© theotherpress e Culture

Which Variation is Which?

Theatre

The Crucible

The Douglas College Departments of Theatre & Stagecraft present

Variations 2 Directed by Conrad Alexandrowicz. Produced by The Departments of Theatre and Stagecraft.

s

Salem - 1692

LAPD - 1952

Brett Lemay OP Contributor

“SNORE!” Is what I heard coming out of the main stage theatre on Tuesday evening when I attended the Theatre and Stagecraft Department's performance of The Crucible Variations, directed by Conrad Alexandrowicz.

The Crucible Variations is a com- bination of many small scenes based around the same theme—almost like a collective. The production used a cast of 14 to play different parts, many of which switch-off. The majority of the subject matter came from Arthur Millar's famous play The Crucible; about the Salem witch trials of 1692—a witch-hunt that resulted in 19 people being hanged as witches. This witch-hunt all started with the “bizarre” behay- iour of two young girls: the daugh- ter, Betty, and the niece, Abigail Williams, of the Salem Village min- ister, Reverend Samuel Parris. The girls were accused of being in associ- ation with the devil and, in defence, the girls then started to accuse other people of being witches. This turned

into a big hysterical event, which led —

to the hanging of those 19 individu- als.

Not only was this subject a con- troversy in itself, but Miller had big- ger intentions that were woven into the script—The Crucible is really about the hunt for the “witches” known as communists in the US in the late 50s and 60s, and was pur- posely staged at the height of the anti-communist hysteria. This was controversial, and Miller's work was brought by the Congress to the House Un-American Activities Committee for review. Many other well-known individuals in the enter- tainment business testified in the committee hearings, and this result- ed in many destroyed careers. Highlights of these hearings were included in The Crucible Variations. The material was written by the stu- dents themselves, and edited by Alexandrowicz. Basically, they took parts of Miller's play and wove them together with original text, political

ae Page 14

information on Miller and the com- mittee, and also excerpts from Eric Bentley's play Are You Now or Have You Ever Been. They even had skits where they portrayed Arthur Miller himself being interviewed on a talk show. Alexandrowicz says that The Crucible Variations is about “suspi- cion, jealousy, accusation, the con- formity to social rule and the rebel- lion against it.” This is a lot to com- ment on. It was too much.

Was the play really that bad? No. Was it spectacular? No. Was it inter- esting, but slightly under polished, too long, and on a historical and political subject that many are unfa- miliar with? Yes, and this was exact- ly what I expected, but I was hoping that they would surprise me. However, the nature of the piece is something different than that of tra- ditional theatre, and we need to con- sider its intent: but even when I did such, I still was bored half the time. There were moments I loved; but then moments I hated. Basically, this play left me with mixed feelings.

I came to the conclusion that what I liked was the interesting sub- ject matter that left me thinking. However, most of my interest came with the further readings I did after I saw the play. The problem is that there are just some things that don’t come across exciting on stage, and this play was definitely no Zastrozzi (though it’s not really fair to com- pare these two because they are so different). I absolutely disliked the majority of the Un-American Activities Committee whether or not it was original mate- rial or Bentley's, I don’t care. It was boring. Also, The modern day scenes that made use of dialogue from The Crucible didn't always seem to work—when people from the year 2004 suddenly start speak- ing in language straight out of 1692, and then stop to swear at their ‘sig- nificant other’ with the “F” word repeatedly, it seems strange. That would be like Hamlet saying “To be, or not to fucking be!” It doesn’t work. In fact, the amount of curse words in this show was unnecessary. The other problem is that not many

scenes—

http://www.otherpress.ca

people are familiar with the Salem witch-hunt or the activities of the USA in the 50s or 60s. Nor do they know, or care, what the House Un- American Activities Committee is. You shouldn't have to do hours of research to understand a play, and this is not something that the aver- age college student is interested in. I also overheard many audience mem- bers confused about the switching of cast members to play different parts, which was the most minor key to receiving this piece. I, being some- one fairly familiar with The Crucible, and being one who understood clearly the idea that the cast was playing multiple roles, still wasn’t overly satisfied. I knew what it was about and the idea of it struck inter- est, but it wasn’t always theatrically

e

the stylized, slow-motion “stoning” of John Proctor was visually stimu- lating, the court scene that was almost completely taken right from The Crucible was well done and cap- tivating, and the “log scene” (“Which Witch is Which?”) where three people accused each other of being witches after strapping on paper “witch-noses” to each other's faces, was very funny and satirical. Also, the production had a lot of substance, and there were many strong images such as the mosaics they set up with people in the back- ground, and the effects of the smoke. I really liked the use of the choral-style speech, which was fun. Then there was the ending, where each actor said his or her real name. This was powerful—the idea of

There are many different types of theatre, and this was indeed a unique one that gave the actors a wonderful learning opportunity

pleasing like a good story would be. Basically, it’s an interesting idea not presented as well as it could be. I wanted them to stop and just start playing The Crucible, and forget the variations!

The amount of work that goes into this type of show is enormous, and I appreciate it, but due to the extra time it takes to pull it off, you lose quality to originality. The actors themselves told me that they didn’t have time to fully develop charac- ters, got their scripts really late in the game, and were still learning about their roles as they went along with the production. You need really strong actors to pull this off.

However, I must say that there were many positive aspects of this presentation. First, there were some scenes that were very entertaining:

“take my soul, but leave me my name” as I overheard one audience member say, was presented with this. So there was definitely some- thing there, it just wasn’t presented in a way that held my attention the whole time. I found it interesting that part of the dialogue in this play mentions that The Crucible has a clear beginning, middle and end, and yet The Crucible Variations does not. This is why The Crucible has been a popular piece of work for quite some time, and Alexandrowicz was inspired by it in the first place. Maybe he should take notes.

Again, I enjoyed the technical aspects of the show. The lighting and music added a lot to the piece and was stimulating to the senses. As simple as it was, the gobo used to produce bars of light on the stage

March 24, 2004

NWPD - 2004

Directed by Conrad Alexandrowicz

°

floor were really visually pleasing. There were also huge beams sus- pended from the ceiling that moved up and down and side to side,between scenes. Some crew members said that they used these beams to define the space of the bare stage in a neutral way. The “bare” stage was on purpose, as Alexandrowicz was going for a sim- plistic, architectural “Shaker” style. The staging and technical direction was also good, as they utilized the stage well.

The acting in general was okay, and some performances I found to be quite good. One individual that stood out to me was newcomer Jessica Willan who portrayed a wide range of characters and seemed to nail her scenes. I also enjoyed Matt Zustovic, the fan of chocolate-milk and drag. However, what should be given the most attention is the out- standing ensemble work that this group of actors accomplished. Everyone worked together, played off of each other, and Alexandrowicz used all the actors in a variety of ways. This was great. I can tell that everybody put in a lot of effort for this production. During the talk- back, the actors were very knowl- edgeable about the work, and very passionate when speaking about it. This is what lacked from the Zastrozzi group, which may be con- sidered more of a ‘well-directed group of puppets’, whose technical acting skills and ability to take direc- tion resulted in a spectacular show. The Crucible Variations ensemble was given more freedom to explore, and definitely put their hearts and souls into their work. There are many different types of theatre, and this was indeed a unique one that gave the actors a wonderful learning opportunity.

This production had good the- atrical devices, images and ideas, but just tried to accomplish too much at once. However, I commend every- body for being brave, pushing their limits, and attempting something different and unique.