We all get trapped into commitments, sometimes unwanted. I feel at the moment caught in a similar trap. My own doings, agreed, but I believe that by committing myself to it I have appeased some faint guilt lurching within, vague and unnameable. Guilt for not being up to a colleague's striving; of being, however inadvertently, some sort of an impediment in her progress.
The person I am referring to is a theater woman, a director; a person who has taught me quite a few things about theater and acting.
I feel, however, that feeling guilty is uncalled for. I am clear about my strengths and I am clear about my own line of development as far as theater goes. I was clear enough right from the word go that I wanted to operate from within a fence. Yet sometimes circumstances force you to stretch a little to help someone in need beyond that fence, and it is perfectly human to 'go out of your way' and break the ruling confines in order to help. This breaking of rule I had not done, but that was not out of any spiteful ill-will but because of my inability to take on more at that point in time.
My reference here is to another production of a play a couple of years back which took nine unnecessary months to put up.
There may be room for a debate to justify those long nine months I call unnecessary. I am aware that it is not justifiable prolongation, our shortcomings granted. The play was a huge challenge! First, it was Shakespeare. Second, we were adapting - adapting Shakespeare in itself is a task. Getting a 'Hamlet' to do justice to the character in the play, acceptably the most complex in English drama, was difficult. Adaption demands a certain modification. 'Modifying' the 'locale' to our needs meant that we had to change quite a number of 'pockets' in the text, and sometimes characters, and slash and slash and slash to make a five hour-high drama into a two hour play! It was quite like cutting a beautiful suit to make an apparel suitable for a dorm-party.
All that may justify some delay, yet nine months is a bit too much by any standard. My reasoning then was that the director should have taken stock of our strengths and weaknesses before asking for rehearsal schedules. I wasn't wrong in reasoning so, but I was rather unrelenting and non co-operative. Hence the guilt.
So when I was asked to work on this play about the Russian revolution (!), I said yes.
If playing Lenin is any incentive, then bob's your uncle? (Is it right to use that expression here? )
Yesterday we did a bit of work on Lenin-Krupskaya dynamics. It was alright as beginnings often are, but the fact is that WE STILL NEED ACTORS! It has happened in the past, many times over, but we don't seem to have learned anything.
This is not even about good actors and bad ones - the capacities and incapacity of individuals, their professionalism etc. will surface later on and we will face them when they do.
There may be others who may want to walk out because of valid reasons.
One thing however is clear to me. If this play stretches beyond reasonableness, I shall bail out. My director Will have to look for an understudy to save further delay that might ensue post my walk out.
But that is not my problem; it is hers.
One thing more: as amateurs we are supposed to be doing it for the love of it. As amateurs, we often have to let go, compromise, patch up and present something to our audience that they may enjoy along with us. We, the actors, can hope to make a play enjoyable only if we enjoy it ourselves. When things become burdensome they are no longer enjoyable. I am certain that I do not want to do something that I may not enjoy doing.
This play, 'Revolutionaries' is a burdensome theme in the sense that it is a slow drag. I do not care a button about a totalitarian regime, particularly a failed regime. Russian experiment failed. As a nation she has moved on. I do not want to be stuck with the analysis of what went wrong about something that I do not care about in the first place.
One thing more: as amateurs we are supposed to be doing it for the love of it. As amateurs, we often have to let go, compromise, patch up and present something to our audience that they may enjoy along with us. We, the actors, can hope to make a play enjoyable only if we enjoy it ourselves. When things become burdensome they are no longer enjoyable. I am certain that I do not want to do something that I may not enjoy doing.
This play, 'Revolutionaries' is a burdensome theme in the sense that it is a slow drag. I do not care a button about a totalitarian regime, particularly a failed regime. Russian experiment failed. As a nation she has moved on. I do not want to be stuck with the analysis of what went wrong about something that I do not care about in the first place.
Why then am I doing it? Why am I committing to something I know is unwanted?
I shall know before long whether we will pull this one off or not; when it does I shall pull out of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment