SFGate: One character tends to bleed into another in the five plays that make up Cutting Ball Theater's "Strindberg Cycle." That's partly by design. For the little theater's hugely ambitious project - staging all of August Strindberg's late chamber plays in repertory (the first time it's ever been done) - director Rob Melrose has cast the same actors in similar roles wherever he can.
3 comments:
Review isn't much a review of the festival but it does raise an interesting point that I agree with but have never given much thought to:
"The tactic works to underscore Strindberg's recurring themes. But it also exposes the limitations of his dramaturgy - and why the seminal Swedish playwright has long been more honored in America by citations of his influence than by actual productions."
You usually hear Strindberg's name in tandem with other playwrights who helped bring modernism to the stage. "Strindberg, Ibsen, and Shaw etc. etc," is how the quote usually goes. History doesn't remember Strindberg's plays but his influence - I can't think of a production of Strindberg that I've actually enjoyed but I understand that Strindberg is a good playwright? Why is that?
History of theater is taught with a Darwinistic thread - scholars are always referencing a style or period in history based on what lead up to and what came after it. Or in the case of contemporary drawing, using the past to pose queustions about future forms of drama. Strindberg falls into this evolutionary timeline. For a theater company to want to expose a playwright's limitations is counter-intuitive. I'd imagine you are staging these plays to illustrate the genius of Strindberg not show the audience how tired - though universal - his plays are thematically. Perhaps this falls on the theater company, these might be bad productions or maybe history has been giving Strindberg the benefit of the doubt for too long.
I've always thought it kind of funny that Strindberg is seen as one of the fathers of "naturalism," and playwrites, as Matt mentions, from Shaw to Tennessee Williams claim him as an influence. Naturalism as a dramatic theory concerns itself with representing as closely as possible real life on stage, such that the audience may have the perspective as the proverbial fly on the wall. The fly in the ointment, it seems to me, where Strindberg is concerned, is that his plays, and especially his female characters, bear little resemblance to anything this side of the fourth wall. I'm not sure if Mr. Strindberg ever came out and said publicly, "I am not a fan of women!" But he may as well have. Just perusing the parade of matriarchs presiding over the repertory of plays discussed in this revue, we are confronted with a "judgmental young mother," a "new widow who is trying to steal [her kids] inheritance," and the dubious heroine of "The Storm," who connives to have her husband committed so she may raise their child beyond his influence. If Strindberg were a contemporary writer, one can imagine his reviewers wondering if the good doctor might not have "mommy issues." As it is, we are nearly forced to, as Matt points out, lend weight to this particular canon for no better reason, it seems, than his influence on writers who we actually respect and admire. Personally, I don't find much to admire in the selfishly demented women, the whining emasculated men, nor the long-winded, decidedly UN-naturalistic speeches of victimization, pessimism and hopelessness that, for me, characterize Strindberg's work.
As both Matt and Andrew have stated before me, Strindberg is often cited as an influence, however it would appear that his own work is rarely produced. (And from what I gather from this article, that's for good reason.) How interesting it is that a playwright (who isn't often performed and whose work isn't considered to be particularly outstanding) can still be considered such an important influence.
I wonder what other notable artists (playwrights and others alike) have been influenced by others that are now considered to be less interesting that they are. Do we owe to these less successful artists as much appreciation as we give to those we consider to be very successful? Those that were inspired/influenced by them certainly did.
Post a Comment