small planets

Commentaries on London theatre by Dartmouth students, Summer 2018

Author: Will Maresco

East Wall: Why didn’t they storm the tower?

East Wall: Storm the Tower, a site-specific work at the Tower of London, has been in the works for approximately four years. The piece was organized, curated, and ultimately directed by Hofesh Shechter. Shechter teamed up with the East London Dance Company to organize East Wall, and worked to find choreographers to collaborate with on the project. The final work was choreographed by three choreographers: Becky Namgauds, Duwane Taylor, James Finnemore and Joseph Toonga.
East Wall had many successes, including giving an amazing voice to four relatively new choreographers, exploring the use of live music for dance, and incorporating professional and amateur dancers alike into the production. Unfortunately, it failed to fully realize its sub-title of “Storm the Tower.” The piece was originally billed as being set inside the tower proper; even the trailer has dancers running through the tower grounds and interacting with (or purposefully ignoring) the beefeaters. The final product, however, was relegated to the tower’s moat, with only two direct points of contact to the tower itself. The first was the use of up-lighting on the tower wall directly behind the stage, and the second was when the percussion section from The Band of the Irish Guard appeared on the walls above the stage. Regretfully, neither of these interactions proved very successful and left the tower seeming quite un-stormed.

The up lighting was simply not a good use of the wall, both on artistic and technical level. Technically, the units appeared underpowered, and the sun was also too bright. They provided a nice texturing of the wall when they were close to an incandescent “no-color” hue, but when they changed to a more saturated color, they became a weak line of hazy coloring. The beam pattern of individual lamps also became visible, neither of which felt like they achieved the highest potential of visual impact. These strips of color also clashed with the beautiful simplicity of an all black stage lined with booms of sidelight, which showcased the power of the dancers and costumes. The wall of the tower absolutely should have been lit in order to pull it into the world of the show, but it should have been done with something closer to no-color lights, to really allow it to be in visual conversation with the rest of the piece.

The second, more upsetting, failed storming of the tower came when the Irish Guard percussion section appeared high above the stage on the walls of the tower. Prior to this, the performance had not directly interacted with the tower itself. Obviously, I would have preferred a bit more interaction on the whole (it would have been AMAZING to set this truly inside the walls) but installation and site specific work is full of trade offs. Setting the piece in the moat offered numerous benefits, including vast stage space, lots of pre-existing seating on the terraced walkway, plenty of space for additional constructed seating and food stands. It allowed for an impressive number of great sight lines and quality audio coverage, not something to be taken for granted at site specific work. It also boasted a great view of the tower for the backdrop. The moat also carries all the clout of the Tower of London and the Historic Royal Palaces organization. The setting thus signaled their acceptance and approval of this project, an important and easily overlooked statement. I was thus happy to accept the rule that the show would occur in the moat. All that changed when the Irish Guard appeared on the walls. Suddenly the Tower was in the picture, and the dancers were not being allowed in. The only people who were allowed to be on the tower proper were the people who had always been allowed there: the British army. This image seems to be in direct conflict with the published message of East Wall, where the idea was to give voice and agency to groups often excluded from classic London narratives. While the ability to have anybody on the tower wall was interesting and exciting, it is important to ensure every stage picture contributes to the intended impact of the piece, which this moment failed to do.

East Wall: Storm the Tower Trailer – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOHoDCeBDjQ

East Wall Warmup (The 2016 piece organized as a trial and proof of concept) – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_SwssfmpAY

East Wall: Journey to the Tower (Start of a video series detailing the process of making East Wall) – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qajES5djgo

Journal Entry #12

I am keeping a journal of all the plays I see this term, in part to have a moment to reflect on and respond to the works I see, and also to simply remember what all the shows were and what they looked, sounded, and felt like. In writing my entry for Miss Littlewood, I found myself running out of room on the page, and discovering new complexities about my feelings on the piece. In an effort to flesh-out and organize these thoughts, I decided to re-write my entry, while hopefully staying true to my original thoughts. The sections in italics are taken from my original writing, immediately after the show.

Miss Littlewood – Swan Theater (Royal Shakespeare Company) – July 4

Miss Littlewood, in its inception is a profoundly important musical dedicated to the life of one of England’s most important theater makers in recent history. A musical (or play) in her honor should be an important and female-empowering work of art, just like her life. Unfortunately, while the original concept of this musical was undoubtedly interesting and important, the final result didn’t just miss the mark, it hit an entirely different target. That target, arguably, was a musical devoted to exploring Joan’s memories of Gerry Raffles. Having a “present day” Joan “directing” the show almost seemed to imply that Joan had created the show we were watching. Accepting this theatrical device, one would expect to see a show about the life and soul Joan poured into her work. Instead, we saw a show all about Gerry, as the actual writer, Sam Kenyon, seems to have decided Gerry was the most important thing not only in Joan’s life, but in her legacy as well. Unfortunately, I have never seen a show more clearly and yet surprisingly written by a man. It was written in 2016 by Kenyon, making the show a problematic over-simplification of the life of a hugely important theater maker.

Kenyon didn’t just simplify, he also chose to focus on the love interests of Joan, instead of her work in the theater. Obviously, when writing a 2.5 hour show about the life of a person, one will inevitably need to pick a focus, but it is regrettable than Kenyon chose to focus on the least unique facet of Joan: the fact that she fell in love. Kenyon even goes so far as to have his Joan say, “He’s the only reason any of you showed up.” Which is not only objectively incorrect but also rather confusing. Gerry Raffles was far less of a public figure than Joan; he was a producer and behind-the-scenes kind of person and therefore, “Mr. Raffles the Musical!” would likely not fill the house. It might make sense for Gerry to be the only reason Joan shows up, but it diminishes her life and legacy for her to imply that Gerry is the only reason we (the audience) showed up as well. Similarly, there were multiple times when Joan’s major productions were more or less flipped through with quick projections, almost as if Kenyon was just speeding through time until the next moment Gerry showed up, yet again diminishing the life and work of his subject. Somehow, the musical ABOUT a revolutionary female theater maker (I originally wrote playwright, that’s how little this show taught me about Joan) was literally about a man. The show certainly had some positive attributes, one of the most obvious being the casting of eight women to play Joan. There is undoubtedly a benefit to creating eight strong female roles, and thereby forcing a stage picture which features so many women, almost the opposite of the effect in Fatherland, however, this does not make up for the problematic content these characters deliver.

With all these rather obvious oversights, the musical simply seems unfinished. If I were in the workshops with Sam Kenyon, I would have said “Sam. This musical is about Gerry.” I hope, he would be upset and want to change it; yet it seems like the show has gone through quite a few workshops and iterations, and yet, here we are. Maybe English theater is not yet as far away from the “By, for, and, about men” model as one might like to believe.

© 2024 small planets

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑