Thursday, April 15, 2010

Lear's Daughters Was a Travesty

I typically like to see strict interpretation of Shakespeare because I feel that he knew what he was doing, and there's a reason that he made it the way he did. There are certain elements that are up to the director, and plenty of room for personal taste, but I think the interpretation offered by Lear's Daughters was offensive and wrong. I don't think it's a matter of me not liking something because it is controversial; some of my favorite forms of entertainment are controversial, whether it's South Park, Bruno, or something similar I like works that push the boundaries, but what I don't like are things that try to be controversial just for the sake of being controversial, with no apparent end in sight. I do not have a problem with whoever acted in the play; the actors were just playing a part. I have a problem with whoever wrote the play.
Imagine this: An actress is lying on a movable stair platform. In front of her is another figure, that of a nurse. The nurse gives her something to drink, after which the lady on the stairs claims that she has been poisoned. The stage goes dark. You can see the actress on the stairs gripping onto the railing, and for the next couple minutes she just starts screaming her head off (meanwhile I'm in the audience trying my hardest not to "roflmao hahahaha" but in some respects I'm being unsuccessful and am snickering rudely while my friend is looking at me wondering what the hell is going on). The screaming intensifies (I'm losing it in the audience, I'm really losing it, but I try not to laugh audibly, but at this point I can feel tears start to come down my face I'm laughing so hard, my whole body shaking, but I remain silent, just barely). I'm thinking how ridiculous this is that they're staging an abortion on stage, and I'm horrified that I think they've insinuated that it's the incestuous child of Lear and his daughter. Finally the screaming stops. I dry my eyes. The nurse says, "It would have been a boy", and the whole feminist propaganda of the play becomes blatant. I want to walk out, but I need the extra credit so I stay. I can't decide what's worse, the smearing of Shakespeare, or the feminist propaganda. I'm left wanting a refund even though it was free. I'll never get that hour back.
I refuse to accept this play as Act 0 to Shakespeare. I think that's insulting to Shakespeare. I think Shakespeare would be offended that King Lear is portrayed as an incestuous pedophile, that one of the daughters has an abortion, and just generally with the entire production. I realize that I'm being a bit harsh, and that people worked very hard on this, but I did not find fault with the acting, the directing or any element that these people worked on. I find fault with the writing. There's just no dancing around that this play is a travesty because of its writing. I think the actors performed their parts well, and to the best of their abilities, but no amount of acting would save this play. The only thing that would make this play better would be if it were entirely different, and not about what it is about at all. That's my opinion, feel free to disagree.

4 comments:

Hannah Banana said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hannah Banana said...

I just want to say that (as some other bloggers have commented), although this play may be marketed as a feminist production, as a feminist, I didn’t identify with it as feminist. I find it unfortunate that people walk away from a play like this thinking it was “feminist propaganda” because it just further reinforces negative stereotypes of feminists and feminism, and really skews public perception of what feminism is. It’s odd, because this play has so many sexist overtones, but because the playwright has pushed it as feminist, I think many people ignore this and don’t question if it actually represents feminist ideals. Instead, ironically, the opposite happens: something which is sexist, offensive, and subversive to women can somehow come to epitomize the ideology of the movement which aims to establish their economic, political, and social equality. Avant-garde productions such as these, I believe, are the reason why people shy away from identifying themselves with feminism, which is truly unfortunate. I think it's every person's responsibility to not forget to question if what their seeing is actually representing what it claims to be.

Averey said...

I did not watch the play but, after reading this and hearing other's comments on it, I'm glad I did not. I do not consider myself a feminist though stereotypes do bother me. True, Shakespeare did right about things that got him in trouble several times, but it was in a way that blended with the rest of the play. I admit that I may be biased in my opinion, seeing as I'm not a huge fan of many things that are bluntly stated.

Life in Teal said...

I completely agree with Robert and Hannah. Robert, while the play was an hour of my life that I will never get back, it led to hours of academic conversation and mockery that I thoroughly enjoyed.
Hannah, feminism has grown into a monster that has branched into extremist measures. I don't associate it with the original ideology at all. Lear's Daughters augmented the sensation that feminism has elicited for the past decade. It now seems to seek superiority and not equality, standing on a throne of "holier than thou." This is my personal perception, but doesn't anyone remember Fahrenheit 451 and the downfall of political correctness?! I'm all for freedom of expression, I just wish they hadn't tainted Shakespeare.