Post by lynette on Dec 27, 2019 23:54:13 GMT
I had foolishly left my programme of this at home and unusually felt I needed to refer to it in the interval. I knew the ‘plot’ or premise of the play, the parallel lives of Gertrude Bell and Lamia Al-Gailani both of whom are associated with the museum but I was confused by not knowing the precise time line of events in Baghdad. But not to worry, the point is made in the play, again and again..and again to make sure we understand that the Iraqis have been ‘shafted’ by one and all, basically the British and then the Americans and then as it says in the play, the Iraqi state itself.
There is a play here. I left wishing it was the one the writer had set out to write, about Gertrude Bell rather than this one which she had decided to write having found out more and put stuff together. She gives us feminism, colonialism, exploitation, what to do with found stuff, war, a bit of a romance, the fate of female servants of ancient Mesopotamian royalty (not so good), unscrupulous archaeologists, the point of archeology, the problem of Iraq’s political instability..and it did it in Arabic and English.
The Arabic was pleasant to the ear but challenging, especially as they translated it as they went along with different characters saying both Arabic bits and then English bits and vice versa. Not all the time but as a kind of Chorus and points of time movement. It didn't come across clearly enough especially as most of the characters spoke with slight accents. I think they are Iraqi actors. A wave of words came at you in Arabic and English. Maybe this was intended, a kind of disorientation but if so, it failed to impress me and the people sitting next to me who complained in the interval that they couldn’t understand what was being said.
There is so much repetition in this play, of dialogue, actions and ‘business’ , again, making the point of the play as events happening again and again. But the play is toooooo loooong; it is two and a half hours plus an interval. It could be 50 mins, interval and then another 50 mins. Cleverly edited and reconstructed it would maintain or rather create the tension and punch it promises. And, if I am honest, it would be better as a studio production. The ins and outs were tedious- at one point the actor says to another ‘O are you here? ‘ as he comes in. Maybe mastering entrances and exits should be on Play Writing courses in the first week.
The acting was ok despite some clunky dialogue. We had an understudy on and funnily enough she was actually imo, the best at getting across to the audience. I think it was Sarah Agha from consulting my programme. She had a very good speech, representing the Iraqi people. The repetition in it served a good purpose and would probably have come across even better in a sharper, shorter text. And there were too many characters.
But we stayed to the end and it was for me a better evening than King John.
There is a play here. I left wishing it was the one the writer had set out to write, about Gertrude Bell rather than this one which she had decided to write having found out more and put stuff together. She gives us feminism, colonialism, exploitation, what to do with found stuff, war, a bit of a romance, the fate of female servants of ancient Mesopotamian royalty (not so good), unscrupulous archaeologists, the point of archeology, the problem of Iraq’s political instability..and it did it in Arabic and English.
The Arabic was pleasant to the ear but challenging, especially as they translated it as they went along with different characters saying both Arabic bits and then English bits and vice versa. Not all the time but as a kind of Chorus and points of time movement. It didn't come across clearly enough especially as most of the characters spoke with slight accents. I think they are Iraqi actors. A wave of words came at you in Arabic and English. Maybe this was intended, a kind of disorientation but if so, it failed to impress me and the people sitting next to me who complained in the interval that they couldn’t understand what was being said.
There is so much repetition in this play, of dialogue, actions and ‘business’ , again, making the point of the play as events happening again and again. But the play is toooooo loooong; it is two and a half hours plus an interval. It could be 50 mins, interval and then another 50 mins. Cleverly edited and reconstructed it would maintain or rather create the tension and punch it promises. And, if I am honest, it would be better as a studio production. The ins and outs were tedious- at one point the actor says to another ‘O are you here? ‘ as he comes in. Maybe mastering entrances and exits should be on Play Writing courses in the first week.
The acting was ok despite some clunky dialogue. We had an understudy on and funnily enough she was actually imo, the best at getting across to the audience. I think it was Sarah Agha from consulting my programme. She had a very good speech, representing the Iraqi people. The repetition in it served a good purpose and would probably have come across even better in a sharper, shorter text. And there were too many characters.
But we stayed to the end and it was for me a better evening than King John.
