By Cal
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmvB4heou2c
Available until: Unknown
There are a lot of plays which just seem to be about people treating each other badly. It’s become especially common in modern times and it can be seen not just in plays but in films, TV programmes, books, any media that contains stories also contains nastiness.
It’s as though the writers think it’s the only way of making drama and far from making stories more interesting, it can actually make them quite dull if there’s nothing in them but a wish to hurt others.
At first glance, Miss Julie seems to fit into this category. There is a lot of hurt in this play. A lot of cruelty. A lot of apparently needless nastiness. But I think August Strindberg’s play, which has been adapted by producer and director David Meadows, is actually about a lot more than that. It’s not just trying to entertain us. It’s trying to tell us something about human beings.
This might not have been either the writer or the director’s intention, but one thing that stood out to me watching this is the way in which people try to exploit vulnerability. The most obvious example of this is when Miss Julie plays with servant John, trying to have fun at his expense and using her social status to assert her superiority.
Later, the tables are turned. Miss Julie might have all the status and breeding, but John has so much more idea of practical matters than the pampered Julie. He’s also a man and she isn’t. It shouldn’t matter now and it shouldn’t have mattered then either but the issue still exists for some people. They keep fighting for supremacy. Neither wants to give in to the other, yet they also seem unable to get away from each other.
A similar battle might also be shown, to an extent, between John and his fiancée Christine. Their relationship seems to be based on neither sex, nor social status. The impression I got is that Christine is the intelligent one and John accepts this and is inclined to do as he’s told. At least until Julie comes along. John and Julie have both been living a life which perhaps they didn’t choose and they both have an instinct to rebel.
Rebellion can be a positive thing. It can enable you to learn about the world and about yourself. But sometimes it doesn’t go well at all.
David Meadows’ production is difficult to watch at times because of the sheer level of viciousness, but it’s that sort of play. The script doesn’t really allow you to hold back and play nice. And the cast are excellent and completely believable. Alicia Berard and Alexis Danan first came to my notice when they performed in The Show Must Go Online before uniting in International Actors Ensemble’s Henry VI Part I.
Alicia is a manipulative and rather childlike Julie, powerful and vulnerable at the same time. Not the most likeable character but one who grabs your attention and, more surprisingly, your sympathy. There is a certain tragedy in Julie’s limited understanding of the world and her desire to lash out and seek attention. It makes you wonder what kind of upbringing she had and whether she has ever been loved.
Alexis’ John is quite likeable at first. He draws us into the story and by the time we start to wonder about him, we’re already hooked. He alternates between being kind and being cruel to Julie, confounding her at every turn, as she has done to him. It seems as though she drives him to it, but is this true? Or was this always in his plan?
Valentina Vinci, a regular for both IAE and Shake-Scene Theatre Company, has a smaller role as Christine, but she makes a strong impression with both her personality and her surprising lack of interest in what her apparent fiancé has been doing with the young mistress of the house. It’s an intriguing performance – Christine, unlike the other characters, seem to know which world she belongs in, but there’s a great strength in her character which makes you feel she could be up to something too.
A really fascinating play, performed with great
intensity.
No comments:
Post a Comment