This brave attempted adaptation of Franz Kakfa's classic infuriated and impressed in equal measure. It was too much and not enough. It tried, in some ways, to break with the site-specific conventions that companies such as Punchdrunk have settled into. On the other hand it demonstrated why those conventions have been developed.
The audience, having been herded around the cavernous C Venue complex, is led up the "secret" stair-case, with paint peeling and wires extruding from walls. The scene is set. A mime with white face takes each audience member by the hand, instructing those of us with glasses to remove them and we are led inside, blindfolded, moved to a particular place in a room (the size of which was impossible to gauge). Occasionally lights were pointed into our eyes. We could see through the blind fold to some extent - enough that we would not have walked into anything. This was the first thing that was not enough. While the semi-see-through blind fold allowed us to engage more in the movement of lights and figures, they also allowed us freedom to basically do what we wanted. Except when one did move to venture around the space, we were stopped, physically moved to another place and pointed a certain way. This was completely unnecessary and the constant attempts to make us look in a particular direction or stand in a particular place were very frustrating. How can you justify such a unified presentation when you have removed every hint of traditional staging? It's bringing the mind-set of the proscenium arch into an old warehouse - what's the point?
Now, before I go on I should recognise that when we are dealing with Kafka we are dealing with experiences that we cannot control, being moved for reasons we don't understand and being processed through systems that have no relevance to us; the experiential aspect of the show is dramaturgically sound and doesn't need justifying. But when dealing with experiences, it is hard not to separate the meaning of the experiences and what reaction they created in you - those reactions (generally involving animosity towards the ensemble) did not, I think, benefit the process of engaging with the performance. The difference between observing and being implicated by proximity, touch or action in a play is immense and at times exhilarating; other times it serves to frustrate and antagonise. I truly believe that audiences are intuitive and don't need to be guided - especially when there are lots of cushions around the walls.
The performances are very distinctive. The highly physicalised characterisation of everyone besides Josef K, provided a clear denotation of the function, status and drives of a given character. This stylistic choice works, although at times it does reduce what could be at least somewhat more complex representations. The ordering of the audience actually reduced the sight lines almost entirely half the time. At times there was a sense that the production did everything it could to stop you seeing clearly - fill the room with haze, shine lights in people's eyes and make sure there are twenty audience members between you and the action. If I was being cynical I would almost say it was to hide the occasional absence of interesting performance. At times I felt that there were just too many "one-workshop" ideas, that the performances had not developed in a way that allowed for more complexity.
What I would also add is that the commitment to the audience interaction was less than it could have been. At one point someone gripped my arm and so we remained for a minute or so. About 10 seconds in the grip was loosened and suddenly whatever connection we had was lost. Later, I witnessed a performed who, face-to-face with an audience member for some time, corpsed in a way that must have broken something that could have been an intimate moment.
However, there is much to say in the show's favour. The set pieces had some physical wonderment within them, which almost justified being shunted out of the way. The scenography was strong and provided a clear aesthetic. I would have appreciated being able to explore the space more to investigate some of the nooks and cranies - as, at times, they appeared slightly more interesting than what I couldn't see in front of me.
Anyway, this show is a probable sure-fire hit. It had much to say in its defence. It did, I feel, fail to score the experience for the audience to its advantage.
6 out of 10.
- James Grogan
The audience, having been herded around the cavernous C Venue complex, is led up the "secret" stair-case, with paint peeling and wires extruding from walls. The scene is set. A mime with white face takes each audience member by the hand, instructing those of us with glasses to remove them and we are led inside, blindfolded, moved to a particular place in a room (the size of which was impossible to gauge). Occasionally lights were pointed into our eyes. We could see through the blind fold to some extent - enough that we would not have walked into anything. This was the first thing that was not enough. While the semi-see-through blind fold allowed us to engage more in the movement of lights and figures, they also allowed us freedom to basically do what we wanted. Except when one did move to venture around the space, we were stopped, physically moved to another place and pointed a certain way. This was completely unnecessary and the constant attempts to make us look in a particular direction or stand in a particular place were very frustrating. How can you justify such a unified presentation when you have removed every hint of traditional staging? It's bringing the mind-set of the proscenium arch into an old warehouse - what's the point?
Now, before I go on I should recognise that when we are dealing with Kafka we are dealing with experiences that we cannot control, being moved for reasons we don't understand and being processed through systems that have no relevance to us; the experiential aspect of the show is dramaturgically sound and doesn't need justifying. But when dealing with experiences, it is hard not to separate the meaning of the experiences and what reaction they created in you - those reactions (generally involving animosity towards the ensemble) did not, I think, benefit the process of engaging with the performance. The difference between observing and being implicated by proximity, touch or action in a play is immense and at times exhilarating; other times it serves to frustrate and antagonise. I truly believe that audiences are intuitive and don't need to be guided - especially when there are lots of cushions around the walls.
The performances are very distinctive. The highly physicalised characterisation of everyone besides Josef K, provided a clear denotation of the function, status and drives of a given character. This stylistic choice works, although at times it does reduce what could be at least somewhat more complex representations. The ordering of the audience actually reduced the sight lines almost entirely half the time. At times there was a sense that the production did everything it could to stop you seeing clearly - fill the room with haze, shine lights in people's eyes and make sure there are twenty audience members between you and the action. If I was being cynical I would almost say it was to hide the occasional absence of interesting performance. At times I felt that there were just too many "one-workshop" ideas, that the performances had not developed in a way that allowed for more complexity.
What I would also add is that the commitment to the audience interaction was less than it could have been. At one point someone gripped my arm and so we remained for a minute or so. About 10 seconds in the grip was loosened and suddenly whatever connection we had was lost. Later, I witnessed a performed who, face-to-face with an audience member for some time, corpsed in a way that must have broken something that could have been an intimate moment.
However, there is much to say in the show's favour. The set pieces had some physical wonderment within them, which almost justified being shunted out of the way. The scenography was strong and provided a clear aesthetic. I would have appreciated being able to explore the space more to investigate some of the nooks and cranies - as, at times, they appeared slightly more interesting than what I couldn't see in front of me.
Anyway, this show is a probable sure-fire hit. It had much to say in its defence. It did, I feel, fail to score the experience for the audience to its advantage.
6 out of 10.
- James Grogan
watches to take part in the annual activities which cover Grande party ysl outletysl outlet , official occasion, tory burch flat sale tory burch flat sale business talks and etc. You have no necessity to vex that the Replica Cartier Watches on your wrists would be spotted by others. Hence, just indulge yourself into the pleasing purchasing of Replica Cartier Watches. Therefore, red shoes red shoes buy fake rolex buy fake rolex tea length wedding dresses tea length wedding dresses more options
fake zenith fake zenith replica longines replica longines early in the game evening dresses evening dresses , and predicting the tactics that will work is a guessing game, replica rolex but there are things you can do to be prepared when the paradigm shifts. Watch the leading competitors, like Target, to learn what they are doing and the success of their programs. Read blogs, twitter, and other social media to hear what consumers
care or consideration by most people today, as to how they dress. Casual dressing may be the worst thing that ever happened to Americamy how the complexion of society has changed over the last decade or so. You can't even get a good dose of people watching"any more , dresses for prom short because no one looks nice enough to rate attention with the