McFadden,+Kathleen

=

 * Theatre in a Time of Terrorism: Renewing Natural Harmony after the Bali Bombing via // Wayang Kontemporer. //** By: I Nyoman Sedana. __ATJ.__ Spring 2005, 22.1. pgs. 73-85 =====

=
 For an article that is supposedly centered around terrorism, it had virtually nothing to do with the said subject. The author, Sedana, opens the article explaining the horrific terrorism acts in Kuta, Bali in 2002, and begins to explain how the government wanted to find a way to relieve the public of its psychic damage, and restore a sense of peace. We studied in this class that one of the goals of a //traditional wayang// performance is to drive away evil forces, so I was very intrigued by how this theme was going to be done with use of //wayang kontemporer// as the chosen genre. Had I known that I would gain little to no knowledge of this still lingering question, I wouldn’t have read on. =====

=
 Sebana starts out on a positive note after the introduction of this article by highlighting how modern technical innovations helped to make the production more relatable to the audience. By using visual design, video usage, and multiple personnel, the director was more able to make a production that better depicted the horrifying scenes from the bombing in Kuta, Bali. The director and tech team depicted gods descending on projection screens, used color to portray feelings and emotions instead of traditional black and white shadows, and incorporated traditional and modern puppets to make characters more recognizable. I found it fascinating that the technology team was able to bring a whole new realm or element of visual aid to the strict, rigid, and simplistic drama. The author stated, “Combining puppets, people, and projection creates more visual variety than is possible in traditional wayang.” I agree with this statement and would have loved to hear more about how the show was produced and how it changed the audience; however, the author seemed to be extremely flustered and confused writing this article because there was nothing more on terrorism or contemporary theatre. =====

=
 While it is important to highlight traditional theatre to communicate the differences within the genre versus now, Sedana seemed to forget that the ultimate point of the article was to relate the contemporary theatre to the terrorists’ bombings. I understand what he is trying to do when he uses many examples from //traditional wayayng// to illustrate how this contemporary production contrasted, but it just seemed discombobulated when reading the article as a whole. He jumped from technical innovations in this production, to a completely different play that he used as an example of how to mount horses in puppet theatre. His point was to illustrate one dalang going through the motions vs. many puppeteers working together to imitate this action, however, to me it was confusing and unnecessary. He spoke of entirely different plays in hopes to articulate a point rather than sticking with the main play that the article started with. It seemed to me as though he lost focus and I found this section distracting. =====

=
 The author goes on to say that to understand new techniques you must understand the original story through which //traditional wayang// was developed. I did not find this story of the gods relevant to anything he had been talking about in the article. He tried to tie the demons to the bombing terrorists and etc, and it just didn’t work in my opinion. I was once again confused and didn’t know where the article was taking me in relation to the starting subject. On a lighter note, the author brilliantly explained how the director of the show used technological innovations to display gods and demons on projection screens along with the puppets. =====

=
 All in all I wouldn’t say that this is the best article I have read this semester. Although it did have some interesting points and the author did try to communicate traditional vs. contemporary in a way that the reader could understand by going into depth about many traditional elements, the facts only served as confusion. I would have liked to have known more about the audiences responses to the production, and how or if it changed Kuta, Bali drastically. I think it was an interesting subject to tackle, and at the same time hard and ambitious to try to explain something so complex in ten pages. =====

//puppet characteristics://
 * Indonesian puppet theatre**
 * long and lean female
 * gold body with bold colors on garment
 * long black hair
 * large feet
 * long arms and short legs
 * long pointy nose
 * slightly covered breasts
 * two bangles on each wrist, one on each ankle
 * dragons on the top of the arms
 * looks to be some sort of colored headpiece
 * garment is almost feather-like
 * flowered rings on fingers
 * looks like she only has four fingers
 * very angry look from the mouth
 * slit eyes
 * very asymmetrical body
 * small waist line
 * very snake-like

Kathleen McFadden THEA 4400 Richmond April 11, 2011 Shakespeare in China I found this article very interesting and informative on many levels. Studying Shakespeare can be a difficult task in itself; therefore, studying different interpretations from other countries can be exhausting on many levels. This article articulates in a precise manner the differences in how the Chinese put on these sophisticated plays, and how interpretations conformed to Chinese society yet still managed to show Shakespearean elements. Though it thoroughly communicates the Chinese performances of the genre of theatre, I found myself disagreeing with some of the author’s main points. The author of this article breaks up the text into the three different interpretive phases in 20th century China, and uses the phases to highlight the different interpretations of Shakespeare’s works. It is interesting how he reflects on the phases by highlighting the political ups and downs of China during those time periods. It is interesting to me that the three phases showcase the legendary playwright’s works performed entirely different with emphasis on different elements of the scripts. Shen, the author, does a great job with showing that though classic Chinese theatre highly valued dance, the theatre began to drift away from these fundamentals to valuing the script and written text. Shen also does a great job of using the character Shylock from Shakespeare’s play //The Merchant of Venice// to show how the Chinese were able to combine the Western and Oriental worlds, and put them on stage together. Obviously in the play Shylock is a Jew in a Christian society who is discriminated against by his surrounding people. As the odd man out in the play he compels a sense of condolence and pity from the audience. Shen very thoroughly details how the Chinese interpret the character accordingly, and change the character to one more applicable to the public of China. This tactic allows the genre of theatre to appeal to the public, because Judaism and Christianity are religions not native to the country, and therefore would make the play less interesting to many people. Though the author’s argument makes sense, it is somewhat hypocritical in my opinion. When thinking about Asian Theatre and all that we have learned in this class, one of the most important factors of each of the many genres we have discussed is the idea of tradition. I feel that many of these types of theatre are strict and rigid in form, and that there is not much room for change or interpretation. However, the Chinese take apart Shakespeare’s masterpieces ultimately changing underlying themes and his overall ideas. Though as stated previously, the interpreters did help to combine western and oriental worlds into one to be understood on stage by a seemingly uneducated (on Shakespeare theatre that is) audience, it is highly unlikely that the audiences took away from the play what the original playwright intended. For example, as said before, Shen uses the character Shylock to show how Shakespeare was interpreted and performed on a Chinese stage. Shen states that this character became a greedy usurer provoking the idea that he is greedy, cruel, and cold in the Chinese version. However, as previously stated, in the original text he is seen as an outsider, and commands sympathy from the audience. It seems to me that this one character has become two separate characters and ultimately polar opposites. I enjoyed reading this article. While I found many of Shen’s points intriguing, I did have a problem with the stage interpretations of characters. Shakespeare’s works are masterpieces and are difficult to understand. But in my opinion that is what makes them beautiful and the ultimate form of theatre. Learning to understand and interpret Shakespeare takes time and studying, but it can be done. I don’t think that his plays should be changed for someone to understand. Sometimes the unknown or not understood makes something much more intriguing and beautiful.

Kathleen McFadden February 21, 2011 Richmond THEA 4400 **Brecht Adaptations in Modern Bengali Theatre: A Study in Reception.** By Arundhati Banerjee. __ATJ,__ Spring, 26.2. pgs 1-23. Since day one of this class, I have been somewhat under the impression that all Asian Theatre is a strict and structured art form without any leeway. This article, however, changed my mind completely. I found it interesting that the Bengali Brechtian Theatre craze began with the middle-class because of the exposure to “English education, and western culture and thought.” It seems that up until now, from what we have learned, only the highest in society were involved with the theatre, so the fact that the //babu//, or servants, were involved was somewhat of a shock. Because Brechtian Theatre is concentrated on interpretations and adaptations, I enjoyed the fact that the author noted productions translated and performed by multiple theatre groups within the Bengali Theatre. He notes that the first Brechtian Theatre Performance on the Bengali stage was //The Life of Galileo//, and that it was performed by professors and not a theatre unit. It was adapted three more times after the 1966 performance by theatre groups, all with different producers. I found it intriguing that different producers in Bengal were motivated by two different characteristics of Brecht Theatre: the relevance of a country’s sociopolitical situation, and innovative form and the novel idea of theatre. From reading this, I really thought that Bengali theatre groups captured a true characteristic of Brechtian Theatre: The idea of interpretations. The article states that many productions that concentrate on the latter, innovative form and the novel idea of theatre, have shaped Brecht plays into what they think will be appropriate for the Bengali audience. In this essence, they have interpreted the art into what they think it should be in order to be appreciated in the proper way. It seems to me, that Brecht somewhat leaves his plays open, and wants them to not be limited to one specific way of performing them. In the article it states that Bengali producers have agreed that the “relevance of sociopolitical view is more important in Indian context,” however; I more or less agree with the statement that since the playwright was “inspired” by innovation, there should be changes made to master Brecht Theatre in Bengali Theatre. I believe that theatre is a form of art within a culture. There can be many versions of a play performed, which is what makes the theatre a flexible art form. Seeing how a production is done from different people’s perspective makes it that much more worthwhile. An example from the Bengali Theatre from the article is //The Caucasian Chalk Circle// with two different adaptations. They were done by two different directors and producers, and therefore provoked differences in the productions. While one was elaborate and detailed, the other was realistic and simple. Though the latter follows the Brechtian technique more thoroughly, the former follows the idea of interpretation. The directors and producers obviously had different viewpoints, but still produced the same show. It is interesting to me, that on the topic of audience, the article states that Brecht was concerned with audience reception, while Bengal producers seem to not be as much. What is even more interesting is that many audiences have not been responsive to the adaptations that use the strict techniques and the idea of realism, but have been open to adaptations that go against these concepts. Critics argue that by going down the path of entertainment, productions are going against everything Brecht believed in, but my question for them is, If Brecht emphasized interpretation, then aren’t they not going against anything? It’s a double standard in my opinion, and one that will continue to be argued for years to come. I believe in keeping an original art form alive, which is what the Epic Theatre is, however, times change as well as cultures. There is no harm in creating something new, different, and relevant from something old.