Sunday, March 23, 2008
This Beautiful City
What an amazing experience! I saw the production of "This Beautiful City" at Actor's this weekend. It executed the project we did on ethnography. It was great to see these actors perform these interviews in the form of a play. This play was about the evangelical church and its pastor Ted Haggard of how he was exposed as a drug user and homosexual. A lot of this show consisted of doubling and at not one time did these actors seem like they were playing the same person. I know the costumes added to the performance, but the posture and everything was shown. An actor by the name of Marsha Stephanie Blake played a man and a woman. To my knowledge she really didn't change much from the church lady to the preacher as far as her voice goes. The way she carried herself was what really came through. All of this reminded me of the experience of when I interviewed Doug and how I had to pay so close of attention to the gestures he used as well as the way his voice sounded. Emily Ackerman played a woman and a transsexual and she was something to watch. Her walk changed dramatically and she lived in a lower register when she played the transsexual versus her playing the woman she walked differently and was sort of nasal sounding. This was so much like watching Anna Deveare Smith. Watching her was an experience in itself so to see a full out performance was even better. I really enjoyed this show and was glad I was able to see this live.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I thoroughly enjoyed watching "This Beautiful City" as well. However, I kept thinking that this piece needed major editing. I found myself thinking that there were characters in Act One that I didn't emotionally connect to, so therefore I did not care if we heard about their stories. What spurned out of that thought process was this idea of censorship when it comes to telling one's story. If I were to tell Mel's story, what do I choose? Would it be her preferrence? Should the original creator of the story have ownership over the content? If I am a white man telling a black woman's story does that change my opinion about who has ownership? I kept thinking that I personally would feel obligated to consult with Mel, because of our racial differences in a world that constantly chooses the race or gender card when they are unhappy with an opinion. If Mel were to speak out against gay marriage, I feel that I would immediately jump her for not knowing the station about gay people. So, if she were to do a piece about me and my life and I felt that what she was doing (even if it may be in complete earnest and truthful nature) was unpleasing my first thought would be offensive to the gay community. So, if I am performing someone of a different cultural background, is there trully an artistic expression?
That's an interesting question, Doug! Is there truly an artistic expression when performing someone else? I think yes and no. I think it depends on what is the essence of what you are attempting to convey. This wasn't really clear to me until I read Sabina Berman's comment about changing the Businessman in "Love Nest" to a Rev Jerry Falwell type character in order to make the piece accessible to North American audiences. Apparently, Berman thinks the character's essence is portrayed better in a more well know type in this country. It makes sense, but what to do when you don't have the playwright there telling you what she's comfortable with!
That's why I say, go with the essence of the piece. Then, I think it gets billed as and Adaptation of the original. Or, and Interpretation of the original. Wouldn't it be fun to list it as a Re-Presentation of the original??? The essence of the piece is the basic responsibility. After that, the changes that are made just have to be considered as absolutely necessary. Just my opinion.
Post a Comment