What I remembered of the Q&A following the OPL performance last Tuesday
What with my flight being delayed and delayed, I had plenty of time to type out this report at Starbucks at Heathrow. I'll just copy/paste it here, spell check & post it and then go back to drinking coffee with mr. RC :D
I'm going to start with a disclaimer and a request: I'm typing this down from memory since I didn't take any notes. If I made any mistakes (blatant or small ones) please let me know so I can make an edit. Same goes in case I've forgotten something, which I'm sure I have, not just big things but I'm also interested in details.
Attending the talk were [edit] the International Manager Elyse Dodgeson,[/edit] the director Lyndsey and three of the actors; Adrian, Ishia and Joshua (respectively the psychiatrist, the mother and Joaquin). Through the Genesis Foundation Project, the International Playwrights Season, they got into contact with the Colombian writer Pedro Miguel Rozo who passionately wanted to get support for his play. I'm not sure if the director read the original in Spanish or if she read the translation, (by Simon Scardifield, who is a translator by day, and an actor by night) but she was immediately impressed by certain aspects of it, mainly the way it was written as an ongoing dialog/monologue without stage-directions, the way the characters not just spoke their thoughts out loud but could also be overheard by the other characters, the way they reacted to what they heard, and the way the audience was addressed.
The writer was encouraged to do some rewritings (some of which caused a lot of discussion, because he wasn't easy to persuade, and some changes he refused). Elyse told Lyndsey she wanted her to visit Colombia to get a taste of the culture, which she did. The writer has been very involved in the adaptation of his play for an English audience, has been over a lot, has seen the premiere and wanted us to know he was sorry he couldn't be at the talk.
Based on what was being said as part of the talk and in reaction to the questions from the audience, here follow some of the troubles and anecdotes concerning the adaptation of the play, sliding into general thoughts and remarks the actors made:
Originally the cast would switch roles, so every actor would play several parts and each part was played by several actors. Joaquin for example has also been played by a 27 year old woman. For the English version they decided to just cast one person for each role because they found it too confusing and distracting from the main story, and the writer had been shocked to see that for Joaquin they'd cast an actual boy.
The original play had been done very minimalistic, with just a bare stage and some chairs. This had been done out of necessity, because in Colombia theater doesn't have any state funding and they simply didn't have the money for a proper set. The English version has the beautiful decor because it's a subsidized project. The big green sliding panels were directly inspired by the colors Lyndsey had been so impressed with when visiting Colombia.
Some of the dialog gave the translator a lot of headaches because the rhythm of the Spanish language is so different to the English and they wanted it to come as close as possible to the 'melody' that specifically the long run-on sentences have in Spanish, where the English would sound more chopped and tended to be too economic.
Fun fact: the writer passed up attending the dress rehearsal. They found out later that it was because he took it to be literal and that he thought it just wasn't appropriate for him to be there.
The writer's mom, who didn't speak a word English, had been over and was kept in the dark what the play was about (note: apparently she's not seen the Spanish version either, because she'd have understood that, right?)
They had long discussions about where to set the story, because certain aspects of the play would fly right over people's head or distract and confuse too much if they weren't familiar in detail with the Colombian culture. For example in the English version they have a bottle of wine on the table with every meal, whereas in Colombia it would be juice, which could have the audience wondering if it had some deeper meaning that everybody kept drinking juice. They decided that they'd set the play in an imaginary land, with a mix of Colombian and English culture. Setting it entirely in Colombia would cause people to miss things, but they didn't want it to be set entirely in England either because that wouldn't have been in the spirit of the project.
An important cultural difference was pointed out that in Colombia people believe that everybody is born straight and being gay is always caused by some (childhood) trauma like loss of parents or (sexual) abuse. (Note: it's very nice that these five on the stage were so flabbergasted about this reasoning, but I'm afraid they don't need to go all the way to Colombia to encounter it)
The play is what you could call not political correct on purpose. The aim of the play wasn't to come up with some kind of disclosure, but it's meant to be disconcerting, disturbing and make people first laugh and then feel uncomfortable. It's not meant to teach, it's meant to provoke thought (note: I think it succeeded extremely well in that).
All three actors said something about their part and especially Adrian and Ishia showed a great deal of involvement in the background of the play.
Adrian said that he'd tried to show how the psychiatrist wasn't just burned out, bored and bitter that he couldn't afford his much coveted Grand Cherokee with all the toppings, but also frustrated that all his insight and knowledge after years of study and experience weren't appreciated and people mostly walked in waving money and demanding an instant solution for their problem.
Ishia said that she'd been asked if the play didn't exhaust her, because she had to shout and be agitated so much, but she said it worked beautifully for her and she felt very energetic afterward (note: she really looked and sounded like she meant that and can I just say here and now that I've grown extremely fond of that woman who is so genuinely enthusiastic and cheerful, has such a contagious laughter and is a wonderful actress to boot.)
She also told a story of a video she'd seen of a Colombian singer who was on stage, singing, dressed in a bit of a glam costume, dancing, moving his hips, and was joined on stage by a young boy who danced along. When the song was finished he walked up to the boy to acknowledge the moment they'd shared and then grabbed his balls with a grand gesture. God forbid the boy or anyone else would think this had been anything but a display of how manly they were. It indicates just how much of a taboo it is in Colombia to show a more feminine side, how important it is for a man to make sure he's sufficiently masculine.
Joshua told us his real age was 17. He explained that he'd been eased into his part step by step, through a lot of read-throughs and talking with the director about what they each thought the part would look like.
The talk had been very pleasant and interesting and was concluded with an invitation to also attend the other activities linked to this project (another play, readings and a seminar) and we were thanked for coming to the play and staying for the talk.
(One last additional observation: One of the main themes of this play obviously is male homosexuality, but there was something else that struck me that never got brought up and unfortunately I couldn't think of a question to bring it up. That was the way the mother had had to deal with cancer, chemo, amputation and all the physical and emotional pain that comes with it, while being surrounded by three completely disinterested and unsupportive men.)
I'm going to start with a disclaimer and a request: I'm typing this down from memory since I didn't take any notes. If I made any mistakes (blatant or small ones) please let me know so I can make an edit. Same goes in case I've forgotten something, which I'm sure I have, not just big things but I'm also interested in details.
Attending the talk were [edit] the International Manager Elyse Dodgeson,[/edit] the director Lyndsey and three of the actors; Adrian, Ishia and Joshua (respectively the psychiatrist, the mother and Joaquin). Through the Genesis Foundation Project, the International Playwrights Season, they got into contact with the Colombian writer Pedro Miguel Rozo who passionately wanted to get support for his play. I'm not sure if the director read the original in Spanish or if she read the translation, (by Simon Scardifield, who is a translator by day, and an actor by night) but she was immediately impressed by certain aspects of it, mainly the way it was written as an ongoing dialog/monologue without stage-directions, the way the characters not just spoke their thoughts out loud but could also be overheard by the other characters, the way they reacted to what they heard, and the way the audience was addressed.
The writer was encouraged to do some rewritings (some of which caused a lot of discussion, because he wasn't easy to persuade, and some changes he refused). Elyse told Lyndsey she wanted her to visit Colombia to get a taste of the culture, which she did. The writer has been very involved in the adaptation of his play for an English audience, has been over a lot, has seen the premiere and wanted us to know he was sorry he couldn't be at the talk.
Based on what was being said as part of the talk and in reaction to the questions from the audience, here follow some of the troubles and anecdotes concerning the adaptation of the play, sliding into general thoughts and remarks the actors made:
Originally the cast would switch roles, so every actor would play several parts and each part was played by several actors. Joaquin for example has also been played by a 27 year old woman. For the English version they decided to just cast one person for each role because they found it too confusing and distracting from the main story, and the writer had been shocked to see that for Joaquin they'd cast an actual boy.
The original play had been done very minimalistic, with just a bare stage and some chairs. This had been done out of necessity, because in Colombia theater doesn't have any state funding and they simply didn't have the money for a proper set. The English version has the beautiful decor because it's a subsidized project. The big green sliding panels were directly inspired by the colors Lyndsey had been so impressed with when visiting Colombia.
Some of the dialog gave the translator a lot of headaches because the rhythm of the Spanish language is so different to the English and they wanted it to come as close as possible to the 'melody' that specifically the long run-on sentences have in Spanish, where the English would sound more chopped and tended to be too economic.
Fun fact: the writer passed up attending the dress rehearsal. They found out later that it was because he took it to be literal and that he thought it just wasn't appropriate for him to be there.
The writer's mom, who didn't speak a word English, had been over and was kept in the dark what the play was about (note: apparently she's not seen the Spanish version either, because she'd have understood that, right?)
They had long discussions about where to set the story, because certain aspects of the play would fly right over people's head or distract and confuse too much if they weren't familiar in detail with the Colombian culture. For example in the English version they have a bottle of wine on the table with every meal, whereas in Colombia it would be juice, which could have the audience wondering if it had some deeper meaning that everybody kept drinking juice. They decided that they'd set the play in an imaginary land, with a mix of Colombian and English culture. Setting it entirely in Colombia would cause people to miss things, but they didn't want it to be set entirely in England either because that wouldn't have been in the spirit of the project.
An important cultural difference was pointed out that in Colombia people believe that everybody is born straight and being gay is always caused by some (childhood) trauma like loss of parents or (sexual) abuse. (Note: it's very nice that these five on the stage were so flabbergasted about this reasoning, but I'm afraid they don't need to go all the way to Colombia to encounter it)
The play is what you could call not political correct on purpose. The aim of the play wasn't to come up with some kind of disclosure, but it's meant to be disconcerting, disturbing and make people first laugh and then feel uncomfortable. It's not meant to teach, it's meant to provoke thought (note: I think it succeeded extremely well in that).
All three actors said something about their part and especially Adrian and Ishia showed a great deal of involvement in the background of the play.
Adrian said that he'd tried to show how the psychiatrist wasn't just burned out, bored and bitter that he couldn't afford his much coveted Grand Cherokee with all the toppings, but also frustrated that all his insight and knowledge after years of study and experience weren't appreciated and people mostly walked in waving money and demanding an instant solution for their problem.
Ishia said that she'd been asked if the play didn't exhaust her, because she had to shout and be agitated so much, but she said it worked beautifully for her and she felt very energetic afterward (note: she really looked and sounded like she meant that and can I just say here and now that I've grown extremely fond of that woman who is so genuinely enthusiastic and cheerful, has such a contagious laughter and is a wonderful actress to boot.)
She also told a story of a video she'd seen of a Colombian singer who was on stage, singing, dressed in a bit of a glam costume, dancing, moving his hips, and was joined on stage by a young boy who danced along. When the song was finished he walked up to the boy to acknowledge the moment they'd shared and then grabbed his balls with a grand gesture. God forbid the boy or anyone else would think this had been anything but a display of how manly they were. It indicates just how much of a taboo it is in Colombia to show a more feminine side, how important it is for a man to make sure he's sufficiently masculine.
Joshua told us his real age was 17. He explained that he'd been eased into his part step by step, through a lot of read-throughs and talking with the director about what they each thought the part would look like.
The talk had been very pleasant and interesting and was concluded with an invitation to also attend the other activities linked to this project (another play, readings and a seminar) and we were thanked for coming to the play and staying for the talk.
(One last additional observation: One of the main themes of this play obviously is male homosexuality, but there was something else that struck me that never got brought up and unfortunately I couldn't think of a question to bring it up. That was the way the mother had had to deal with cancer, chemo, amputation and all the physical and emotional pain that comes with it, while being surrounded by three completely disinterested and unsupportive men.)