venice (really)
yes, sorry, it was bad.
in the immediate aftermath of having watched feroze kamardeen’s ‘venice’ last night, my mind didn’t somehow register what i felt about it. over the course of dinner and spirited discussion following my viewing of ‘venice’ though, my opinion more or less formed itself. this morning i woke up and i knew exactly what i thought. the more i think about it, all the lurid detail, the less reason i have to believe there was anything not-bad about it.
this is only my opinion, and it shouldn’t count for all that much, but i really haven’t met anyone who thinks differently or is of a different opinion. everyone i’ve spoken to that’s seen ‘venice’ in it’s almost 17 day run at the lionel wendt theatre has not had anything to say about it but how bad it was ; and these people vary in age, theatrical experience and knowledge and taste. no one was impressed. no one was even entertained. perhaps this is something for the director and producers to think about.
now, i really can’t even begin to breakdown all the things i felt they did wrong. but my main concern has been this : is the director and the producers aware of the quality of what they produced? do they, as educated, experienced actors, directors and producers, realize how superficial and meaningless their production was and simply just put it on anyway, because they know they had their ticket sales, or are they genuinely unaware of the humiliation they are causing themselves? are they at all of the opinion that it was any good, because if that wasn’t the case, then it could only mean one thing : that it’s about the money and the money alone.
the singing was terrible, or maybe it was more the choice of song and that the balance between the musicians and the singers was completely off, making the band a lot louder than the singers and thus making the singers sound drowned and weak. portia’s maids were impossible ; i recognized a few faces, they are fairly established and well known as ’singers’, but they didn’t have any of the presence or the command of their voices that justified this, and most of the time, there was so much pure action amongst them, they were constantly upstaging all the speaking characters and all the most important conversation.
the jessica and lorenzo of this cast were the truly strong voices. they were technically great singers, but they sang all of ‘hanging by a moment’ in the same position, holding each other, looking into each other’s eyes the entire time, not moving, completely immobile, letting the vast, empty stage that was all their own go to total waste. this is only one aspect in a line of things that made me think this : that the entire cast for some odd reason, thought they were in a movie. that’s about the only way i can describe it. this was one phase of the play, the other being that ‘high-school’ play phase. so i felt like i was either watching a really bad movie, or i felt like i was watching a really bad high school play.
first for the movie phase : everyone had clip-on mikes, which added to this movie-effect. without the need to project to the audience, the actors seemed to forget that the audience was there at all. they were speaking very intimately to each other, their facial expressions (if at all) little and subtle, as if they were waiting for the camera to zoom in on them. shylock seemed to even think that he could deliver all his best speeches facing his back to the audience completely. the bad mood music, the stagnant postures while singing, the invisible facial expression and the lack of connectivity with the audience : i felt left out. the production didn’t involve me, it didn’t make me feel anything.
the high-school play phase : oh good lord. most of the direction, the movement, particularly in the crowd scenes, was SO unbelievably boring and predictable. it was just like making a child direct a crowd scene and watching the outcome : the extras were constantly upstaging the main charcters with large hang gestures and general goofing off ; falling over each other, bumping into each other, causing unnecessary commotion and making people laugh at all the wrong people, for all the wrong reasons, in all the wrong places. none of the direction was even remotely interesting, it incorporated nothing novel, nothing new. with all the technology and all the years of education and experience, the coolest they could do was moving platforms. people still had their hands folded when they ‘delivered’ their lines, one charatcer took his/her exit before there was a somewhat curious pause in which space there was an empty stage followed by the other character making his/her entrance. it was banal and cliche.
portia and nerissa were seemingly the only good things about this production at all, they delivered their characters consistently and played them well. shylock had his moments, but it’s hard to tell because the production kept screwing things up for him. the moment he’d make me want to sit up and listen, he’d have to sing a song or something, thereby ruining any little spell he had managed to cast even momentarily.
the costumes were great, but so what? the backdrops (a different one for almost each scene) were cool, but the stationary set onstage was pretty ugly and impractical.
it’s impossible and criminal for the director and producers of ‘venice’ to think that they did a good job. they spent a lot of money, they marketed it wisely and worked with almost the best in every field. they have no excuse. like i was telling someone, the only way in which i can describe this is by saying that it’s like having all the best ingredients and making a really shitty meal. when you have good ingredients, there is no excuse for one that makes a really shitty meal. when you have all the resources, there is no excuse for one that produces a really shitty play.
it seems to me like it’s nothing but just simple lethargy. they put up a godawful production : do they notice? how can such an experienced, learned man as the director of ‘venice’ think honestly to himself that it was good? and if they know, then do they just not care? they just can’t be bothered?
if they were going for pure mass appeal, then they got it. they had a full house almost every night. they earned more than their fair share. for what? i feel cheated. the merchant of venice is such a fantastic play, i almost feel personally offended.
this is all i can say…i talked so much about it that my feelings of frustration are exhausted.
who’s going to tell him? who’s going to stop him from doing another?
lol…if he should stumble across this…it might stop him from doing another..!;)
Comment by TJ — September 16, 2006 @ 1:00 pm
Or we can get this published on some newspaper
Comment by SpectralCentroid — September 16, 2006 @ 7:05 pm
I haven’t seen this production but this brought back memories to me of the first stage drama I ever saw. It must have been about 23-25 yeras ago when I was 8 or 10 years old (yes I am an old man, thank you). Play was “Merchant of Venice - sinhala version”. Shylock was palyed by that legend of an actor Tony Ranasinghe. Portia was played by the ever capable Manel Wanaguru. I think her lover’s role(name eludes me) was played by Ananda Wickramage, her present husband. I was so mesmerised by the whole play and particularly by the acting of Tony that his image as Shylock still holds me in awe!
Comment by Niroshan — September 17, 2006 @ 9:38 am
Herr Director is immune to all criticism. Didn’t you know? His work is so great that no one “gets” it?
If this is work that I have to “get” in order to appreciate, then I think I’ll choose ignorance.
If this man makes another idiotic attempt at Shakespeare again, then we’ll know that there is no justice in this world.
Comment by Theena — September 17, 2006 @ 12:01 pm
Atleast he hasn’t touched Hamlet yet.
Oh Good Christ..the very thought
Comment by Theena — September 17, 2006 @ 12:03 pm
He gets away with it because the theatre-going public allows him to get away with it. We excuse his efforts as amateur productions and therefore immune from judgement by professional standards.
The truth is that these productions are professional undertakings. The actor’s may not get paid, but there are other benefits. The sponsors get their exposure, and the theatre company uses the proceeds from this production to fund the next one.
Venice was an insult. We were expected to pay for the priviledge, sit down and take it. The sad thing about all this is that the money and effort spent on it could have been enough to support a dozen other more deserving productions.
Comment by JL — September 18, 2006 @ 11:09 am
Pardon me for jumping in, but might I suggest voting with your feet (and wallets) next time? If this production sucked, then stay away from the next one. Would you tolerate bad movies by a director? Bad music from a band? If an album you bought sucked (or if you saw bad reviews from people you trust) how inclined would you be to give the artiste another chance? Why is theatre in SL held to a different standard?
If butts land on seats for the next production, that means one of two things. Either most people don’t care about the quality of the acting as much as you guys clearly do … or the non-blogger crowd found it an acceptable experience (as opposed to a dire one). Hey, I don’t like much Sinhala cinema either; but enough butts land on seats to make my preference irrelevant… I spare myself the pain and people who like that sort of thing go watch the movie and enjoy it. No harm no foul.
btw Theena, Feroze has attempted Hamlet (mid 90s) and JC, IIRC. I thought he did those ok. He used to prefer tragedies and serious drama to tragicomedies and comedies. That’s why this production of Venice surprised me, I thought he accepted his limitations a while ago; apparently he hasn’t.
Comment by drac — September 18, 2006 @ 3:03 pm
drac : that’s a very silly thing to say. of course i’m going to go and watch it, and yes, i’d watch a movie by a bad director or listen to music by a band that i might not like, simply because a) i’m hopeful and i like to keep my options open, my tastes aren’t set in stone b) if it IS bad, i can criticize it fairly and constructively, not just trash it because everyone else is doing so. when something as commercially hyped up as ‘venice’ takes place, it’s going to draw different kinds of people. young, uncultured kids that love the music and the glamour, the critics waiting and watching it patiently, slowly wording their harsh reviews in their heads as the show proceeds, general theatre goers who are more curious than anything else, and those that have a sick sort of horror fascination with this kind of thing ; everyone says is sucks, you HAVE to go and see for yourself. know what i mean?
i don’t regret spending my time and money going to watch venice, it was an experience i went into voluntarily and willingly, curiously even. however, this does not mean venice was good, and i’m happy to be able to say it was bad after having watched it, rather than having missed it and knowing everything i know about it from second hand accounts alone.
Comment by electra — September 20, 2006 @ 11:16 am
Fair enough, electra. I think I can imagine the allure of gawking at what was apparently an expensive train wreck
I suppose that your heartfelt query about who’s going to stop him doing another? was the question I was attempting to answer. Only you (well, collectively … the theatre going public) can give feedback about how well a play did. Perhaps the reason directors put out drivel is because of the unquestioning acceptance of the audience [also alluded to by JL, if you choose to read his/her comment that way]. So what if it sucks? So what if the cast didn’t rehearse adequately? What if the direction was all wrong and based on a flawed premise? People are still going to pack the Wendt to the rafters even if it was a expensively floodlit, exquisitely costumed horseshit eating contest with a soundtrack playing in the background and a spiffy moving set
If they sold 10,000 tickets (perhaps the only measure of a performance that makes an impact on the director and producer?), then it’s a sad testament if a 1000 turned up to watch the play and 9000 really turned up because they heard it was the biggest disaster since Waterworld and Day After Tomorrow had an ugly love child. I guess my opinion is that there is enough talent in SL to satisfy both the purist and the person who goes to theatre to have a good time. Sometimes, shockingly enough - the same play manages to do both. I’ve been fortunate enough to have been to a few of those. Why settle for less? Does SL theatre really require audiences to suspend belief and say “oh, well. do better next time”? When does the shtick about the “fooled me once, shame on you … ” apply?
[Yup, pass my comment through a rhetoric filter. Definitely deserved
But I hope you see what I’m getting at here]
Comment by drac — September 20, 2006 @ 7:49 pm
This production company had the talent and the means to put together a spectacular performance. It’s just dissapointing that with ten years of ‘experience’ in theatre they refuse to learn from their mistakes, which is the greatest tragedy.
You’re right Drac, there isn’t a lot that can be done to stop him. Like politics in this country the prize goes to the one who shouts the loudest. A couple of reviews scattered around on blogs isn’t going to make a whole lot of difference. Doesn’t really matter if we all get together with our friends and bitch about it. No real consequence if there are a few companies that can really put together something spectacular because producers like this keep the bar low, so they can slither over it.
I suppose our only consolation is that we know it is bad. And we know that other people (including members of the cast) think its bad too. But if we stop going and they stop ‘acting’, then there’ll be others to fill the seats and prance around on stage. The show will go on.
I think we’ve been shamed a long time ago.
Comment by JL — September 21, 2006 @ 4:36 am
i think the ones that can make the difference are the ones that matter in the theatre scene : the other directors, the other actors, maybe even the other sponsors. they need to step forward and make their, perhaps more credible, voices heard.
Comment by Electra — September 23, 2006 @ 12:40 pm
I agree - the reason the director keeps attempting these productions is that the audiances keeping flocking in - I guess that we have to put it down to maturity. School going audiances want the crap that is being dished out and Feroze is just giving them what makes them happy.
As far as SLM is concerened i guess they are the majority and the mature segment of the English theatre audiance is a minority. Its all in the numbers i guess
Comment by JB — October 3, 2006 @ 10:41 am
http://msnimiekle.blogspot.com
Comment by msnimiekle — May 3, 2009 @ 4:05 pm