Shakeapeare Wallah!

I don’t even know what to say about my experience watching this movie. I don’t mind it’s a black and white movie. To be honest, I don’t know why did Dr. Edwin wanted us to watch this movie. I try to see which play relates to this movie. Pygmalion-we’ve watched the movie, King Lear- I don’t think so, Anike or Antigone-Nope!, A Streetcar Named Desire- Absolutely not! So, why did we watch it? I guess it’s for experience. I was surprised and amazed at the same time when I found out that this is actually an Indian movie with a twist of Shakespeareans plays embedded here and there. Wow, how did they come up with the idea to do this? This movie is about a family who are theatre performers that performs only Shakespearen plays. They are always on the road as they move from one place to another to perform their plays. It also showed the trouble, problems and conflicts that they experienced in life and their work while from moving one place to another. However, I have problem understanding the plot of the movie. I feel confused and got lost sometimes. And the bad audio system made it worse because I can’t hear what the characters say. I was frustrated with the way the movie ended. It’s what I called the “That’s it!” type of ending. I feel like watching a movie and then somebody stopped it in the middle of me watching it. It’s an abrupt end. I wish the movie could go on a little bit more and show what happened to the hero of the movie or show us what happened to the heroin after she reached London. I guess the others feel the same hearing the groaning as the play ends. On the whole, I think Shakespeare Wallah is creative movie but it is too.. long that I feel really tired by the end of it.

King Lear-The End

Ok, I need a second to catch my breath!...phew…here’s the thing, we’ve finally finished reading King Lear…(clap..clap...) I’m sitting in front of the PC with a big grin on my face enjoying the moment while typing my experience reading this play. All in all, I think King Lear is a play that is filled with tragedy, cruelty, betrayal and injustice but at the same time it also portrays some act of love, honor, loyalty, humility and kindness. Even though this play is quite hard to understand because of the language, but I actually enjoyed reading it. Shakespeare really knows how to do his wri-“thing”! I was really impressed by the way he wrote this play. As the play develops, the plot just keeps on getting worse and it never fails to make me feel surprised and horrified by every twist he adds on. I really liked the scene where Gloucester was being blinded by the evil Cornwall. I totally didn’t see that coming. It was really brutal and graphic. Another twist that I liked in this play is the love triangle between Goneril, Edmund and Regan. I kind of find it funny. Here this 3 people still manage some time to commit adultery in the middle of the preparation of an upcoming war. Well, that is only an opinion. I was a bit disappointed with the way Lear died. I really thought that Lear would die of suicide or was murdered…something tragic, especially, after going through all the sufferings that could make any other sane man to commit suicide. But I guess, his is too busy being a mad man to think of ending his own life. Overall, like the ending of the play. Even though, it’s not too long but the information given is sufficient enough to tell us what will happened next and what will happened is going to be something good. In the end, the ‘order’ is restored back.

Anike-Finished!!!

So, I have finished reading the play ‘Anike’ and I think it is a good and well-written play. This play has more graphic depiction on certain things especially in the way how the writer wrote the dialogues that refers to Sirat’s rotting corpse. I have a tremendously ‘challenging’ time when I tried to imagine the images of these description. When compared with Antigone, I feel that Anike does not have the same level of intensity in terms of the feeling of sorrow that I had for the characters especially for Anike and Maniaka. I had difficullty in understanding the chorus’s line in Anike than in Antigone which I found to be ironic since it was written in modern English compared to the Antigone’s text that were translated to Old English. What I like most about Anike is how the Malay history Hang Tuah and Hang Jebat was creatively combine and integrated in this version of Antigone. I remember one question Dr. Edwin asked us before we started to read the play; he asked us if Anike is a version Sophocles’s Antigone?. He also asked us how Wong Phui Nam made Anike a play in its own right. In my opinion, he made this play in its own right by adding in the local elements (the Hang Tuah & Hang Jebat story) and changing some detail of the stor here and there for example when Nadim didn’t get to touch Anike before he dies. In overall, I think this Anike is as good as Antigone but I liked Antigone more because I enjoyed reading Antigone more.

Here comes "Anike"!

When I heard the name of this play that we are going to study next in our Drama class, I thought that ‘Anike’ is a Greek novel. I didn’t bother to find out about it in the net. I wanted it to be a surprise. True enough, I AM surprise when I found out that it’s actually written by a local writer, ‘Wong Phui Nam”. I’m impressed when Dr. Edwin told us that this play is actually the localized version of the Greek play ‘Antigone’ by Sophocles. Wow, I never think of it! The writer of this play is indeed a creative person. Salute to you Mr.Wong! I have read a few pages of the play and so far…I liked it. Haven’t had any problems yet in understanding the play, and hopefully it stays that way. I thought that the choice of the name for characters is unique and striking as well. It goes well the personality of the characters. Well, that’s all I can comment about the play so far as I have only read so little. To be continued…

Watching "4.48 Psychosis"

On 16th September 2007, I had the opportunity to watch a play at the KLPac. The title of then play is “4.48 Psychosis” which was directed by Gavin Yap a young and talented actor/director. I was really excited and am looking forward to watch this play as that was my first time going to watch a play. The play was written by Sarah Kane who was a British play writer who commits suicide by hanging herself in the hospital where she was treated for severe depression. So, it was no surprised that this play is about a woman who suffered from mental anguish and psychological distress, a condition that relates closely to the playwright herself. To describe my experience watching the play, to start with, the stage doesn’t look like the typical theatre stage, like how I imagine it, with high stage located in front of the hall facing the audience. It’s rather a unique stage where it was located in the middle of the hall to which audiences sat around to. The play consists of three characters that is the woman, the patient and the doctor which were acted by Susan Lancaster, Samantha Schubert and Malik Taufiq. Before the play started, I read the synopsis of the play and it helped me a lot in understanding the play. But I kind of regretted of doing it because my understanding of the play has been set from reading the synopsis and it didn’t allow me to have my own interpretation. Even though I read the play’s synopsis before hand, I still have problems trying to figure out the meaning of some of the dialogues and monologues. I was really impressed with the actors’ acting. It was superb! Their acting was so real and honest. I was blown away by the way they project their voice. Their voice is so loud (but they’re not shouting) and clear it filled the hall and it sounds as if they’re using microphones. The use of a lot of lighting plays an important role in this play as it helps to create the intense atmosphere and it also helps audience to experience the emotion turmoil in the characters. When the play was over, I feel depressed and uneasy. The play did affect me a little. All in all, I think this play is too intense and too deep for first timers but regardless I enjoyed my first experience watching a play and are looking forward to watch another play.

King Lear, here we come!

In our Drama class on the 10th September 2007, we started to discuss a new play titled King Lear. When I saw the book for the first time I went, ‘GULP!’… Could this book be any thicker? Then I thought, this is what Dr.Jaya called a ‘high-anxiety’ text. Then I opened the book and try to read the first page of the book. My reaction… ‘DOUBLE GULP!’. Boy, aren’t we going to have a great time studying King Lear. Let’s start with the language….I have 3 words of what I think of the language. Archaic, difficult, and ‘serious need of translation’. Thank goodness, as if understanding our need, the book comes with a translation notes for each page pf the play. Like what Dr. Edwin said, this book is indeed “Shakespeare for Dummies”. I had a great laugh every time I remember that line. Today, we read the play until Act 1 Scene 3. Based on what we have read so far, I found that it wasn’t as bad as what I think. I can ‘handle’ this book. I’m not saying that this is going to be an ‘easy ride’. Yes, the language is difficult to understand but with the provided notes and Dr. Edwin’s explanation, I think we will be fine. That is if one can stay alert the whole period of class. I read the synopsis of the story and I like it. I'm looking forward to finish reading this play and do the analysis.

Comparison between Pygmalion-Shaw & Pygmalion-Ovid's Metamorphoses

It has been a while since I posted my last blog. I have pages of blogs that I have written in my journal and are just waiting to be posted. It’s been a very bussyyy week. At last, I manage to squeeze some time to post a blog today. I’m going to write my blog based on what we have been assigned to write about. So, don’t be surprised if you found the topic of my blog is so-4,5 weeks ago. They’re a little bit outdated,so what? The important thing is the intention of still wanting to write about it, right? (it’s a rhetorical question, by the way). I’d better get started before I rambling more nonsense things.
After we have finished discussing Pygmalion, Dr. Edwin told us to compare this play with the story of Pygmalion from the Greek Mythology. I found that in terms of similarities, both Pygmalion and Prof. Higgins have the same view of women and as a result they vowed not to be married. Both of them are confirmed bachelor. Pygmalion does not want to be married because he despised so many qualities in women that he could not bear the idea of marriage and as for Prof. Higgins, he thinks that ‘women upset everything’. He said “When you le them into your life, you find that woman is driving at one thing and you driving at another”. The second similarity is that both of them are involved with ‘creating something’. Prof. Higgins transforms a cockney speaking flower girl from the gutter to become a well-spoken and poised duchess of the high society. As for Pygmalion, his creation comes in the form of a sculptor of a woman that he sculpted from an ivory and which he called Galatea (means sleeping love). The difference between these two versions of story can be seen in the way both man treats their ‘creations’. Pygmalion admired his work and fell in love with it. He treats the sculpture as if it is a real woman by clothing her, buying her presents, bringing her birds and buying her flowers of all colours. He even prays to Aprodhite to give him a wife that looks like Galatea which he will later found out was granted to him. This is in contrast with Prof. Higgins treatment to his creation, Eliza. He likes to bully her and made heartless insults to her. He also likes to make fun of her never treats her with respect. Another difference that I notice in both stories is that, in the end Pygmalion get married to Galatea and lived happily ever after while Prof. Higgins remained as a bachelor but he started to admire her new character, an independent and defiance woman.