The Chicago Shakespeare Theater presents a series call World Stage in which they present some of the best international theater. This series is incredibly important to Chicago because it provides us an opportunity to see incredibly high quality and innovative work. To give you a sense of the range, last year I saw an all male production of "Twelfth Knight" in Russian that was the best production of Shakespeare I've ever seen and a musical about apartheid by a South African company. Tonight, I saw a more straightforward production of George Bernard Shaw's "Saint Joan."
This play is a bit of an outlier in the series, I'd say, in that the production isn't as innovative as is typical. However, it makes some sense to include, largely because this is a difficult play by a great playwright and one rarely gets to see a good production of it. As someone with an amateur interest in theater history, I was thrilled to have an opportunity to see this production. Most of the attention surrounding the production, though, say the importance of this production is that it deals with themes that are relevant to our times. They speak of Shaw as prescient, as if he anticipated the issues of our times. If that is so, I'm actually less interested.
This is a philosophical play and a fascinating one at that. It's concerned with the relationship among nationalism, the church, and the individual. Or rather, it examines tension as it related to the authority of the state, the church, and the individual. St. Joan believes that she's making war, against England but maybe also among the noblemen of France, in the name of God. God speaks to her through the saints. Eventually, the church, which is to say the leaders of the Catholic church, come to believe that she is a heretic because she believes God speaks to her directly, rather than through the church, which is to say the leaders of the Catholic church. The English hate her because she's defeating them but the more philosophical British seem to hate her because she believes that a king should hold the highest place in a country and not just be a leader. This means that all land would ultimately belong to the king, and not to the lords and noblemen, and this is a threat. Eventually, everyone wants her dead or silenced for their own reasons.
As a philosophical play, this is interesting. As a sign of the times, I find it less interesting, or rather, less satisfying. That argument goes something like this: Joan believes that God speaks directly to her and not through the church. Once this thought catches on, we have folks born of the Middle East listening to their own private Gods and blowing themselves and others up. A similar argument could be made about people in America. For me, that's a less interesting way to look at the play simply because it's then actually less relevant. I believe that arguments should be addressed to the audience. If a play is going to make an argument that will complicate my world view, I want it to complicate MY world view more so than help me make sense of the world view of others. The latter is certainly important but it can also seem a bit too easy.
A quick note on the production. The production design was beautiful. Expensive, glittery sets prevail today but they are rarely as poetic as this set. The acting was "acting." I was always aware that the people on stage were actors in a play. This kind of stylized acting is commonplace and, as in the case of Tara Rosling in this production, it can still very moving. When such stylization doesn't contribute to the theme of the play, though, I tend to find it annoying. And I also felt some of that here.
No comments:
Post a Comment