Pearson & Theatrical Controversy

Having anticipated and then watched Einat’s IP, I think I’ve been clued in to the powerful role that word-of-mouth and a certain enigma surrounding a production can play on this campus. I attended the first of her production’s two showings, and I’m not sure if there were even ten of Pearson’s one hundred and eighty missing from the tightly crammed Common Room. Everyone eagerly awaited the performance, one which had been rumored to be highly controversial; one that had consumed the Common Room for a week in preparation of a temporary stagespace.

And on that night, the Common Room could barely spare a square metre. Almost too crowded for comfortable viewing, it also seemed that, at times the actors struggled to work around the precariously-placed lights and the shuffling audience-members only inches away. But, it was incredibly inventive and forward-thinking of Einat to employ the use of the Common Room for her production—after four consecutive IPs in the Max Bell, a change in space did wonders to engage the audience’s captivation, for it almost seemed that (the Common Room totally transformed) they were alienated by the new environment.

But dually, Einat’s choice of space integrated the audience as a near demi-character in her production. The shape of the Common Room, as well as her stage, started at a point directly above the fireplace at the juncture of the back (or front, depending on perspective) walls of the Common Room. It emanated out, in its wake engulfing the players on the stage before the fireplace, then, subsequently, the audience, which sat backed to the windows. This careful involvement of the audience’s reactions and interactions with the players was (theoretically) key in the development of the narrative. And so, from the beginning, Einat’s production already brilliantly used space provided and intimately incorporated the audience into the rising action.

And so did the audience participate in the developing storyline. But at the story’s principle, the audience knew what was going to happen in the end—it had been discussed before the production was even viewed. And so it was with anticipation, partially, that I think the audience viewed the first half of the play.

So too with praise for the overacting of a few of the actors, who seemed to be asking for laughs as the play progressed—and the audience consistently rewarded them with approval. This was, to me, the most disheartening element of the whole experience; I felt as if the audience was disturbingly immature in its inability to separate friends from stage performers. And some of the actors seemed to be equally as inexperienced in their performing abilities for a) employing Einat’s production, a serious examination of gender roles, stereotypes, and discrimination as a forum for improvisational comedy routines, and b) for their inability to manipulate the situation so that, when the audience was laughing during a rape scene, they’d be able to direct the emotional undercurrent in a way that would refocus the audience on the subject matter.

But Hailey’s performance couldn’t be stifled by the performances of some of her cast mates. I felt that she brilliantly portrayed the part of a young girl so unconfident in herself that she’d feebly agree to anything for acceptance. Her quick transitions to her older self and then prosecuting attorney were laudable, as well. Her performance was incredibly brave, as it called for several actions and behaviors that likely made the audience and her highly uncomfortable.

It was clear that Einat poured every ounce of herself into the production, and that she cared so deeply for the final product that she, her actors, and Kenta had created. I think that she did an excellent job condensing a longer work into a shorter timeframe, though I felt that, at times, the pacing of the production as a whole tended towards lethargic. This was due in part, perhaps, to the sheer volume of lines to be memorized by each of the actors, and then their subsequent work in recalling them during performance. Perhaps a part of this, too, was the anticipation of the rape at the end of the piece. I have to conjecture that every audience member was anticipating that savage climax, and so that, too, could have contributed to the pacing. If this is so, I can only call it a brilliant realization of brutal tensions on Einat’s part, as the director.

And, when “the scene” finally arrived, I was truly moved by the tact and virtuosity with which Einat executed the sequence. It was not clichéd, nor was it melodramatic or fragmented. It was delicate, and highly impacting. Though the audience’s reaction was, perhaps, rude and inappropriate, it’s possible that their laughter only masked sheer disquietude and fear for the reality of the situation. The play itself was based on a true story—and, in a word, Einat truly brought it to life.


(Photo by Mark Kelsey)