I tend to be pretty strongly inclined towards 20th century and contemporary art (in the broad sense of 'art')[*] and Greek theatre has never particularly been an exception to that, but this play really struck me when I came across it via Cranlana a couple of years ago. It's difficult to say what it was about "Antigone" that resonated, but resonate it did - something about the interplay between the clarity and simplicity of the way it renders its central conflict between the dictates of the state and of personal conscience and the way in which it, literally, stages that conflict without sacrificing nuance[**] or descending to the merely didactic or pedagogic (much less moralising). Somehow, it felt timeless - in some important sense universal.
... all of which goes some way to explaining why, while there were aspects of this production that I responded to and thought were strong, overall I found it frustrating. While I don't have any objection to contemporary stagings of classic works seeking contemporary resonance (including at the political level - and especially in the deeper sense of what is at stake in politics being the kind of society that we want to live in, as opposed to the shallow sound and fury that so frequently characterises party politics), the drawing of parallels to current debates and particularly the critique (however merited) of the nationalist and even incipiently fascist trends apparent in recent years in various governments globally was unnecessarily overt and repetitive, throwing me out of the inherent drama of what was transpiring between the characters amidst the ever-present (even in absence) 'ship of state' (the state here presented much more as oppressive leviathan than as plausible source of moral unity in the way that I recall it as being) - the play itself is strong enough not to need such window dressing or an obvious slant in perspective.
Having said all of that, while I thought it was ultimately a failure, it was at least an interesting one, in which the outlines of the powerful source material could be clearly seen, and with elements of an arresting production: good set and sound design (not least the river of blood); some interesting - although inconsistent - choices in diction and tone of delivery of dialogue (I would have liked it if the whole had been more consistently either anti-naturalistic, or fluently based in the Sophoclean text - or indeed both); a strong performance from Jane Montgomery Griffiths (who also adapted the script) as Creon; and a turn from Emily Milledge (who I've liked previously - eg) in the central role that left me in two minds but was certainly vivid and well defined).
(w/ Laura F)
* * *
[*] When it comes to theatre, Shakespeare being an obvious exception.
[**] Having recently read this article at Sara's suggestion, I use the word advisedly.
... all of which goes some way to explaining why, while there were aspects of this production that I responded to and thought were strong, overall I found it frustrating. While I don't have any objection to contemporary stagings of classic works seeking contemporary resonance (including at the political level - and especially in the deeper sense of what is at stake in politics being the kind of society that we want to live in, as opposed to the shallow sound and fury that so frequently characterises party politics), the drawing of parallels to current debates and particularly the critique (however merited) of the nationalist and even incipiently fascist trends apparent in recent years in various governments globally was unnecessarily overt and repetitive, throwing me out of the inherent drama of what was transpiring between the characters amidst the ever-present (even in absence) 'ship of state' (the state here presented much more as oppressive leviathan than as plausible source of moral unity in the way that I recall it as being) - the play itself is strong enough not to need such window dressing or an obvious slant in perspective.
Having said all of that, while I thought it was ultimately a failure, it was at least an interesting one, in which the outlines of the powerful source material could be clearly seen, and with elements of an arresting production: good set and sound design (not least the river of blood); some interesting - although inconsistent - choices in diction and tone of delivery of dialogue (I would have liked it if the whole had been more consistently either anti-naturalistic, or fluently based in the Sophoclean text - or indeed both); a strong performance from Jane Montgomery Griffiths (who also adapted the script) as Creon; and a turn from Emily Milledge (who I've liked previously - eg) in the central role that left me in two minds but was certainly vivid and well defined).
(w/ Laura F)
* * *
[*] When it comes to theatre, Shakespeare being an obvious exception.
[**] Having recently read this article at Sara's suggestion, I use the word advisedly.
