Anna, a free-spirited 15-year-old in 1944, had a way with words. She would soon be dead.
Monday, October 05, 2015
Stage review: Pittsburgh Public Theater adds a moving chapter to Anne Frank's legacy
Anna, a free-spirited 15-year-old in 1944, had a way with words. She would soon be dead.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
This show has been done time and time again, and I believe that, really by principal, this play cannot flop. The story it too real and too well known, the characters to relatable and the design aspects are fairly set in stone. The article claims this show is a mobbing addition to the legacy of her life and death, more moving than the works that have already been done? When was the last time a critical eye was taken to a showing of Anne Frank? It’s been made a classic as young as the story is. Now I’m not saying don’t try to be cutting edge; but her story is one that was made to be told in a certain way. Each showing of it will affect the audience emotionally as each of its predecessors did. Continue to release and re-release the play, but do not claim to one-up the productions that have come before it, with the assertion that it’s moving to the legacy.
I was lucky enough to shadow the costume designer of the show, Suzanne Chesney, during some of her work during this show, and again I found myself struck by the complexity in such a seemingly simple play. I've seen a couple of productions of The Diary of Anne Frank, but this production strikes chords that did not see full life in others. The costumes, for a start, are all worn in the first scene as the family moves into the attic with all of their possessions on their backs. From there, we see these costumes in various combinations throughout the entire rest of the play. As seasons change and the girls grow, we see clothing passed down and altered, reinforcing the length of their captivity. These small moments take the story out of the reverence we would normally hold it in, and remind us that they were only human. They were only people struggling to survive, as all people do, albeit under extraordinary circumstances. There was a moment in the play that particularly struck me, which was when the eight in captivity were caught in a particularly petty and irksome quarrel, and must suddenly become silent because there is a group of men singing a drinking song on the street. This moment reminded me that they are not entirely removed by the horrors happening in the world. The Nazi regime is in full force on just the other side of a thin wall.
The best that this show does is remind us that these historical figures were human, scared and petty and happy just as people are. The "real" quality to their interactions and natures only makes it more heart breaking when the audience reminds us that this happy loving family is doomed.
In light of the recent acts of anti-antisemitism that are unfortunately becoming all too common, this production of ANNE FRANK truly resonates with our modern culture and the problems that we are still facing, despite World War II occurring over 70 years ago. The importance of hope in the face of destruction is a quality that thrives on, in all communities across the globe. What I find truly inspiring about this production is its partnership with Classrooms Without Borders, emphasizing the importance of this production and its themes which need to be preserved for generations to come, as a reminder of the horrors of the past while reminding us of the innate hope for redemption and innate goodness in our world. The fact that we are left to postulate about what would have happened if Anne did leave leaves us with the vital thought that in adolescence, the world is an oyster where the possibilities are endless, if only we had the chance to explore them.
I always get incredible excited to hear that Anne Frank is still being produced. It's a story that really needs to be told, and I think that the theatrical version does a fantastic job at fulfilling its purpose-making this young girls universal story heard. When we speak about the Holocaust, the conversation ALWAYS ends with some kind of recommendation on the need to remember the events that took place. Producing a theatrical version of Anne Frank does just that, it gives audiences time to remember and reflect or even be engaged in the education of the events that took place during the Holocaust. I'm glad that we have a theatrical version of Anne Frank in the first place, and it's success makes me hopeful that other tragedies will continue to be dramatized in a way that engages audiences so well. I'm also glad that this production in general gave glowing reviews! If the work is elevated to a higher quality, we can hope that it will it will continued to be produced and worked off of.
It seems that I'm the only one who doesn't like the Diary of Anne Frank. The book is beautifully written and Anne Frank had so many very critical, optimistic thoughts about life when there really wasn't any. But the issue I have with this story is that it has become the go-to story for the Holocaust. Anne Frank's diary was definitely as story that should be told because it attempts to show a lighter side of the dark times of Hitler's power. That being said, it has come to be the only story that has major prominence with regard to the Holocaust. I recently read a book about the holocaust told from the perspective of a jewish doctor in a death camp. The story was so real, I cried several times upon reading it. The people were so cruel, the institution was so rigid and terrifying. People were killed so quickly and so often. Those who weren't sent to be gassed were destroyed from the inside out through hard labor. That is the reality of the Holocaust, not Anne Frank's romanticized moments. Both these stories are important, but Anne Frank's story does not deserve to be constantly put on top of other stories that actually tell the reality of the Holocaust. This tragedy was not about hiding, this tragedy was about torture and death. It seems that so many people forget about that.
I often feel that plays and pieces like this that deal so directly with such challenging stories and content face their own set of difficulties when it comes to producing or executing them. A story like Anne Frank's is one that should be told, but not because everyone knows she died as a prisoner in a concentration camp. Though that fact certainly shapes her story, and our perception of her story, while simultaneously humanizing the millions of people who died in those camps, I do not believe that her story is about a life snuffed out by a horrible fate. Her diary, and the subsequent play, are about a life fully lived, despite the confines of her environment. People do not attempt unusual tellings of this story out of fear of disgracing her death. But with every production sharing so many similar, reliable features, opportunities to truly explore her splitting-at-the-seams kind of life are lost.
This article is a very big toss up. Part of me really loves the fact that Shakespeare continues be performed in the same language as when it was written. However, I am the kind of person that this old language always trips me up. I do not know what it is but I just get confused in something in it. If the language in the plays were modern I think I would definitely have a better understanding of what is going on. I would then be able to sit and watch the play and enjoy it without having to think too much about what I am watching on stage. That being said, I question if I would be watching the same play. Would they even be comparable? The language is such a big part of doing one of Shakespeare’s plays that taking it away would probably change everything. As you can see I am torn.
Post a Comment