Sep 22, 2007 20:48
"Breaking the Waves" was not as powerful as I had hoped - or rather, perhaps, expected - on-stage. If we decide that I expected rather than hoped, we may also accept that I expected too much. Unlike the film, it didn't leave me stunned, gasping for breath. Playing a madwoman cannot be easy, and to play one that speaks to God regularly must be doubly difficult. There is a fine line between comedy and pointed portrayal; Ødegård as Bess lapsed into comedy a bit too many times when speaking to God. And if there is one thing Breaking the Waves is not, it is a comedy. By all means, make the audience laugh between the gasps or the sobs, but make sure there is something other than silence in-between.
Ødegård was not bad, she was just not as heart-breakingly convincing as Emily Watson in von Trier's film. Some of the blame may be the director's, but taking Størhøi's Jan into account, I think it insubstantial. There lacked some essential connection - or understanding, perhaps - between Bess and her audience. That being said, it was a good play, and experience.
I remember struggling with tears by the end of the film, thinking that I would not want to see it twice could I help it. It was too powerful, too sad. Theatre at its best leaves the audience stunned, stilted, mindboggled, mesmerised, "Breaking the Waves" on film did, on-stage it did not. I had hoped that I would cry as I saw Bess die, that I would walk out the double doors in a daze.
The need for books on acting-theory has arisen again. It's not that I want to act, it's that I want to understand the process. I want to really know the theatre.
"breaking the waves",
theatre