Coriolanus
Apr. 5th, 2009 10:37 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
magidThursday I went to ASP's production of Coriolanus (Shakespeare) at the new, improved Somerville Armory space. I didn't get a tour of the whole building, but what I saw was intriguing. The show used a huge hall at the end of the main corridor, and it felt like an absolutely huge space, the pointed cathedral ceiling giving the impression of being high above. I had to stop when I first entered, looking at thehuge articulated metal pipes sprouting from one side of the room, branching out below the ceiling (though leading nowhere); all I could think of were the glass pipes in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. The rest of the set was fairly minimal, with a a painter's dolly (that's not the right word, really; something that can be rolled, and allows people to paint higher on a wall) on the side with a balcony, one rollable piece used in a fight scene, and scaffolding off on the pipe side that had drums and other percussion, including corrugated sheet metal. It was a very loud show, and there were warnings up at the entrance that there were loud sounds, with heavy metal tools banged together, deep drums, hit metal, shouts, and more. At least once I had to hold my ears.
The production was set in the 30s, using both costuming and projected art to set that tone, with international workers' union sorts of signs projected in light on different walls. The Roman workers were working-class stiffs, while the higher ups wore suits and fancy dresses. I thought that worked, while some of the college kids behind me were not so sure. Not at all under question were the fight scenes, which included hand-to-hand fight-dancing, as well as conflict with swords, and staves. The fight director had many opportunities in this show, and they were beautiful to watch.
The plot is about how a Roman war hero, given the surname Coriolanus after he single-handedly turned the tide of battle at Corioles, comes back to Rome and is encouraged to become consul. This requires talking with the common people, which he is no good at, and it is further complicated by the tribunes not wanting him to become consul, fearing it would erode their power. Coriolanus tries anyway, at the urging of his widowed mother, but cannot control his temper. He is exiled, and goes to the enemy he had just fought against, to bring the fight to Rome. He is petitioned by a variety of Romans to halt his approach, listening to none until his mother (and wife and child) come. He accedes to their request, and ends up hanged as a traitor by those of Corioles. And there the play ends, with Coriolanus' family being lauded by the Romans for saving them as he is being hanged. It felt like the most abrupt ending of a Shakespeare play to me, leaving unanswered the question of how the politics worked out in Rome, as well as how the family dealt with the news.
Basically, it comes down to the question of whether it's reasonable to assume that just because someone is a decorated war hero, they can also be a gifted politician and administrator. Not surprisingly, they require different skill sets.
Coriolanus' relationship with his mother, who raised him to be a Spartan ('with his shield or upon it'), doesn't see that her single-mindedness in raising him has left him with an uncompromising sense of honor that will not allow him to bend in the ways necessary for him to be in politics. (That is his important family relationship; the wife and child are decorative, for the most part.) He is not a gifted orator, nor does he know how to couch his thoughts in ways that may be more palatable to the hearers. In fact, the beginning of the play has the locals clamoring for bread, and blaming him for its lack, and he does nothing to appease them.
I'm not sure how to classify the play: it's obviously not historical, nor is it a comedy, without even a single comedic subplot at any social level, but traditionally, Shakespearean tragedies have everyone of anyimportance dead at the end, while this has Coriolanus as the only victim. Still, it's the best fit.
Side note: the actor playing the general of Corioles looked familiar. Turns out I saw Ted Hewlett in shows when he was a MFA student at Brandeis, years ago. Cool.
The production was set in the 30s, using both costuming and projected art to set that tone, with international workers' union sorts of signs projected in light on different walls. The Roman workers were working-class stiffs, while the higher ups wore suits and fancy dresses. I thought that worked, while some of the college kids behind me were not so sure. Not at all under question were the fight scenes, which included hand-to-hand fight-dancing, as well as conflict with swords, and staves. The fight director had many opportunities in this show, and they were beautiful to watch.
The plot is about how a Roman war hero, given the surname Coriolanus after he single-handedly turned the tide of battle at Corioles, comes back to Rome and is encouraged to become consul. This requires talking with the common people, which he is no good at, and it is further complicated by the tribunes not wanting him to become consul, fearing it would erode their power. Coriolanus tries anyway, at the urging of his widowed mother, but cannot control his temper. He is exiled, and goes to the enemy he had just fought against, to bring the fight to Rome. He is petitioned by a variety of Romans to halt his approach, listening to none until his mother (and wife and child) come. He accedes to their request, and ends up hanged as a traitor by those of Corioles. And there the play ends, with Coriolanus' family being lauded by the Romans for saving them as he is being hanged. It felt like the most abrupt ending of a Shakespeare play to me, leaving unanswered the question of how the politics worked out in Rome, as well as how the family dealt with the news.
Basically, it comes down to the question of whether it's reasonable to assume that just because someone is a decorated war hero, they can also be a gifted politician and administrator. Not surprisingly, they require different skill sets.
Coriolanus' relationship with his mother, who raised him to be a Spartan ('with his shield or upon it'), doesn't see that her single-mindedness in raising him has left him with an uncompromising sense of honor that will not allow him to bend in the ways necessary for him to be in politics. (That is his important family relationship; the wife and child are decorative, for the most part.) He is not a gifted orator, nor does he know how to couch his thoughts in ways that may be more palatable to the hearers. In fact, the beginning of the play has the locals clamoring for bread, and blaming him for its lack, and he does nothing to appease them.
I'm not sure how to classify the play: it's obviously not historical, nor is it a comedy, without even a single comedic subplot at any social level, but traditionally, Shakespearean tragedies have everyone of anyimportance dead at the end, while this has Coriolanus as the only victim. Still, it's the best fit.
Side note: the actor playing the general of Corioles looked familiar. Turns out I saw Ted Hewlett in shows when he was a MFA student at Brandeis, years ago. Cool.