(So, we already knew the 21st century version of Antigone before all that other shit happened to her. As was to be expected, she only got “worse”!)
In principle, I found this “Antigone” rewrite much more convincing than “Oedipus”, and they succeeded in making me enter the “other place” I totally refuse to enter in real life: the place of perpetual despair one only leaves through the back door (= suicide). It was a long walk, much longer than the one and a half hours it actually took, but in the end I came to understand the obnoxious Antigone who refuses to lead a pointless, shallow life by “getting over” the past and who doesn’t tolerate the rest of the family living a lie. Even though – apart from the grieving - this is an existential theme for me as well, I won’t write anything more about it. Sometimes there isn’t that much to report BECAUSE it was so convincing. So, another **** experience – like the one I will be writing about instead: “The Duchess of Malfi” at the Trafalgar Theatre with Jodie Whitaker in the leading role (and a stellar cast at her side.)
Watching the contemporary version of this rather weird play was a hoot. (We were in the front row, and therefore my second greatest “live on the stage” experience, in retrospect, was actually Jodie Whitaker, but there is not much to tell. She was totally present and perfect and beautiful – the way only great actors can be beautiful because every last bit of them – down to their big toe! – makes sense. This effect seems to be enhanced by the stage, as if they are STILL a bit bigger than I remember them.) I left the theatre very well satisfied but totally devoid of feelings or any thoughts about what might be the point of taking this play to the stage one more time. Two hours later, when I got back to my hotel room, it suddenly all “came together”, and I realized that I had had a singular experience of the kind I could ONLY have in the theatre and wasn’t aware I WANTED to have in the first place.
(**** for the EXPERIENCE, as the production had a few minor flaws – like the music which was rather unprofessional. But I totally appreciated their knowing exactly what they were doing AND kind of letting it get out of hand!)
I usually never read the reviews before seeing something because I like to be surprised, but this time Claudia sent me a few links. They were all bad. After having seen it, we were asking ourselves if the critics had seen the same production because it had been so obvious and straightforward what they wanted to achieve, and it totally worked. It might not make everybody feel good, though, but no critic ever talks about their feelings. Or morality, for that matter, and this might be a bit of a problem in this case because the play is a revenge tragedy – which means that it is about REVENGE. And revenge – though strictly speaking morally incorrect – is all about FEELINGS, like fear and distress, and basic instincts - all these emotions we were so well taught NOT to have or to suppress. The whole point of this production, in my opinion, was to finally take the revenge in “revenge tragedy” seriously.
An important clue to understanding what had happened with me and my feelings was Claudia mentioning that “Hamlet” is also a “revenge tragedy”. It reinforced my recurring impression that “Hamlet” is the most overrated play ever written because it is a bit of everything, so that everybody can make of it what THEY like. So, among other things, it is a mediocre revenge tragedy, whereas “The Duchess” is a really good one. No more and no less. - Everybody who knows the first thing about revenge – and, frankly, I think that everybody does! – knows that it is NOT a dish best eaten cold. It is best consumed scalding hot, preferably within hours after the irreparable injustice has been done. In this case it might actually be therapeutic. In “Hamlet” it happens right at the end when everybody has long gone to sleep or got entangled in another storyline, so that nobody still cares about the old codger having been murdered – IF they ever did!
“The Duchess” focuses on the revenge – which is totally justified and even necessary because the extent of male dominance and unrestrained abuse of power doesn’t ALLOW a better solution. And only small adjustments had to be made to make this feel totally contemporary! “Kill them all” is in fact a Tarantinoesque solution, and not very subtle, but who says that Tarantino isn’t right about SOMETHING? “Inglorious Bastards” is in fact one of about three films about the Third Reich I ever watched, and I totally loved it because of the “happy” ending! And I am certain that billions of people had exactly the same thought I had when this idiot failed to kill Trump, even though they’d never admit it. It is a bit hard to face it – probably because “we” (= the female and the “good” part of the population) are still losing - that, for centuries, we are fighting a battle against a dominant minority who’s only excuse for supremacy is that they have a bit MISSING!
So there was little subtlety – or intellectual challenge – but, in the end, it was exactly what a tragedy is supposed to be: CATHARTIC. (Of course I am in a privileged position for watching in this case, and I’d have loved to have the take of a MAN after seeing it … wouldn’t have been much use, presumably, because they never talk about their feelings!)
There WAS a bit of subtlety at the end – and hope! – because the life of the remaining child gets entrusted to the killer Bosola who is correctly identified by the women as the only male still standing who has a thread of humanity left. But, basically, REVENGE!!! If you want it but are a bit squeamish about blood or actually pulling a trigger, there is a smarter solution. Just put all these men together in a room and give them a gun. Be assured: they’ll sort themselves out!
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen