The Tempest Reflection

• How would you describe the venue (setting for the building, lobby, theatre space)?

I consider the Barbican to be very formal...definitely when compared to the Gatehouse.  Located more in the heart of city, instead of tucked away in a quaint village, the Barbican is spacious and sophisticated.  The seats and theatre stage were beautiful and lit by golden sconces.  Carpetted floors helped to make the acoustics great (I'm fairly certain that most if not all the actors didn't use microphones).  The skeletal remains of a ship hull graced the stage.  This piece of stage design was interesting because it doubled as a shipwreck but could also be seen as a forest.  

• How did the actual architecture/design of the space make you feel and/or affect your experience?

It made me feel as if I was in a very important space.  The large lobby, golden interior tones, and a well dressed crowd combined to make it seem formal.  It was surprising how good the acoustics were in the theatre space.  I would normally expect the actor's voice to be lost in such a large room, but because of the plush seats, carpetted floors, and low swooping ceiling even a whisper on stage can be heard.  I was very impressed with how the doorways to each row discretely slid shut on their own when the show began.  With the lighting making it appear that the ship was tossing in rough waters, the slivers of light narrowing as the doors shut made me feel as if I was physically entering another world.  

• Think about what you felt when you were “inside” the world of the play. Was there something there that you could call a “unifying vision” – where every element of the production came together to make something cohesive that clearly communicates important information about the play (including things like mood and feeling). What visual and aural elements contributed to or detracted from that vision?

Obviously one of the most impressive scenes was when Ariel appeared to the shipwrecked crew as a large harpy-monster.  The music sounded urgent and orchestral while the lighting switched from a lush green to a hot and hellish red-orange.  The cracks on the floor of the stage even changed to appear as if lava were coursing throught their veins.  The mood was definitely terrifying since I felt like I was being condemned in one of the seven layers of Hell.  I can see why the characters were cowering on the stage floor.  One  complaint I had was that the CGI didn't really pick up Ariel's mouth and facial movements too well.  I also kept wondering about the decision to have the actor playing Ariel either in the background or off the side acting out in CGI as the projectors displayed him flying or as the harpy.  By having the real Ariel and the projection of him on stage at the same time it seemed more like Ariel was enacting some illustion on the shipwrecked party.  Was the Ariel actor only to be seen by Prospero, and invisible to everyone else?  Was it to reinforce the idea that Ariel was behind the bewitching of the shipwrecked party's senses?  Was it necessary for the CGI? I think that if the actor was off-stage then the projector would feel more real.

• How did the production make you feel? What did it make you think about?

The production really enveloped me in the Shakespearan world.  The stage design, lighting, and costumes combined to make the experience more cohesive and believable.  I really enjoy when stage design is visually stimulating and not minimalistic or sparse.  The shape of the ship hull was very intriguing, and I liked that it gave the stage texture, depth, and it worked to frame the actors in an unobtrusive way.  I felt awed the whole time, because the technological effects were brilliant and clever.  I guess a part from being mesmerized,  was trying to use context clues to decipher what the play was about.  While I could understand a sexual innuendo, some of the Shakespearan lines sounded like a completely different language.  I couldn't help but wonder if this was what the common public spoke like back in the day.  I know that the Globe was located a rather sketchy place in London at the time, and some dodgy people would watch performances.  Would they be able to understand what I consider to be flowery language? Did they speak like that? Has today's language simplified?

• What did you think about the actors? Was there one in particular that stood out in some way, or was this a play that relied on the ensemble of actors? What specifically did you notice that shaped your ideas about the acting?

Carol was totally right when she commented the other day about how it was somewhat ridiculous for high schools to make students read Shakespeare when it wasn't meant to be read.  If I were to read Shakespeare's work I would definitely have to look up an analysis or translation to fully understand what was going on.  But I found that the actor's body language and speech helped to form some context.  I, personally, preferred when there was an ensemble of actors.  It was fascinating to see how the actor brought their character to life when they were just listening or reacting to what other characters were doing on stage.  They didn't just stand there blankly until their cue.  I prefer this to long monologues.