Share your impression of the performance!
In what way is the production different from the original play?
Does it make the play any worse or any better?
Is there any Russian spirituality about the production or is it as British as can be?
Does it make the play any worse or any better?
Is there any Russian spirituality about the production or is it as British as can be?
Dwell on the things which impressed you most about the performance.
Well, I should say it was interesting to see another version of “The Tempest” by William Shakespeare, performed at the Moscow theatre “Et Cetera”. All the actors including celebrated Alexander Kalyagin (Prospero), Natalia Blagikh (Ariel), Vladimir Skvortsov (Caliban), etc. gave incredible performances. It is also necessary to mention the scenery which is magnificent in my opinion. This adaptation blends different art forms, like ballet, cinema and even circus, particularly flying over the stage, which looks at the same time ascetic and enchantingly beautiful. So, the play gives us an opportunity to see such new technical possibilities of modern theatre, which also makes this version a precious experience. However, as I prefer meaning to the form, I cannot say that I fully enjoyed the performance, for the central idea of this play – forgiveness – was not properly developed. Maybe that happened because I’d already read the original play by Shakespeare before my visit to the theatre, and my vision of it just didn’t coincide with Sturua’s one. Nevertheless, I respect Sturua’s views, and think it was a good experience, because it brought me good vibes and broadened my horizons.
ReplyDeleteI liked the performance from the point of view of design, technical support and the composition. So speaking about technical decoration, I really liked them, as only by means of them the director could move us to that charming, intriguing and captivating atmosphere of Shakespeare's play. And in particular I was struck by the «thunder and lightning», which in a literal sense blinded. Music also deserves attention, as it was chosen correctly and with taste: there is nothing superfluous. Each track reflected the essence of the characters, for example, the same Ariel: air and a little extravagant. Of course actors' performance are to be mentioned, especially Alexander Kalyagin (Prospero) and Natalia Blagikh (Ariel), were simply unforgettable, so emotionally expressed... As for the composition, here the whole sequence of actions, which was presented in the play, was observed, although there were some moments, which were omitted or added. So, for example, in the play there was no mention of any flasks with poison; Ferdinand didn't meet with his father in the end of the performance, so we had no opportunity to see the reconciliation of two brothers (Prospero and Antonio); there was no mention of other spirits, presented in the play - Ceres, Iris and Juno. In addition, in the play during Prospero and Ariel's farewell, the spirit gave nothing to his friend, as he did in the performance. And the last, Ariel was male in the play, when in Kalyagin' presentation its role was performed by a woman. But, I don't think it has a very big influence, as the spirit himself is incorporeal.
ReplyDeleteYesterday's performance was certainly amazing. It's a very specific production of the famouse Shakespeare's play. My expectations about stage version turned out to be different from that I saw indeed. Frankly speaking I was not impressed by the original play: it was tedious to read. And going to the theatre I expected to experience the same feelings. But the performance seemed to me absolutelly different. Firtst of all the staged version of the play was performed in a little bit specific style. I expected to see the Renaissance's atmosphere with corresponding suits and decorations at least. But it was presented in a modern style. There were a lot of symbols in the entire production. It was interesting to notice them during the performance and try to guess about their meanings.
ReplyDeleteMoreover characters of the play also differ from these ones of the staged version. A sharp distinction refers to character of Ariel. First of all it concerns the sex. In the original version Ariel was a male character, but in the staged one Ariel was female. In addition, in the performane she seemed to me too childish while in the play Ariel was more serious. Perhaps this director's decision should be interpreted as a attempt to show the main theme of the play deeper. I think childish character of Ariel symbolizes a purity of soul, a tolerance and mercy. These are attributes of a human who is able to forgive, like Prospero. Ariel was a conscience of Prospero and she directed him a right way, a way of forgiveness, a way without revenge.
Other difference between the play of Shakespeare and the performance is stracture. The original version has 5 Acts and the staged version has only one. As for me the later made the play better. The performance was not so long but not so short in order to fail to understand its idea and problems. I think 5 acts are too long and it would make the play tedious. 1 act passed in one go but it left a great impression.
On the whole the performance was much better than the original play for me.
. The play is worth seeing thanks for its interesting design and composition. It proves that it’s necessary for the modern theater to to offer many things according to the modern technological achievements and the society’s state of mind for keep up to date. Frankly speaking I was expected to see something more classical and was surprised by many things which were performed in the modern way. It goes without saying about brilliant actor performance, especially the main two characters – Prospero (Alexander Kalyagin) and his daughter Miranda (Olga Kotelnikova). The first one was like the tempest itselt and his great acting skills made me feel the indirect meaning of the title – he himself symbolized the tempest which were caused by the betrayal. The choice of music and technological possibilities occupy a special place there. I think it would be simply unjust in the era of scientific and technological progress not to use them. They were always to the point and I, as a very sensitive person, was deeply impressed by them, sometimes too deeply, I mean thunder and lightning accompanied by Ariel’s damnation that struck me greatly and I believe that there was a certain feeling that the whole audience felt the same. So, from this point of view such modern means of performance helped the play, making the picture complete. However, the reverse of medal is also found – several times the play seemed to be overladen by technological support which attracted too much attention to them, in stead of actors and their monologues and dialogues. As a result, I can’t say that the main theme of the play – forgiveness is fully described there.
ReplyDeleteI like this performance because of this religious aspect which I can’t catch while reading the play itself. The whole structure of the production is very similar to the original. Of course, there are some differences. For example, the sex of Ariel. According to the play, it’s a male, but the reproduction shows us a female creature. I like this performance mostly because of this character. I think Ariel is notable for his use of white magic in the play, but also for his empathy and goodness. These traits are lacking in some of the play's human characters, and Ariel's feelings only make that fact more conspicuous. Most telling is her report on the three traitors: Antonio, Sebastian, and Alonso. She claims that their state is so pathetic, if Prospero saw them he would be moved to mercy and sympathy. Ariel thinks she hirself would have that same tenderness, were she human. While we are reminded that this is a spirit of a not-human nature, she seems filled with angelic grace – even about human matters. For me, her acting was the best!
ReplyDeleteThe play we have seen was a good work of the director with great decorations and talented actors. I should mention that the language was also good with Prospero’s monologues in which I felt the language of Shakespeare’s time. But for me the play itself is better because I prefer reading and imagine my own appearances of the characters, for example. While watching the performance I noticed some differences from the original verse. First of all, it is the sex of Ariel. In the play this spirit was male and in the performance it became female. Moreover, the magic and all magic acts in Shakespeare’s work were made by Ariel and Prospero just gave her orders. In the performance he himself created magic and Ariel was just his helper. And the most important difference for it was the idea of forgiveness. In the play I felt that Prospero was not ready to kill his enemies, his revenge transformed into forgiveness during the play but in the performance we saw how quick he changed his mind and from the man wanted to revenge by killing became the man who forgave. I did not get the sense in the performance. The actors were great, they could conveyed the atmosphere which was necessary. Generally I like the performance but the play itself impressed me more because of the important elements which were took away from the performance.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking about my vision of the play I dare say that it impressed me greatly. It was fantastic play of actors, good music and light effects. By the way the whole theatre is on the very high level. You start to find inspiration from the moment when you enter the building. There is a special spirit in it.
ReplyDeleteTruly speaking it is difficult to find out differences between the production and original, but there are some of them. First of all we are to say that Ariel is he, but not she as in the production. Besides there are 5 acts in the original, but we have seen the play in one action without a break. There is no scene on the ship before the crash in the storm.
It doesn't make the play any worse or any better. It manages to form a new way of showing the play by William Shakespeare "The Tempest". It is the idea which the director of the production - Sturua.
For me it is difficult to answer this question whether there is any Russian spirituality about the production or it's a British as can be because I haven't seen the British version. Personally I think the production was made thinking about how Russian may understand the play. That's why I believe that it was made for Russian.
The things which impressed me about the performance I have to say that it took place each time when Ariel appeared. We called it - психаделика :D.