RCS, 21/03/2019
Marlowe : Doctor Faustus
Adapted and directed by Jennifer Dick
MA Classical and Contemporary Text 2019
Royal Conservatoire of Scotland
Christopher Marlowe's Doctor Faustus is reputedly the first dramatisation of the Faust legend. Written some time around 1590, it has come down to us through two primary editions, the 'A text' published in 1604, and the 'B text' of 1616, both appearing after Marlowe's early death. There are substantial differences between them, and the debate continues as to which is a more "accurate" version. Director Jennifer Dick has, however, chosen to adapt the text(s) fairly freely, re-ordering and re-distributing text amongst her cast, which consists of Faustus, and five each of Heavenly and Fallen Angels. These ten take on all the other parts, either directly, with the assistance of props or costume adjuncts, or indirectly, simply by having their lines to speak.
While I could understand the appeal of this approach, I wasn't altogether convinced by the benefits of it. What it boiled down to was a fairly standard battle between good and evil for a man's soul, but the Faust legend is a much more complex issue than that, or it would not exercise the fascination it has through the centuries. Dick's vision was a constant game of influences, each side luring and distracting Faustus, pushing a book into view, making physical contact, always circling around. Life is certainly like that, we are all subject to influences at every moment, for better or for worse. However, it elided some of the other points Marlowe was making, notably that Faustus was a man to whom many gifts were given from birth, notably his intelligence, yet when ambition drives him towards his unholy bargain, despite all the apparent advantages his pact offers, all his talents are frittered away in useless pastimes. For all the power and wealth Mephistopheles procures him, Faustus achieves nothing more, and leaves no legacy.
It also played some odd tricks with the structure of the piece. The play is framed by two long monologues for Faustus, which are sort of mirror images, but in breaking up these texts to distribute the lines amongst various characters, Dick loses that balance. There's a certain febrile energy that's gained, but Faustus himself loses some of his identity, and seems more of an Everyman, batted back and forth between the opposing forces like a shuttlecock. In the end, I wondered if Dick wasn't more interested in the Angels than in Faustus.
The setting, as expected, was minimal, but the costumes for the two sets of Angels were well designed and interesting, as were the paper props. For Lucifer, there was some red light, a burst of smoke, and the five demons speaking simultaneously with an additional recorded voice. It's a nice idea, but it played havoc with comprehension of the text. However, Faustus getting dragged off to hell worked nicely, double doors at the back of the stage area opening up to reveal a flaming red screen. What did irritate me, eventually, was the collapsing to the floor and groaning in agony. As one side gained the upper hand, the other would cringe away, or fall down twitching. It got tedious in the end.
Ben Noble was Faustus, without really proposing much in the way of an individual personality. It's been my impression that Faustus doesn't actually express much in the way of regret until the very end, but that clearly didn't suit this interpretation which, as mentioned, was much more generic. On the other hand, Tara Bruno's Mephistopheles was strongly projected, sleek, sexy and assured. Of the other Angels, Eklavey Kashyap's Barachiel stood out for a certain quality of wounded innocence.
[Next : 2nd April]
Adapted and directed by Jennifer Dick
MA Classical and Contemporary Text 2019
Royal Conservatoire of Scotland
Christopher Marlowe's Doctor Faustus is reputedly the first dramatisation of the Faust legend. Written some time around 1590, it has come down to us through two primary editions, the 'A text' published in 1604, and the 'B text' of 1616, both appearing after Marlowe's early death. There are substantial differences between them, and the debate continues as to which is a more "accurate" version. Director Jennifer Dick has, however, chosen to adapt the text(s) fairly freely, re-ordering and re-distributing text amongst her cast, which consists of Faustus, and five each of Heavenly and Fallen Angels. These ten take on all the other parts, either directly, with the assistance of props or costume adjuncts, or indirectly, simply by having their lines to speak.
While I could understand the appeal of this approach, I wasn't altogether convinced by the benefits of it. What it boiled down to was a fairly standard battle between good and evil for a man's soul, but the Faust legend is a much more complex issue than that, or it would not exercise the fascination it has through the centuries. Dick's vision was a constant game of influences, each side luring and distracting Faustus, pushing a book into view, making physical contact, always circling around. Life is certainly like that, we are all subject to influences at every moment, for better or for worse. However, it elided some of the other points Marlowe was making, notably that Faustus was a man to whom many gifts were given from birth, notably his intelligence, yet when ambition drives him towards his unholy bargain, despite all the apparent advantages his pact offers, all his talents are frittered away in useless pastimes. For all the power and wealth Mephistopheles procures him, Faustus achieves nothing more, and leaves no legacy.
It also played some odd tricks with the structure of the piece. The play is framed by two long monologues for Faustus, which are sort of mirror images, but in breaking up these texts to distribute the lines amongst various characters, Dick loses that balance. There's a certain febrile energy that's gained, but Faustus himself loses some of his identity, and seems more of an Everyman, batted back and forth between the opposing forces like a shuttlecock. In the end, I wondered if Dick wasn't more interested in the Angels than in Faustus.
The setting, as expected, was minimal, but the costumes for the two sets of Angels were well designed and interesting, as were the paper props. For Lucifer, there was some red light, a burst of smoke, and the five demons speaking simultaneously with an additional recorded voice. It's a nice idea, but it played havoc with comprehension of the text. However, Faustus getting dragged off to hell worked nicely, double doors at the back of the stage area opening up to reveal a flaming red screen. What did irritate me, eventually, was the collapsing to the floor and groaning in agony. As one side gained the upper hand, the other would cringe away, or fall down twitching. It got tedious in the end.
Ben Noble was Faustus, without really proposing much in the way of an individual personality. It's been my impression that Faustus doesn't actually express much in the way of regret until the very end, but that clearly didn't suit this interpretation which, as mentioned, was much more generic. On the other hand, Tara Bruno's Mephistopheles was strongly projected, sleek, sexy and assured. Of the other Angels, Eklavey Kashyap's Barachiel stood out for a certain quality of wounded innocence.
[Next : 2nd April]