Richard III - A Bollywood Musical
Wed, 5 Nov 2003, 10:57 amWalter Plinge1 post in thread
Richard III - A Bollywood Musical
Wed, 5 Nov 2003, 10:57 amLet me first declare that , while I have had nothing to do with this particular production, the cast and crew are made up of my fellow students and I am therefore slightly biased.
Having said that, I saw this show for the very first time at last night's preview and there are a number of words that come to mind. The first one is "dazzling". While simplicity is obviously the keynote for the design of this show, everything from the posters and postcards to the costumes to the set to the lighting has been meticulously crafted with a unity of vision which suggests it was all done by one person. It wasn't though - many hands were involved I know. Then there was the music - a blended mixture of acoustic and electronic keyboards providing a colourful sound backdrop to the superb singing and dance routines.
The second word that comes to mind is 'multicultural'. I don't mean that in the much-abused political sense but in the sense that many influences from across vastly differing ethnic backgrounds have been absorbed into this show with the result that it is bound to have broad cross-cultural appeal. This is not to suggest that the acting is not of a uniformly high standard, which it is.
The third word is "bardolatry", or the acknowledged admiration of all things Shakespearean. As a self-confessed bardolator, I do not think it is ever excessive, however there are varying degrees to which one pays homage to the great man and many purists might find this particular interpretation of the text somewhat disrespectful. The obvious response to this is that WS was basically a showman, writing for the audience of the day, measuring his own success by the number of bums he could put on seats (or the number of groundlings he could cram into the available space). From this view, I'm sure he would have been quite impressed with the overall appeal of the present effort.
Finally, while the play itself was supposedly written for the political benefit of QEI, it is quite true that the message is just as potent today as we see dictators, one after the other, climbing their way to power over the corpses of their erstwhile friends and families. Nor is it a third world phenomenon - it is happening globally as we live and breathe.
Well done, cast and crew and chookas for a successful run.
stinger@iinet.net.au
Having said that, I saw this show for the very first time at last night's preview and there are a number of words that come to mind. The first one is "dazzling". While simplicity is obviously the keynote for the design of this show, everything from the posters and postcards to the costumes to the set to the lighting has been meticulously crafted with a unity of vision which suggests it was all done by one person. It wasn't though - many hands were involved I know. Then there was the music - a blended mixture of acoustic and electronic keyboards providing a colourful sound backdrop to the superb singing and dance routines.
The second word that comes to mind is 'multicultural'. I don't mean that in the much-abused political sense but in the sense that many influences from across vastly differing ethnic backgrounds have been absorbed into this show with the result that it is bound to have broad cross-cultural appeal. This is not to suggest that the acting is not of a uniformly high standard, which it is.
The third word is "bardolatry", or the acknowledged admiration of all things Shakespearean. As a self-confessed bardolator, I do not think it is ever excessive, however there are varying degrees to which one pays homage to the great man and many purists might find this particular interpretation of the text somewhat disrespectful. The obvious response to this is that WS was basically a showman, writing for the audience of the day, measuring his own success by the number of bums he could put on seats (or the number of groundlings he could cram into the available space). From this view, I'm sure he would have been quite impressed with the overall appeal of the present effort.
Finally, while the play itself was supposedly written for the political benefit of QEI, it is quite true that the message is just as potent today as we see dictators, one after the other, climbing their way to power over the corpses of their erstwhile friends and families. Nor is it a third world phenomenon - it is happening globally as we live and breathe.
Well done, cast and crew and chookas for a successful run.
stinger@iinet.net.au
Walter PlingeWed, 5 Nov 2003, 10:57 am
Let me first declare that , while I have had nothing to do with this particular production, the cast and crew are made up of my fellow students and I am therefore slightly biased.
Having said that, I saw this show for the very first time at last night's preview and there are a number of words that come to mind. The first one is "dazzling". While simplicity is obviously the keynote for the design of this show, everything from the posters and postcards to the costumes to the set to the lighting has been meticulously crafted with a unity of vision which suggests it was all done by one person. It wasn't though - many hands were involved I know. Then there was the music - a blended mixture of acoustic and electronic keyboards providing a colourful sound backdrop to the superb singing and dance routines.
The second word that comes to mind is 'multicultural'. I don't mean that in the much-abused political sense but in the sense that many influences from across vastly differing ethnic backgrounds have been absorbed into this show with the result that it is bound to have broad cross-cultural appeal. This is not to suggest that the acting is not of a uniformly high standard, which it is.
The third word is "bardolatry", or the acknowledged admiration of all things Shakespearean. As a self-confessed bardolator, I do not think it is ever excessive, however there are varying degrees to which one pays homage to the great man and many purists might find this particular interpretation of the text somewhat disrespectful. The obvious response to this is that WS was basically a showman, writing for the audience of the day, measuring his own success by the number of bums he could put on seats (or the number of groundlings he could cram into the available space). From this view, I'm sure he would have been quite impressed with the overall appeal of the present effort.
Finally, while the play itself was supposedly written for the political benefit of QEI, it is quite true that the message is just as potent today as we see dictators, one after the other, climbing their way to power over the corpses of their erstwhile friends and families. Nor is it a third world phenomenon - it is happening globally as we live and breathe.
Well done, cast and crew and chookas for a successful run.
stinger@iinet.net.au
Having said that, I saw this show for the very first time at last night's preview and there are a number of words that come to mind. The first one is "dazzling". While simplicity is obviously the keynote for the design of this show, everything from the posters and postcards to the costumes to the set to the lighting has been meticulously crafted with a unity of vision which suggests it was all done by one person. It wasn't though - many hands were involved I know. Then there was the music - a blended mixture of acoustic and electronic keyboards providing a colourful sound backdrop to the superb singing and dance routines.
The second word that comes to mind is 'multicultural'. I don't mean that in the much-abused political sense but in the sense that many influences from across vastly differing ethnic backgrounds have been absorbed into this show with the result that it is bound to have broad cross-cultural appeal. This is not to suggest that the acting is not of a uniformly high standard, which it is.
The third word is "bardolatry", or the acknowledged admiration of all things Shakespearean. As a self-confessed bardolator, I do not think it is ever excessive, however there are varying degrees to which one pays homage to the great man and many purists might find this particular interpretation of the text somewhat disrespectful. The obvious response to this is that WS was basically a showman, writing for the audience of the day, measuring his own success by the number of bums he could put on seats (or the number of groundlings he could cram into the available space). From this view, I'm sure he would have been quite impressed with the overall appeal of the present effort.
Finally, while the play itself was supposedly written for the political benefit of QEI, it is quite true that the message is just as potent today as we see dictators, one after the other, climbing their way to power over the corpses of their erstwhile friends and families. Nor is it a third world phenomenon - it is happening globally as we live and breathe.
Well done, cast and crew and chookas for a successful run.
stinger@iinet.net.au