mouse_rants (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
mouse_rants) wrote2006-01-29 09:22 pm
mouse_rants) wrote2006-01-29 09:22 pm
well, _that_ was a waste of time
I wish I could remember exactly what my friend said yesterday, relating
Cirque du Soleil and mime in rather less than positive terms. Her
comment was inspired by the traffic jam we had both suffered through,
due to the appearance of one band of said Cirque at the Del Mar
Fairgrounds. It was followed by terms such as "mysticism",
"symbolism" and "pretentious".
This comes to mind because apparently Twyla Tharp has dreams of following in Cirque's steps, judging by the acrobats, contortionists and people portraying circus animals she put on stage at the Old Globe in the Tharp-Dylan Project, aka "The Times They are A-Changing" - aka the thing I just wasted my evening on.
For those of you not au courant with the theatre scene, this is a new "collaboration" between choreographer Twyla Tharp and songwriter Bob Dylan - although I strongly suspect Dylan had nothing more to do with it than permitting his songs to be used (at least, I hope he didn't). It is a musical play about the owner of a run-down circus, his son Coyote, and Cleo, the animal trainer they both love. It is the story of a young man's difficult relationship with his father and his transition into manhood and responsibility. I know this because I read the program notes. I never would have figured it out from what I saw on stage.
I can tell (also from the program notes) that it is highly symbolic and metaphorical, although I don't know of what. Take the characters - the names are laden with meaning...but why those names? Nothing in the songs used compels those, or (really) any names at all. (There is no dialogue; the play consists soley of Dylan's songs and Tharp's choreography.) Cleo does make one entrance rolled up in a rug...why, I have no idea. When I first read the program, I thought the circus owner's name was Captain Ahab; this I felt to some extent explained why he was limping around with a cast-like brace on one leg (for theatrical purposes only; it was taken off several times in the course of the evening). I was thus quite confused as to why, after he was (apparently) beaten to death by (what I later realized were) a band of farmhands, the stand-in dummy (which was kicked around to "Maggie's Farm") was prominantly labeled "ARAB". I managed to steal a look at the program, and discovered that his name was, in fact, Arab - which meant that the final scene, in which the cast (singing "Forever Young" while dressed in red and gold outfits resembling 18th-century naval uniforms) finished up in a boat labeled "Pequod", was even more incomprehensible than it otherwise would have been - unlikely as this may seem. (There was no suggestion of a white whale; it must have been present only metaphorically.)
I would say that it would have been better if Ms. Tharp had simply done an evening of her interpretations of Dylan's songs, rather then attempting to string them together into a story, except she appears to interpret them entirely based on surfical visual images, missing completely the deeper meanings within. "Desolation Row", for example, included an actual tightrope walker and a blind man, as well as a Cinderella-like maid sweeping up. What this had to do with the story was unclear. Even her attempts to fit songs into the story were unfortunate. For example, although "Blowing in the Wind" starts with the line "How many roads must a man walk down/Before you call him a man?", I would suggest that it is not really an examination of how a son achieves manhood in the eyes of his father - the role it is compelled to play here. And many of the song choices were just odd - why on earth would "Masters of War" appear in the middle of a circus performance? And I must complain about the interpretation again - the choreography appeared to symbolize the physical effort of battle, with no hint of the heads of the military-industrial complex the song so searingly indicts.
(Small digression - the play did remind me that a lot of Dylan's songs deserve a rehearing. The title number had me thinking about the political climate of the 60s, and the changes occurring then - which prompted the thought that the times appear to have changed back again. "Blowing in the Wind" and "Masters of War" have a new currency.)
Ms. Tharp, I think, would have done better commissioning new music for her story. (Dylan would have done better performing on an empty stage). There were intriguing features about it - why, for example, was the circus-owner beaten to death by the farmhands? His son appeared in that scene, embraced by his father, then pushed out of danger's way - after the relationship had been depicted as one of cruelty and control on the part of the father. What was the history of that relationship? What, exactly, was the father's relationship with Cleo? with the janitor who was also the subject of his abuse? Why was the dancing bear followed by a performing cow? So many questions, so little sense.
It did get a great deal of applause - it got, in fact, a standing ovation. I attribute this to the fact that the dancers were athletic and energetic, and the music was, after all, Bob Dylan (Tamborine Man got applause after two bars). But the play itself was a mish-mosh - a mystical story, told incomprehensibly in mime, set in a circus....and leaving a definite whiff of pretension.
I take solace in the knowledge that all of this will mean nothing to (hopefully) all of you. The play is intended for Broadway, undoubtedly for ticket prices that will put it out of consideration by sensible people; given the skill level required of the dancers, it is unlikely to appear elsewhere. In the event it does show up near you, please take my advice - buy a Dylan CD instead. One full of protest songs.
(On the plus side - it was only 90 minutes long, which means I got home in time to watch Deadwood. And I found a restaurant that give you the equivalent of three glasses of a quite decent red wine for $5.50.)
This comes to mind because apparently Twyla Tharp has dreams of following in Cirque's steps, judging by the acrobats, contortionists and people portraying circus animals she put on stage at the Old Globe in the Tharp-Dylan Project, aka "The Times They are A-Changing" - aka the thing I just wasted my evening on.
For those of you not au courant with the theatre scene, this is a new "collaboration" between choreographer Twyla Tharp and songwriter Bob Dylan - although I strongly suspect Dylan had nothing more to do with it than permitting his songs to be used (at least, I hope he didn't). It is a musical play about the owner of a run-down circus, his son Coyote, and Cleo, the animal trainer they both love. It is the story of a young man's difficult relationship with his father and his transition into manhood and responsibility. I know this because I read the program notes. I never would have figured it out from what I saw on stage.
I can tell (also from the program notes) that it is highly symbolic and metaphorical, although I don't know of what. Take the characters - the names are laden with meaning...but why those names? Nothing in the songs used compels those, or (really) any names at all. (There is no dialogue; the play consists soley of Dylan's songs and Tharp's choreography.) Cleo does make one entrance rolled up in a rug...why, I have no idea. When I first read the program, I thought the circus owner's name was Captain Ahab; this I felt to some extent explained why he was limping around with a cast-like brace on one leg (for theatrical purposes only; it was taken off several times in the course of the evening). I was thus quite confused as to why, after he was (apparently) beaten to death by (what I later realized were) a band of farmhands, the stand-in dummy (which was kicked around to "Maggie's Farm") was prominantly labeled "ARAB". I managed to steal a look at the program, and discovered that his name was, in fact, Arab - which meant that the final scene, in which the cast (singing "Forever Young" while dressed in red and gold outfits resembling 18th-century naval uniforms) finished up in a boat labeled "Pequod", was even more incomprehensible than it otherwise would have been - unlikely as this may seem. (There was no suggestion of a white whale; it must have been present only metaphorically.)
I would say that it would have been better if Ms. Tharp had simply done an evening of her interpretations of Dylan's songs, rather then attempting to string them together into a story, except she appears to interpret them entirely based on surfical visual images, missing completely the deeper meanings within. "Desolation Row", for example, included an actual tightrope walker and a blind man, as well as a Cinderella-like maid sweeping up. What this had to do with the story was unclear. Even her attempts to fit songs into the story were unfortunate. For example, although "Blowing in the Wind" starts with the line "How many roads must a man walk down/Before you call him a man?", I would suggest that it is not really an examination of how a son achieves manhood in the eyes of his father - the role it is compelled to play here. And many of the song choices were just odd - why on earth would "Masters of War" appear in the middle of a circus performance? And I must complain about the interpretation again - the choreography appeared to symbolize the physical effort of battle, with no hint of the heads of the military-industrial complex the song so searingly indicts.
(Small digression - the play did remind me that a lot of Dylan's songs deserve a rehearing. The title number had me thinking about the political climate of the 60s, and the changes occurring then - which prompted the thought that the times appear to have changed back again. "Blowing in the Wind" and "Masters of War" have a new currency.)
Ms. Tharp, I think, would have done better commissioning new music for her story. (Dylan would have done better performing on an empty stage). There were intriguing features about it - why, for example, was the circus-owner beaten to death by the farmhands? His son appeared in that scene, embraced by his father, then pushed out of danger's way - after the relationship had been depicted as one of cruelty and control on the part of the father. What was the history of that relationship? What, exactly, was the father's relationship with Cleo? with the janitor who was also the subject of his abuse? Why was the dancing bear followed by a performing cow? So many questions, so little sense.
It did get a great deal of applause - it got, in fact, a standing ovation. I attribute this to the fact that the dancers were athletic and energetic, and the music was, after all, Bob Dylan (Tamborine Man got applause after two bars). But the play itself was a mish-mosh - a mystical story, told incomprehensibly in mime, set in a circus....and leaving a definite whiff of pretension.
I take solace in the knowledge that all of this will mean nothing to (hopefully) all of you. The play is intended for Broadway, undoubtedly for ticket prices that will put it out of consideration by sensible people; given the skill level required of the dancers, it is unlikely to appear elsewhere. In the event it does show up near you, please take my advice - buy a Dylan CD instead. One full of protest songs.
(On the plus side - it was only 90 minutes long, which means I got home in time to watch Deadwood. And I found a restaurant that give you the equivalent of three glasses of a quite decent red wine for $5.50.)