The play opens as American businessman Daniel Cavanaugh, played by Gary Wilmes, presents to the udience various examples of hilariously outrageous English translations of Chinese signs to the audience. If Mr. Hwang intended to impassion and educate his audience about the dangers of cultural misunderstanding, this was perhaps a bit detrimental in its sitcom humor. Nevertheless, the prologue effectively aims to ensconce the audience in a comfortable atmosphere of light-hearted humor and sets the tone for the rest of the evening. Ultimately, Ch’ing-lish delivers the humor promised in this prologue.

Gary Wilmes is highly convincing as Daniel Cavanaugh, the hapless and lost American businessman. Cavanaugh is the owner of a sign making company, Ohio Signage and he travels to China with dreams of starting a sign translation project there. The well intentioned but naïve Mr. Cavanaugh instead becomes entangled, to hilarious effect, in the complex politics of Guiyang, a town headed by corrupt party official, Minister Cai Guoliang (played by Larry Lei Zhang) and his Vice – Minister (also the female lead) Xi Yan.

Jennifer Lim is remarkable as the smart, calculating Chinese Bureaucrat Xi Yan. Ms. Lim displays commendable range; she is alternatingly tender, passionate and conniving at different times thus making Xi a thrillingly complex character. Her chemistry with Gary Wilmes, who plays Daniel Cavanaugh is palpable and adds an aura of authenticity to their love story. Ch’ing-lish is more successful in portraying this doomed love story than it is in exposing the difficulties of doing business in China (the premise originally set up by Cavanaugh in the prologue). This is in part due to the laugh-out-loud humor that, while hilarious, did not exactly inspire any serious contemplation about international business relations.

Stephen Pucci plays the role of Peter Timms, a Westerner who is exceptionally knowledgeable about and captivated by Chinese culture. He is ostensibly Mr. Cavanaugh’s business consultant but his character appears to have been crafted more to explore the difficult question of whether race limits one’s choice of culture. Mr. Pucci delivers a moving performance as the confused Westerner, who after years of living in China feels closer to Chinese culture than to the one he was born into.

One of the more noteworthy aspects of the production is sound designer Darron L West’s intelligent music. Contemporary Chinese music echoed around the theatre at each scene change adding a whole new level of excitement to the otherwise very grounded action.  The production was also greatly served by its well-executed set design. Doors, chairs, tables and even an elevator move in and out of the stage creating an entirely different mood for each scene. Set designer David Korins has envisioned and executed superbly a fluid set design that, combined with the riveting music, makes Ch’ing-lish thoroughly exciting to follow through successive scenes.

The use of supertitles, I felt, was the defining element in Ch’ing-lish. The supertitles, in a way, are the play. In an environment of mistranslation and misrepresentation that is portrayed through the supertitles, the characters are puppets to cultural and linguistic barriers. That is, after all, the theme of Ch’ing-lish – the ways in which our understanding/misunderstanding of each other’s culture defines intercultural relations and interactions. Also, Ch’ing-lish is primarily a comedy and the humor is almost entirely derived from the translation in the supertitles. In one scene for example, Cavanaugh hopelessly mangles the Chinese phrase for “I Love You.” Different translations ranging from “My Fifth Aunt” to “Dirty Sea Weed” are flashed onstage as supertitles, eliciting loud and appreciative laughter from the audience.

Unfortunately, the supertitle-based humor also comes off as too tightly plotted at times. The audience is guided through the story with very little room for personal interpretation. The miscommunications and mistranslations are funny but restrictive because the audience always possesses more knowledge than the frustrated characters. Thus, I was only able to sympathize and not empathize with the characters. The situation is salvaged however, by the superb acting especially on the part of Mr. WIlmes and Ms. Lim. The cast conveys enough emotional depth to make the overly narrative plot more moving.

The protagonist, Daniel Cavanaugh, ends the play urging any potential businessmen in the audience looking to invest in China to have “realistic expectations.” Similarly, it is unwise to expect Ch’ing-lish to offer any particularly stunning insight into cultural interaction. Instead, it is best viewed as the highly successful comedy that it is.

Ch’ing-lish is currently playing at the Longacre Theater: 220 West 48th Street. Manhattan

Refreshing Revival of a Classic Piece

Posted on by
Reply

The Metropolitan Opera’s revival of Rossini’s masterpiece “Il Baribiere di Siviglia” is refreshing and features an exciting cast directed with near perfection.

Most notably, Mr. Sher’s production reinterprets the character of Figaro to a new and exciting level. This Figaro wasn’t the happy-go-lucky charmer found in the original libretto. Instead, this was a shrewd businessman thriving in an age of secrets. He made his entrance on an eccentric and elaborate wagon that was curiously drawn by a live mule and surrounded by a platoon of besotted women. The oversized and versatile wagon was aptly symbolic of Figaro’s keen and opportunistic business sense. Rodion Pogossov, who is sharing the role with Peter Mattei delivers the performance in a powerful baritone befitting this version of the barber.

Isabel Leonard’s performance as Rosina was inspired and aroused sympathy for the poor, young girl locked up by her guardian. The softer Rosina was unconvincing as the viper during “Una voce poca fa” but the rest of the opera was served well by this interpretation of the character. Ms. Leonard’s soft, less than powerful voice was perfect for the emotional parts like the aria she sings during her fake music lesson with the Count.

Tenor Javier Camarena was charming and pleasant as Count Almaviva. Mr. Camanera’s Count was no swashbuckling rake seducing innocent Rosina with his smooth confidence. Instead, he was quietly portrayed as a frustrated young man in love. Beaumarchais’ play and the original libretto give the sense that the Count is a suave player. This production’s slightly different interpretation wasn’t disconcerting and in fact complimented Isabel Leonard’s cool and composed presence as Rosina.

The real show stealer however were bass-baritone Maurizio Muraro, who played Dr. Bartolo. His powerful voice projected well and he captured the pompous and ignorant nature of Dr. Bartolo to perfection. Dr. Bartolo and his servant, Abramagio drew the most laughs of the evening. The bass Paata Burchuladze, who played Don Basilio, added just the right touch of slyness to the character. His duet with Muraro’s Dr. Bartolo glorifying slander was one of the better parts of the evening.

The set, designed by Michael Yeargan was mostly composed of an ensemble of intriguing, movable doors that weren’t so innovative in their design as in the way they were utilized. The doors were combined and separated several times to create different impressions – a street one moment or Dr. Bartholo’s house the next. The characters moved around these doors and some potted trees placed strategically to facilitate the plot. The minimalistic design style augmented well the light and tight tone of this revival. Costume Designer Catherine Zuber stayed true to the period in costume design and Christopher Akerlind complimented the set design with his innovative lighting.

The only discordant note in the cast came from Jennifer Check, who played the maid Berta. Ms. Check was too strong a performer to play the role of the relatively unimportant maid and the consequent emphasis placed on Berta as a bow to Ms. Check’s caliber made the character seem contrived. Her aria, “Il vecchiotto cerca moglie,” while brilliantly performed, was disproportionately long and distracted from the otherwise tightly paced plot.

The orchestra took a backseat to the cast as conductor Maurizio Benini’s ensemble failed to add anything to the experience. It became necessary at certain points to consciously remind oneself of the music. The situation wasn’t helped by the added walkway in front of the pit where a lot of action occurred. Especially in these scenes when the actors sang from the area in front of the pit, the music became a nonentity. The lackluster music from the pit seemed to completely disappear at times and if it weren’t for the impressive singing, the production would have fallen flat.

In all, it was an elegant evening of Opera as the cast brought to life a refreshing and polished Barber of Seville.

Bartlett Sher’s production of Il Barbiere di Siviglia will be performed at the Matropolitan Opera through February 18th. For tickets call (212) 362-6000 or visit metopera.org

Supertitles

Posted on by
2

In the production of “Chinglish” that our class recently attended, one of the elements that stood out to me was the use of supertitles. Hence, I was intrigued by Ben Brantley’s article, The Writing’s on the Wall, where he discusses supertitles and their effect on plays, good and bad.

Mr. Brantley begins by saying that supertitles would come in handy when, occasionally, a viewer misses a crucial line in a play. He acknowledges that in “Chinglish,” supertitles were essential and used effectively. Additionally, Mr. Brantley mentions that supertitles sometimes allow audiences to appreciate plays that are written in foreign languages. However, he also goes on to talk about other productions he has seen such as the National Theater of Greece’s “Antigone” and the Berliner Ensemble’s “The ThreePenny Opera” where supertitles only served to confound and distract the viewer.

Personally, having seen supertitles only in “Chinglish,” I thought that they enhanced the experience on this occasion. I agree with Mr. Brantley when he writes, “Supertitles are the de facto stars and the leading comedians of “Chinglish””. Being privy to the translations through the supertitles ensured that I always knew more about what was going on than the characters did. So, I could empathize better with Mr. Cavanaugh. Besides, without the supertitles, the play wouldn’t have been half as funny – after all, who knew that one Chinese phrase, with different pronunciations, could mean anything from “I love You” to “Dead Sea Weed?”

“Do you own an elephant?”

Posted on by
Reply

Two years ago, when I first started school in New York, I had to wait in a long line outside the Guidance Counselor’s office. The student standing in front me turned around to complain about the line and we eventually got talking. I told him that I had just moved from India and he surprised me with what is possibly the weirdest question I have ever been asked. He said,   ”So, did you like, own an elephant and ride it to school back in India?” For a moment, I thought he was joking. When his expression remained earnest, I realized that he seriously believed that families in India used elephants as a common means of transportation. He had seen elephants featured prominently in countless movies about India and had assumed that the animals were a part of everyday life there.

This incident shocked me and educated me to the extent of the media’s influence on how a culture is understood around the world. Our perception of other countries and cultures is a product of our view through the biased lens of popular media. The nature of media today is to play up only the quirky, exotic parts of a culture and neglect to mention the ordinary and everyday aspects that complete the picture. On the other hand, it’s understandable that the media exploits the differences between cultures. The unique elements make for interesting, often funnier, stories and thus, better profits. The problem occurs when we, as consumers, fail to realize that movies and television shows may not be true representations of a culture. We should be careful not to stereotype cultures and identify them only through the few elements that we have been exposed to.

It’s admirable that Mr. Hwang derives from his experiences with cultural misconceptions as an Asian American and uses it to write educative plays that explore this complex subject. I think in a world where the internet and globalization are erasing boundaries, people like Mr. Hwang can help us understand the reasons for pervasive misconceptions and ensure that cultural barriers don’t stand in the way of increasing global unity and connectivity.

Shakespeare’s Controversial (and possibly Irrelevant) Identity

Posted on by
5

The new movie Anonymous has caused quite an uproar with its premise that the man we know as William Shakespeare might have actually been a fraud. But debates about Shakespeare’s identity have been around for a long time. There have been suggestions that Shakespeare was actually just the front for a group of writers working together, that he plagiarized from an earlier author and even that he was actually a ‘she.’ So, the movie’s theory that Shakespeare’s works were actually written by Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford is not really that shocking. Nonetheless, it has caused quite a stir. But to play the devil’s advocate, does it really matter? Would Shakespeare’s identity have any real impact on our view of the work itself? Ben Brantley examines this interesting counter argument in his article, Who Wrote Shakespeare? Who Cares?

I agree with Mr. Brantley, it really doesn’t matter to me who Shakespeare was. Of course, I am curious about the truth of the matter. For history’s sake, the true identity of the person/persons who wrote those great works needs to be discovered. But, like Mr. Brantley discusses in his article, great works of art transcend their creators. When it comes to Shakespeare, the words and the infinite ways in which they can be interpreted are far more interesting than the possibly false identity of the playwright.

In fact, I have always considered the possibility that the Shakespeare works have been written by more than just one person. At times, I find the work too diversely interpret-able and universal to have plausibly come from the thoughts of just one person.  If indeed, William Shakespeare was the glove maker’s son from Stanford-upon-Avon, I stand in profound admiration for the genius of one man. If not and it turns out that he had help, then, it wouldn’t surprise me. Mr. Brantley makes a good point; however shocking Shakespeare’s real identity turns out to be, the work will remain as important and profound as ever.