n.b.: Because our focus
for this play is partly on adaptation and modernization, you should write
responses after this class session,
not before. After watching parts of Peter Sellars’ production, comment on one
of the following:
1) Visual
effects. How did you react to this play’s visual effects? Feel free to comment
on color, costumes, or anything else that is in the visual sense modality.
or
2) Songs and
voices. Comment on the music. Specific areas of possible commentary include:
music + text, music as expressive art, poetry and music, music as part of a
spectacle … and lots of others.
or
3) Adjustments
and adaptations. Comment on what Sellars’ version does and what it accents, vs.
what Dryden & co.’s version does and what it accents. Feel free to choose
any particular moment in the play(s), including either a moment that the
versions share, or a moment that one version has and the other does not.
or
I liked the contemporary costumes, like the fatigues and jeans, which made the whole performance seem more accessible to me, as a young non-opera-fan. On the other hand, I didn't like the more abstract costumes - especially the dancers' knee pad situations and the smock-things a lot of the guys wore. I get that they were trying for a more Aztec-esque look, but I would have liked to see the costumes all one way or the other. Mixing jeans and smock-things on one stage felt a little weird. I did like the painted tank prop, which blended contemporary and Aztec, and the beer-bottle-lawn-chair scene.
ReplyDeleteMaybe it was just the parts that we watched, but there was a lot of alternating between red light and darkness. This contributed to a warlike, primal atmosphere, especially when combined with the tribal symbols all over the walls. All in all, it was a pretty impressive-looking play.
The visual aspect of Seller’s production felt very incongruous. There was a strange combination of the South American feel, in terms of backdrops and coloring (the bright reds and yellows in scenery and lighting) and very modern costumes for both actors/singers and dancers. The South American aspect felt more authentic to the original Indian Queen, and even to the mashup-play that was being performed. I liked the atmosphere which the Mexican-style paintings in the backdrop created, and in terms of sound, that was heightened by the sound of chirping and rainforest in the background. I also liked how they used lighting to their advantage, especially during the fighting scene where the Spaniards massacre the Indians – the whole stage bathed in red light was a very effective portrayal of the action. It helped the viewer understand and recognize what was going on, since in terms of action there’s not many cues – the singers are all just lying on stage singing sadly.
ReplyDeleteThe costuming, however, was jarring. The very modern soldier’s garb and the peasant dress of the Indians made it feel more like a modern tale happening somewhere in Europe – it did not fit with the South-American locale. This was a clear choice on the part of Seller, to have this mashup of modern and old, western society and native-american, and perhaps he felt this better fit a story about the clash of cultures, but the effect visually wasn’t enjoyable or satisfying.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI am still struggling to understand why this play is even called The Indian Queen. I see such a minute connection to the actual play that we read, and feel that Mr. Sellers should have just created his own masterpiece instead of confusingly linking this play to the original... With that being said, I think one of the main differences between the movie and the play we read are the focuses of the plot. Sellers’ version focuses on the feeling of anguish, and the torment one feels when he or she has been driven out of/stolen from his or her home. There is the pain of losing a child, of murder of the people, and the repercussions of being a conquered people. Whether that be through the haunting music/song, or the interpretive dance, this play is very expressive in that sense. Contrastingly, the play that we read focused greatly (and unsurprisingly) on the love aspect. The conquering scenes didn’t really exist, just the next scene would be a complete change of tides. With regards to what Shoshana says above, I think incongruous is a pretty good word to describe the play. I understand that spectacle (?) theater is supposed to be grand, but I do feel like too many things were done at once: old music + modern clothing, interpretive dance, a conglomeration of music/composers/storyline etc. all mashed together made me wonder "Why?!?".
ReplyDeleteI think that there were several factors which barred our comprehension of this production: not knowing the “adapted/revised” plot, a musical medium (as opposed to a purely spoken one), and our inability to watch the complete work from start to finish. It’s difficult to judge a work based on fragments, especially when those fragments are out of context. There’s also likely a lot of opera/semi-opera symbolism that was at play that we’re not privy to, so that went flying over our heads.
ReplyDeleteMuch of the music that we viewed in class was religiously based (or at least, I think it was). All of the music was written or arranged by Purcell, so at least there was musical unity. However, the use of psalms felt at odds with the play and the community it was trying to portray, because the Aztecs were not Christians; whether or not the words pertained to their current situation isn’t the concern, their origins do not fit the speakers at all. But I do understand that the musical unity was necessary, and that Sellars had a limited score with which to work with (seeing that Purcell is, you know, dead).
This might be completely irrelevant, but I did love how they had a base, a soprano and two counter-tenors singing at the same time, because that’s two complete ends of the vocal spectrum working together and that just fit really nicely within a scene that was supposed to give off a somewhat conflicted, out-of-body vibe.
I also wanted to see if I could find the scores for some of the music and check if they fit the Baroque affektenlehre, but alas, my quick search has been fruitless (but I’ll probably continue later).
Also kind of irrelevant, but I did look up some commentary, and the tenor (the man who plays opposite Julia Bullock, I think?) doesn’t sing until Act III, which strikes me as… odd? This whole thing is kind of odd. But it’s almost as if the oddness makes sense, because even the original script--which barely exists in the context of Sellar’s adaptation, I know--was sort of disjointed in its first form, so why should that quality be tossed out at this stage?
The visual effects of the play definitely caught my attention, the scene with the drugs particularly. Although it was a bit disturbing, it was very well carried out. There were obviously no drugs on stage and the characters weren't physically or literally drinking or taking anything, but their hand motions and the way their bodies moved give the viewer an idea of what's happening even when they had nothing physical in their hands. I thought that was very professionally presented.
ReplyDeleteThe facial expressions let the viewer experience the emotions that the character would be feeling in a very real way.
The sound was another factor that caught my attention- especially the sound of the rainforest. It gave a very South American feel to the whole play and helped the viewer envision the scenes happening exactly where they are supposed to be. The songs, and sounds in general, are very interpretive of the dramatic tragedy and even sadness that is taking place, and with the Mexican aspects (bright colors and music) it blended well. Still, the play did have a more modern aspect to it.