Monday, January 25, 2010
Core Theatre Ensemble’s ‘Brave New World’ @ ODU
Words jESiO
Photos Anne Peterson
Monday, January 25th, 2010 at 11:14 pm
I hadn’t read Brave New World in several years.
However, I remembered the heart of it. I recalled it focused on not allowing society to drug you (literally or metaphorically) into believing you were always happy, and not allowing yourself forget about emotions.
Cleo Antolin, RaChelle Cheeks.
Living in the current world with all its vices–be they alcohol, Xanax, or Christianity–I was interested in seeing how Core Theatre Ensemble would use our society’s current state in its interpretation of Aldous Huxley’s famous work on big government versus the individual. The book’s story line involving soma (“You do look glum! What you need is a gramme of soma”) would have been such an apt jumping point from the original plot to today’s world.
And I have to say, I was slightly disappointed. While there were great performances peppered into the production, accompanied by great sets, costumes, and technological backdrops, some editing wouldn’t have hurt.
The play begins before it begins. As audience members take their seats, plebian Epsilons (the lowest caste in society) bumble about in their white astronautical bodysuits offering the crowd sterile-looking candy from sterile-looking trays. Once seated, we realize we are in a classroom setting, learning a history lesson with actors filtered throughout the room. We learn how children are born—in hatcheries, where caste is predetermined, thus further deciding one’s intelligence and physical appearance.
The director, Tomakin, explains to a group of students the science behind this, as they dutifully ask questions. While a synopsis may have been necessary for those unfamiliar with the story, the length of time this went on, coupled with actress CheRae Chaney’s over-emoting each reaction to a new tidbit, drew the initial scenes on a bit too long for my patience.
Left to Right RaChelle Cheeks, Cleo Antolin, CheRae Chaney, Lamont Ferguson, Lindsey Wyeda.
That said, when the science-speak gets too much to interpret (must have forgotten my Ritalin–lol), the aesthetics swoop in and provide a lovely visual experience. All the actors in the World State (ie: everyone who is not a Savage) are crisp. There is a futuristic-meets-vintage feel among the group. The ensembles are all-white, all the way down to the traditional underwear the actors display for the more explicit subject matter.
It was like watching Wii come to life, but with sex, drugs, and politics. And way better apperances. Andra Rosenberg’s hair and makeup and Astin Jones’s costumes had a 50’s pinup girl-meets-avatar or surfer boy-meets-Matrix feel.
The experience improved with the introduction of actors RaChelle Cheeks (playing Lenina Crowne) and Kent Collins (playing Controller Mustapha Mond). These two were the highlight of the cast for me. Cheeks had comedic timing in such a subtle way you almost didn’t realize she was charming you on purpose. She made Lenina someone you would want to hang out with, even in a society where she’s inching towards outcast status for the audacity of spending four months in monogamy with one partner.
She made a character written in the 1930s, representing a young woman from a futuristic setting, someone significant to me in 2010. I only wish the writer (Emel Ertugrul) would have written one more scene for her and one less in the Hatchery.
Clockwise from top Edwin Castillo, Nancy Dickerson, Lindsey Wyda, CheRae Chaney.
Collins was also delightful. If you haven’t seen his performance in Brave New World’s trailer, do so now here. He was Jim Jones-meets-Phil Hartman. He exaggerated obviously, yet somehow his performance was also subtle. I’m not a sci-fi fan, but I imagined I was feeling the same way Trekkies do about William Shatner.
Other main actors, including Cleo Antolin (John the Savage), Edwin Castillo (Director Tomakin), and Kayla Grubbs (Linda) did good jobs with the material they were given. If the script had been further edited, perhaps 30-45 minutes shorter (it runs from 8-1030 pm), the blips on my radar would have felt less sharp.
Again, though I was disappointed in not walking away melancholy at our descent into this brave new world, as one feels at the end of the book, I was also encouraged to see the creativity the Core ensemble–which is made up of a mix of students and members of the community–exhibited as a whole. They are obviously hard workers, and have a willingness to try new things. They all played bit roles (ie: savages or Epsilons) when it was some else’s scene. They sprayed perfume through the aisles during a scene during the ‘feely’ — a movie which can be felt. They incorporated technology via music, dance, and a projector screen, to name a few, in innovative ways.
In the end, I recommend seeing the production, with the understanding you’re watching a local production, not Broadway.
Remaining performances are January 28, 29, and 30th @ 8pm, and January 23 @ 2:30pm. Click here for more info.
COMMENTS
Facebook comments:
Post a comment
ABOUT THE WRITER
jESiO (jesi owens) is back to writing after a juicy apple presented to her turned into a stint experimenting with pantyhose, cubicles, and smalltalk. She’s a 2003 CNU grad, where she was Arts & Entertainment Editor of The Captain’s Log, and worked as Sony/BMG Music Label Group’s Alternative Music Lifestyle Marketing Rep for Hampton Roads until 2007. At Sony/BMG, she assisted in bringing the Seven Cities acts like Modest Mouse, Franz Ferdinand and Matisyahu to name a few. She’s currently found at the back corner table at the Taphouse or, alternatively, on jesiowastaken.blogspot.com
Other posts by jESiO.
Other posts by jESiO.
RELATED POSTS
More Theater Posts
RSS
We love this forum! Thank you AltDaily for providing a way for all the community to start a discussion and I hope this starts a good one. Thank you for your kind words about certain parts of the show and we’re sorry you were disappointed with some parts of the production and while some of your comments are valid there is one we feel we must clarify. Brave New World is not about using drugs to control people. Soma in Brave New World is an additional element in the society –it’s built in just in case the genetics and conditioning don’t take hold 100%, sort of a failsafe program. Soma is merely a symbol conveying the main theme of technology ruling a society, therefore we really wouldn’t have made that the focus of our production. THX 1138 is more like what you are describing…a George Lucas film back in 1971 in which the society is heavily controlled by drugs– his script was most likely influenced by Brave New World and Orwell’s 1984 but is in no way either of these books. Aldous Huxley’s story is brilliant and we feel it is as relevant to our current world as it was to the ’30s world. We honestly felt no need to mar it by throwing in examples of how it compares to our world — the story speaks for itself and we just wanted to translate that to the stage. Thank you to all who have come out and I hope more of you do. Feel free to continue this discussion … this is exactly what our modern world needs!
I had to see this show for class, but I was interested as well because I read the book in high school. I was really disappointed. While there are elements of the book that incorporate sex and DEFINITELY DRUGS, (CORE, did you READ the book?) I felt like the directors were pleading for attention with some of their blocking/choreography/directorial decisions. The falic device was excessive and unnecessary. Congratulations, you have taken a subtle piece of literature and turned it into pornography.
Art is not shock-value. Art is bringing something new to the table. And while I appreciate that you kept tight to the book with the (excruciatingly long) monologues, I felt like you just regurgitated the literature. There was nothing new or innovative, and I, too, was disappointed with how little emotion I felt leaving the play.
I have not yet seen the show, but am looking forward to it even more so after reading all of the conflicting viewpoints above. I am, however, having trouble understanding the argument presented in “A Theatre Experience”. How can you ask “CORE, did you read the book” and in the following paragraph state,”I appreciate that you kept tight to the book with the (excruciatingly long) monologues, I felt like you just regurgitated the literature.”? Is your argument that their show does not reflect the themes of the book or that it follows it too closely?? It appears to be both, and is therefore irrational. Is it possible that maybe you did not understand what you were watching?
Looks like it may be time to refresh those highschool memories.
http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/bravenew/themes.html
Fantastic Photography above!!! Thanks for taking the time to see our show and share it with the world!!
For one, this is a must see performance. As a young member in the theatre community, it is incredibly inspiring to witness a theatre company that is by no means catty or self indulged. It was truly an ensemble performance; the actors performed as a single unit. It is very refreshing to see such a production after being constantly subjected to performances in which the actor’s egos are blatantly obvious. I believe that CORE is an incredible asset to the community; they allow both students and people of the area to learn of the unique Suzuki method and contribute to new and innovative works. I applaud them for branching away from the standard, crowd pleasing play. I have never been apart of their productions, but I am sure it would be an incredibly rewarding experience.
To the person who posted “A theatre experience” – It definitely appears like you are contradicting yourself. First, you criticized the writers for not reading the book and then you criticized them for including too much of the original text. Furthermore, art can be anything. Art can be both shock-value AND bringing something new to the table. It is not wise for someone to dictate what art should be. Oh and by the way, its phalic not falic…
I’ve had the opportunity to work with CORE Theatre Ensemble on several literature-to-stage adaptations, and one of the things I always find remarkable about their pieces is how true they keep to the original story. While there were actually many elements of the novel that didn’t make it into the play, I believe the structure, storyline, and the world Huxley created are all represented beautifully in this production. The book takes a great deal of time giving a detailed explanation of how this society functions, told through a lecture being given to new students. This was not a theatrical device used to catch the audience up to speed, but was taken directly from a (much longer chunk of) the novel. Perhaps it could have been cut and the rest of the story would have remained strong. Or perhaps leaving out all of Huxley’s exquisitely detailed vision of the future would have taken something away from the story. Either way, from my experience working with this company, I believe they strive to leave the audience with the same impressions and feelings they might have gotten from reading the book. Some of the criticisms mentioned here seem to be faults that people have found with Huxley’s original text. While I cannot speak for CORE, I don’t think they were out to change the author’s vision. And, as I said, I may be biased, but this show chokes me up every night, and definitely forces me to look at our modern world in a different light.
In response to “A Theatre Experience,” if you’ll recall from having read so diligently, Huxley’s novel presents a world in which promiscuity and pornography are force-fed to society. I can’t even imagine how shocking it must have been to read about government mandated orgies in the 1930’s! If you were shocked by the play, then I believe we’ve done the story justice. If you don’t recall being shocked by the book, then perhaps it’s time you picked it up again.
Thanks AltDaily for making it possible to have conversations like this. It gives me greater hope for all the creative work that’s being done in this area!
HOORAY! Very interesting points of view. It seems we can all agree that it is a comprehensive piece with incredible aesthetic values. I hope everyone takes the time to come see the show and make judgments for themselves.
i wish i could say that i am impressed by how aggressive people can be when their names are kept anonymous, your opinions are all valid and you are all entitled to them take pride in your words especially when they are controversial (ie Huxley)
First off, i feel its poor form to directly call out an actor by name like you did to miss Chaney, ODU is a school we teach there so its fine for a student to not be perfect already
CORE……its been nice working with you guys, rather bold to tell the writer of an article you asked for that they are wrong
next, theatre experience, why so angry? and honestly i’m surprised at your passion for the theatre most theatre experience students don’t give two cents, so thanks for coming out sorry you didn’t like it too much please come see another show though (tell ya what you come find me at some point ill even get you a comp)
Cant wait, first comment was angry ill give you that but read it again for me “….. I felt like you just regurgitated the literature” you have to read and analyse an entire piece in order to understand its meaning. still come see the show though
Anonymous, if you have never worked with CORE how can you form such an opinion? not saying it isnt true your just ……wait for it…..contradicting yourself BAM oh also the point of these comments is to say something new. Falic vs Phallic? never mind not touching it
bias, thank you for saying you are bias and having your own thoughts
-Jake
I love that so many people are getting in on the discussion. Thanks to AltDaily for the exposure!
I would like to point out that actress CheRae Chaney is a HIGH SCHOOL student and I feel that she held her own in a cast of college students and professional actors. I feel this young lady has a bright future ahead of her.
I look forward to three more performances this week! Thank you CORE for this wonderful experience!!
i think it bears reminding people of the purposes of experimental and educational theatre. in my view these are; to learn, to discuss, to grow, to experiment. that said if you are going to experiment you have to be willing to acknowledge what worked and what did not. just like any parent or director needs to acknowledge that little behavior as “not as cute as i thought it was” when we have a chance to step back from a production. i agree with many of the observations of the reviewer, and running to an actresses defense when she gets a bad review doesn’t do anyone any good. i saw the production and i definitively agree with the assessment. i have also been told that it was a directors choice, well then it is the directors fault, as it always is. i think it is embarrassing to have people arguing about the quality of your performance.
second, i feel bad that many of you don’t get the meaning behind “core did you read the book” and seem to believe having read the book for content and regurgitating massive amounts of text verbatim are the same thing. i am not sure that core read the book and i am not sure they didnt but i am sure that they regurgitated massive quantities of text with little ore no real action happening most of the show. i found myself wondering about my laundry or whether or not i left the stove on in the middle of most of the scenes.
third i loved this show. i thought it was beautiful. the visuals were amazing. i also felt that it was a two hour show fit into a three hour time slot. and i would be reticent to say that this is an isolated comment on a single show rather than a comment on core itself. i appreciate that they have been developing their own work and adapting their own plays and very few people have that kind of courage. but please please please please please shut up. say what needs to be said and then show us with the action what you don’t have to say with words.
Wow. Thanks everyone for the comments. And to AltDaily and Core for the opportunity to offer my opinion on this production. Some responses to above:
CORE: As I said in the opening paragraphs, I was hoping the Soma aspect would be drawn out…mainly due to how many people use everything from Red Bull to Xanax these days to get through the day…If it appeared I didn’t understand there were more elements to “Brave New World” than drugs, all apologies as it was not my intent. It was the most relatable form of the World State’s control of its people–to me.
ANON: Agree with you on CORE’s ability to work as an ensemble. I noticed this throughout the performance…
JAKE: Appreciate your insights, though poor-form in saying Chaney “over-emotes” may be stretching it. Thanks to Andra for letting me know she’s in high school. While I stand by my statements, her age and experience add another dimension to them…and hopefully this encourages her to keep improving and learning. I doubt Meryl Streep’s acting in high school was on par with her work today…so constructive criticism must play a role in the development of talent–especially when it’s performance based.
Lastly, it’s great everyone’s responding with their own takeaway’s on this production and I encourage more people to go see it and form their own.
I think it’s awesome that everyone is getting so worked up over this! Theater is supposed to inspire this type of discourse, and judging from the emotion involved in this debate I should say it has succeeded mightily!
That being said, I think that CORE has been a bit hasty in condemning the reviewer for her opinions. Having also seen the show, and knowing a bit about theater myself, I can tell you that the points she (and others) have made about certain aspects of the show are 100% valid.
First of all, the production does suffer from script problems. Particularly in the first twenty or so minutes. The decision to front load the evening with long expository monologues is, in fact, damaging to the production as a whole. Arguments being made that the production simply regurgitates large chunks of the novel without providing action are also true. As a longtime supporter and collaborator of CORE, I have to concede it is a problematic novel to adapt (as the first six chapters of Huxley’s novel are all exposition), but perhaps a more imaginative context for presenting this information could have been found. It wasn’t, but the evening does recover.
What most detractors here seem to be bemoaning is that the directors have failed to make the play relevant and engaging to their audiences. Complaints that the production does not make connections to the similarity between the New World Order and the United States of 2010 lead me to believe that they have found the show remote, and not involving; an attempt could have at least been made to illustrate these parallels. The production tends to rely too heavily on the audience’s prior familiarity with the novel; and expects us to have already drawn these connections for ourselves. Instead it is set in a future very foreign to our present, and that is a missed opportunity.
As for Ms. Chaney–regardless of how young or old she might be, she has chosen, for better or worse, to be an actress in a play. That opens her up to public scrutiny, and jESiO is well within her rights to criticize the actress for the work that she did. I am sure Ms. Chaney is extremely talented, and will, in the coming years, mature into a wonderful actress. However, if she wishes to continue on as an actress in the future she must steel herself for the criticism that naturally comes from turning yourself into a public figure. If she stays in the business people will probably say far worse things about her than what was said in this review.
Now that that’s out of the way, I would just like to say that, despite its flaws, I personally found the production to be very good. It was at least as entertaining as it was frustrating. The young cast gave good performances, the physical production was well-conceived and executed, and as I look back on it after a few days I remember more things that I liked about the show than things that I didn’t.
CORE seems to be suffering from a case of “ugly baby syndrome.” If you are with a friend at the mall and you see a lady pushing an ugly baby in a stroller, you and your friend may recognize that that baby is ugly. But the mother of that baby won’t recognize that at all. She can’t. She gave birth to it, and so she has no objectivity.
I continue to admire CORE Theatre Ensemble, and their productions which are interesting, and always challenging. At the end of the day, Brave New World is both a tremendous success and a missed opportunity. It is deserving of both the ecstatic paeans and harsh drubbing it has received. It is, above all else, though, an experience: and whether you love it or hate it, you won’t soon forget it.
It’s interesting that nobody takes a stance anymore about what they truly believe. I understand the purpose of a “constructive sandwich.” (Side your criticism with positive comments about the topic,) But could someone please pick a productive or deconstructive stance? Personally I believed the production was very unoriginal and proposed no relevant message to its audience. It was flashy and visually stimulating, but then again so is a Cirque de Soleil performance. The difference between these two performances is that there is an emotional through-line/theme in the latter. I understand this was an educational environment and the acting was very well executed given the scope of talent, but the direction was obviously flawed.
The show benefited from technical prowess in both the set and lighting, which oddly enough was not matched to the projections which had very clear meshing problems and did not integrate themselves in any way with the architecture on stage. It felt like someone threw a textured piece of fabric freshly cut from the Walmart arts&crafts section over the performance. Costume changes were sporadic and nonsensical and apart from Linda’s tattered version of the “New World” costume left no emotional impact or connection to the script. At certain points it felt like actors were told “Get naked for the audience, it’s artistic.” in the same way that Penthouse gets away with stating it’s photographs of naked women are artistic because they removed the color.
The script itself has already been covered in discussion and I agree with it’s analysis on the majority of accounts.
The amount of lewd material I feel was used in a non-tasteful excess. (A Feely? Really?) Combined with the excessive time taken in each scene it was like listening to your unwashed acquaintance elaborate on his sexual desires and fantasies. It just didn’t stop. What was I supposed to take away from that? It felt like the direction was “Try to distract the audience as much as possible from the fact that they’re leaving their bodily imprint in the chairs by pushing sex relentlessly.” Someone definitely took the phrase “sex sells” and ran with it, right past any sort of creative vision.
Also, am I the only one that had to push images of Sora, Donald Duck and Goofy constantly from my head each time they decided to grace us with a musical selection? I hope Disney isn’t aware that sex and drug abuse are being artistically enhanced with their material.
To Mr. backstage person, I invite you to acquaint yourself with online communities a bit more. The power of anonymous exists for a reason. In the interest of flaming or causing argument/discourse in a virtual setting: it is pointless from line 01. That is why publically attended forums benefit from making people accountable to their faces for their opinions (see Parliament.)
Was just referenced to this review by a class, have to say there are quite a few opinions generating wind. I think that keeping things in context would benefit many of the people looking to post a reply to this review. The art of performance is one that concerns creative risk and the risk to succeed or fail is definitely a part of this process. Companies that push the envelope will receive criticism for this in almost any situation. On the auspice of taking a stance I will definitely say that I do share many of the opinions presented thus far in the reply qeue, and some of the responses I view as a bit naive, but for the common theater goer, you will not be dissapointed by what CORE has assembled. Yes it is long, yes it becomes tedious at points, yes it strays from the themes of the novel… but did anyone see a recent film lately that started as a book? These concerns will always arise. It is also pertinent to note that as you leave the theater, for better or worse you will have just engaged in an experience that you will never have again. Learning what you liked and didn’t like is only a way to find a deeper understanding of your opinions and the social commentary that was or wasn’t presented. If you found an aspect of the show lacking, find a way to present it in your daily life. This is the benefit of watching theater in an environment that is by its nature educational.
Re: Ugly baby syndrome….love it!
Haven’t heard that one before.
I plan to use it often in the future.
ANON: But could someone please pick a productive or deconstructive stance?
That would imply that something was completely terrible, or completely terrific. Brave New World is neither…but neither is anything else. The world is a nuanced and ambiguous place, which doesn’t allow for such black and white rhetoric. To see things only in such polarized terms would make you a fairly small-minded person.
“Ugly Baby Syndrome” implies that we are turning a blind eye to the criticisms of our work. On the contrary, we welcome the differing reactions and comments to our shows. And for clarification, our initial comment on the importance of soma in the overall story and our further thoughts on how we treated the novel were by no means an invalidation of jESiO’s review. This website is intended to be used as a forum for discussion and conversation from differing points of view. Our intent was to initiate the discussion of how we approached the novel; within this initial comment we made no statement to “condemn” the views and opinions expressed in the review. Whatever perception Jeremiah or Jake may have of us being “hasty” or “bold” by simply participating in a public discussion on our work is a bit assumptive on their parts. Again, this is a discussion, not a condemnation on jESiO’s or anyone else’s opinions. If you don’t believe me, then re-read our post.
Which leads me to the crux of the discussion- reread the book. “A Theatre Experience” stated that “art is bringing something new to the table”. I completely disagree with this statement. Bringing something new to the table is a function of invention. While artists, musicians, and performers may have moments of innovation, all of the tools and skills needed for an artist to create work is already defined. There are no new musical notes, there are no new colors, and there are only seven different stories. There is nothing “new” when it comes to any form of art.
Instead, art is about re-examining the familiar to give it life again; it is about making the familiar seem new because you are turning it slightly and seeing it from a different angle, a different point of view. What makes art exciting is when audience’s preconceptions of a subject does not match what is presented to them. When that happens, as we’ve seen and read, the audience can either accept and try to connect with the material, or disengage and let the experience go by them.
This is why art exists. To combat assumptions of what we have of the world. We constantly kill art by deciding that we already know what a painting looks like, or what a piece of music should sound like, or what the subject matter of a book should be about. An artist’s job is to fight against assumptions of their subject matter. To point a finger at that subject and ask the audience to look and listen to it again. What we found upon examining the novel and adapting it will never match everyone’s preconception of the story, especially those who “hadn’t read it in years” or “read it in high school”. We are fighting against a categorization of how this story should be told because of prior familiarity. But the intent is clear- this is an open invitation to revisit the novel again. Or at the very least, consider that there may be something more to it than what you first assumed.
For those who have no point of reference or prior familiarity to the novel, this show was hopefully an introduction to this completely bizzare, frightening, and disturbing story. And in no way should this be a substitute for the novel. Our aim in adapting different works to the stage is to take the familiar and reintroduce it from a different angle. While at the same time keeping the overall theme and feel of the original as intact as possible. This novel is completely relevant to our times simply from the extent of discussion seen in this forum. The Controller argues that the world society can’t and shouldn’t have the “old” things because thier society wouldn’t understand it. Do you find yourself skipping chapters while reading a novel because you want to get to the good parts? There is nothing “subtle” about what goes on in this world as described by Huxley. “Everyone belongs to everyone else”- so what, in this sexually encouraged world where everyone gets what they want and doesn’t want what they can’t get, would be pornographic? We didn’t invent the feely, we just showed it onstage.
One of the major ideas that this novel addresses is that society is de-humanizing themselves through constant seeking of comfort. This novel was written in the 1930’s and this idea is even more magnified today in 2010. We try to make things easy for ourselves; we want things to be quick, easy to digest, easy to identify and categorize, and have ourselves ready for the next new thing that comes in front of us. We are losing our ability to listen; we are losing our attention spans; we are losing our ability to connect one idea to the next unless they are spelled out for us.
We are very proud of our “ugly baby”. We know that it isn’t perfect. We know that sometimes it talks too much. We also know, as most parents do, that these babies are extensions of ourselves. It is our DNA, and should we, as artists and parents, consider changing our work to please the audience? When one states that we can’t view our work with “objectivity”, there is an implication that we should change according to what suits the general public. While that may be a route that some parents may take with their kids- shut them up, give them plastic surgery, and make sure they don’t offend the judges at the beauty pageant- I feel that we are not trying to enter our kid in any sort of contest. What we can only hope our “kids” will do is spark interest in these worlds that they create and continue to make the audience take notice, whether you love them or hate them.
Thank you again to altdaily for making this forum possible; we’ve learned a lot from reading what everyone has had to say. We look forward to to hearing more in the future.