Recent arts coverage:
- Evolutionary biology. Aesthetic determinism. Live action role playing. The Rude Mechs are making a new play again
- Suburban battlefield: Women fight invisible foe in Amie Siegel’s ‘Black Moon’
- In eerie paintings by Ana Fernandez, a house isn’t just a house
More arts coverage | Follow this blog on Twitter @artsinaustin | Read recent arts reviews
Austin360 blogs > Austin Arts: Seeing Things > Archives > 2008 > November > 17
Monday, November 17, 2008
Review: ‘Ophelia’ at Blue Theatre
Edgar Allan Poe wrote that “the death of a beautiful woman is unquestionably the most poetical topic in the world.” If that’s so, “Ophelia” gives us poetry five times over. The new work, written and directed by Dustin Wills for Tutto Theatre, gives us five different aspects of Ophelia, makes the audience come to sympathize with or even share Hamlet’s love with each, and then kills her off.
Poe continued that “equally is it beyond doubt that the lips best suited for such topic are those of a bereaved lover.” That’s certainly true in the original “Hamlet,” where the prince himself hauntingly wails her death in the graveyard, but here the bereaved is Ophelia herself.
That’s both a strength and a weakness. At its lowest, “Ophelia” can seem overly introspective, insidery, and academic, all of which goes with the territory. It’s easy to lose the sense of real relationships and emotions unfolding in the, admittedly clever, allusions to, echoes of, and twists on “Hamlet,” “Romeo and Juliet,” “Macbeth,” “A Midsummer Night’s Dream,” and more.
At its best it’s just as easy to forget all that and simply watch a young girl, or five, slowly descend into madness on her own.
The play opens ominously. The five Ophelias sit on a starkly white, wooden framed stage, designed by Lisa Laratta , under the boughs of a weeping willow made of tangled ropes and swings that grows, of course, aslant a brook. They dangle their feet, splash each other, and laze about until, sharply, they join in song and spoken word to recite Queen Gertrude’s description of Ophelia’s drowning.
From there the story follows Ophelia as she falls deeper in love with Hamlet, is warned away by her father, and devises a plan to trick him into madness. The plan, though I never could figure out why, is meant to both appease her father and win Hamlet’s heart — letting Ophelia please all the men in her life at the cost of herself.
While the plan itself may not make much sense, though it’s certainly no less confusing than Hamlet’s original device of feigned madness, the presentation is touching. Wills, a stronger director than writer, has an eye for beautiful and poignant scenes, bringing strong performances out of his entire cast.
Sofia Ruiz, as Ophelia in Love, opens the play with charming naiveté and innocence. Each subsequent Ophelia teeters closer to the line between madness and reason, adding conflict to her aspect of the psyche as saner, balancing aspects are removed, until finally all that’s left is Kim Adams’ Ophelia, undone, and a moving rendition of madness set to violin by Emily Tindall as Ophelia, in water.
Gabriel Luna, as both Hamlet and Polonius, offers the male side. While he’s occasionally childish and jokey as Hamlet, Luna retains sincerity and power, particularly in Will’s unique twist on the classic “Get thee to a nunnery.”
Separating most of the Ophelia’s time on stage are dreams of lyrical dances, choreographed by the ensemble. Coming after a scene of high hope and love or one of despair and anger, they offer moments of quiet reflection that set the tone for “Ophelia” as much as any of her conversations.
“Ophelia” as a play may occasionally be more academic than human in its exploration of Ophelia outside of the male-dominated “Hamlet.” As a production, though, it manages, as its lead character struggles to, to balance the head and the heart.
(Joey Seiler is a freelance theater writer and critic.)
(“Ophelia” continues at 8 p.m. Thursdays-Sundays through Nov. 23 at the Blue Theatre, 916 Springdale Rd. $12-$15. 927-1118, tuttotheatre.org.)
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment Categories: Reviews
Review: ‘The Nina Variations’ at Dougherty Arts Center
“The Nina Variations” is a sort of quantum Chekhov. It takes one of the most emotionally charged, and unfulfilling, moments of “The Seagull” and proceeds to unpack it, twist it, and turn it around in every way possible. From a literary perspective, it’s enlightening and entertaining. From a human perspective, it’s simply moving.
In “The Seagull,” a diverse group gathers at a lakeside estate, squabbles, and, in various forms, falls in love. Nina, a young actress, is pursued by the brash, young writer Treplev, but follows an older rival, Trigorin, to Moscow. In one of the final scenes, she returns briefly to visit Treplev, they say almost nothing clearly, and she leaves before he shoots himself.
Playwright Steven Dietz now gives the pair some 40-odd variations to try and find the words that Chekhov didn’t give them or, in some instances, explain those that he did.
If you’re not familiar with “The Seagull,” it’s all right. “Nina” provides a brief summary of the relevant highlights complete with charming illustrations. If, like me, you’re not a fan of Chekhov, that’s also fine. Dietz certainly riffs on the Russian’s style at various points, but the wit and emotion is his own.
As the semi-Sisyphean pair Rachel McGinnis and Aaron Hallaway are vibrant. Both are mercurial, to say the least, shifting through variations of emotion and action that seem almost exhaustive. At his heart, though, Hallaway’s Treplev seems nervous, nebbishly intelligent, sad, and a little hopeful. Nina is more bittersweet, alternately laughing and solemnly reminiscing.
However, and it’s a credit to both actors that it works, the characters become both figuratively and, occasionally, literally interchangeable. That’s the spectrum that Dietz provides while plumbing the possibilities of where Chekhov’s scene could have gone, and the pair makes every alternative, whether charming or frightening, seem plausible.
That comes across in the more human moments of the play, where Nina and Treplev seem most real — screaming at, laughing with, and loving each other — more often than in the moments where Dietz breaks the fourth wall. Those can offer witty commentary, including some humorous banter about critics, but they’re less affecting.
The exception is, for me, the most powerful moment of the play. Nina and Treplev dissect Chekhov’s lines, he reading them with only a hint of emotion on top of what’s obviously contained inside and she offering an exegesis of what that Nina might have meant. The simple, blunt, feeling interpretation could make for a successful essay. It would also likely move at least one reader to tears.
Each transition is highlighted by a number projected on the back wall. While at first it seems like some changes come on haphazardly, often silently switching moods mid-conversation, they later serve as punctuation. Director Will Hollis Snider and Dietz flow from long, discursive dialogs where changes may go unnoticed to short scenes made up of only “I love you,” a pause, and a flash of changing numbers that cut off any possibility of a response.
Of course the question left at the end of “The Nina Variations” is whether other scenes might return that possibility or simply come back to the inevitability of a gunshot.
(Joey Seiler is a freelance theater writer and critic.)
(“The Nina Variations” continues 8 p.m. Thursdays-Saturdays through Nov. 22 at the Dougherty Arts Center, 1110 Barton Springs Road. $12-$15. 708-1893, gobotrick.org)
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment Categories: Reviews
Ravel trio: Newly restored
Digging through the archives, turns up treasures.
Tuesday night, the Harry Ransom Center welcomes pianist Richard Dowling in a free concert. Dowling will perform and discuss the music of French Impressionist composer Maurice Ravel who is represented in the Ransom Center’s collection by letters and notes. Dowling will play a newly restored version of Ravel’s Trio for Piano, Violin, and Cello with celebrated Miró Quartet first violinist Daniel Ching and cellist Amy Levine of the Laurel Piano Trio.
7 p.m. Tuesday. Jessen Auditorium, 21st St. and Whitis Ave. Free. 471-8944.
If you can’t make it to the lecture, tune into the live Web cast at www.hrc.utexas.edu/multimedia/webcast.
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment
Review: Austin Chamber Ensemble
Saturday’s recital by cellist Ruslan Biryukov with pianist Mary Au gave listeners a demonstration of solo virtuoso style: Instead of the musicians serving the music, the music was made to serve the musicians. Showpieces were suitable vehicles for Biryukov; the more serious chamber music on the program suffered.
Make no mistake, the playing was often superb. Biryukov pulled beautiful tone of amazing intensity from his cello. His sense of pacing was elastic, with phrases shaped boldly and decisively. He had great facility in numerous lightning-fast passages. Pianist Au kept pace with Biryukov, playing with the lid fully open and drawing a quantity of sound that matched Biryukov.
Winner of the Mu Phi Epsilon International Competition, Biryukov appeared in Austin at the Unitarian-Universalist Church as part of the Austin Chamber Ensemble series. Along with a program of three sonatas by Frenchmen François Francoeur, Claude Debussy and César Franck, there was also a substantial dessert course of four brilliant encores, chosen seemingly on the spur of the moment from a small stack of sheet music on the piano.
In the Francoeur, an 18th-century sonata structured as a dance suite, there was no attempt to emulate what is accepted now as appropriate performance practice. Slow movements received a passionate, 20th-century sound, while the fast movements, far from echoing the original dance forms, were played as fast as the fingers of Biryukov’s left hand could move across the fingerboard.
The Cello Sonata of Debussy and the Franck Sonata (originally for violin), both far more than showpieces, demand respect, even humility, from players. The pace continued to be super-fast. The playing in the Franck also included a pile of wrong notes from both players. That wouldn’t matter so much if the wrong notes came with a great interpretation, but that isn’t what happened.
There’s nothing wrong with putting on a good show. But in this case Debussy and Franck got shortchanged.
