Hey guys, I just found this youtube video. I wanted to share it with all of you! Jim Burke talking about what he does best - develop/ create, use graphic organizers in teaching children. Please go look him up.
Sunday, February 07, 2010
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Teacher 1: grow baby plant grow! NOW!
Our gardening group – Guerilla Garders – had been together for about a week last December, when we teachers planned to bring in a wacky lesson. We chose to role play. What was wacky? Children had not seen us doing that, and so we thought we could use that tool.
Background:
As a part of the learning camps that are organised by Project Vision, we were working with about 11 children in a gardening process. The process was physically challenging, where children both boys and girls had to set up plant beds, by mixing sand, and planting little seeds and sapplings. The process was also mentally challenging as children set about building for the group an outdoor classroom, and a pergola which they could use to spring creepers on.
We built a Pergola, and set up three beds and were basking in the happiness of seeing tomato, spinach and marigold shoots. We also had just then planted creepers such as beans, pepper, grapes and passion fruit. Wow. We had laughed all through the week. And we had kept track of our thoughts and the growth of each plant – we had documented every process that we took up during gardening. One of the things that we had planned to do was also to get the children to use art to express themselves using art. And so to introduce the session, we planned a wacky session. A session to be introduced with role - playing of children in the group (by me) and of a seed they had planted by another teacher.
We walked into the class, and I began by saying… “I want to plant a little seed” and went on to put a chair, and pull another teacher (who was acting as the seed) and planted her on the chair. As the planter, I behaved impatiently with my seed, asking it to grow the very next day, I said “grow grow grow”. What ensued was a roleplay of how the seed reacted by saying no no.. and going back into the ground, and me wanting it to grow. After more baby talking and coaxing the seed to grow, it plant began to respond.
Histrionics of this kind not only tickled the kids nerves bring forth a lot of laughter, it kind of made for a great hook – towards a process of play creation by children around their learning from the gardening process.
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Harold Pinter is dead!
Harold Pinter died on Wednesday, December 24th 2008 at the age of 78.
Long live Pinter.
Here he is talking about a poem he wrote about laughter.
Long live Pinter.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
AA DINAGALU!!
I am not a movie goer – thanks to a hectic work schedule. But I wanted to watch Aa Dinagalu, and finally after numerous attempts to get a ticket I succeeded – have I said ‘Finally’? I cannot emphasize the word enough. My keenness to watch this movie was ‘personal’. A friend directed it, and several others acted in it. Some artists I had already worked with, and some.. never mind all this. Lets just say a lot of people I know were involved with this project. It was a newspaper I think, that said that the movie was based on a factual, historical account of one incident of Bangalore’s crime world in the 70s and 80s, the death of Kotwal Ramachandra – a well known and feared lord of the underworld. Agni Sridhar (also a character in the film) wrote the novel – which bears the same name as the film. 
First my congratulations to the director, on making a really successful Kannada film which already has passed its first 75 days of showing and also for getting such a rare mix of talents to collaborate on the film. My personal favourite was Atul Kulkarni’s performance of Agni Sridhar’s character, especially with the dubbed voice of ‘tunta Nanda’ synced perfectly– what a heady mix, it made me giddy. Music also needs a mention, Ilayraja – there I have said it. Commercially, this film is a perfect potion to success - love, betrayal, revenge, money, violence, comedy, timing and a strong script.
It actually looks neat the film overall. The 80s reminds of Ramakrishna Hegde, hotel airlines, fewer traffic on the road, the promenade on MG road full of Bougainville infested with cuscuta, Sri Raj Lassi Bar, and a Black Contessa Classic (J). The style of the film is actually “theatrical”. Each important character gives an intro to himself in context of the other. Chaitanya tells the films in various colours too. – sepia to show the past in the film, the blue for the night etc etc.
Content wise, it tells the tale of the underworld in
(Still I wonder about the absence of the political hands behind the two dons. Why is there complete silence about Ramakrishna Hedge’s involvement? )
Two underworld dons controlled the ‘motor of
Jayaraj on the other hand is more organized, popular and traditional in his values and beliefs. There is a feel of a fair and just warrior when you see him. He is shown as being just, valiant, just and strong. (doesn’t this already make him endearing to the audiences?). He reminds immediately of a Godfather you respect, and take care of. It felt that he was more in touch with the reality and the ‘fate’ that befits a crime lord unlike Kotwal. How did they grow to be enemies? Kotwal was definitely much a junior to Jayaraj, yet when did they actually become enemies? Jayaraj mentions to his partner somewhere in the film the three times Kotwal and he had fought. Yet, through out the entire film, it is just in one scene that the two actually come close to meeting each other – the attack at Hotel Kanishka. This was for me the paisa vasool scene. Kotwal Ramachandra waits attack Jayaraj, who enters with just one aid (Samson) with him. Watch the movie for the details (its worth it – believe me you) – but the part that I call paisa vasool is the part which reminds of classic war tales. Never attack your enemy when he is not prepared (tsk tsk Kotwal) , practice being sangfroid – something that clearly puts Jayaraj apart from Kotwal. Jayaraj does not even turn to look at the commotion behind him – scores of people with laangs and other assortment of metal weapons. (WOW!!)
I don’t know how the underworld works, and I don’t ever want to know (believe me) but I still hazard a doubt about certain motives in the film. Why was Bachchan keen on killing Kotwal? If it is ever revealed it is in a small one minute conversation right at the beginning of the film, where he says he does not want to fight for Kotwal anymore and wishes to do something about it. Similarly with Shetty’s motives - the only thing Shetty says is , “he is mental.. and that is abuse enough” So the risk question here is – are the motives of the underworld junta so simplistic? In a conversation with Chetan in the Tumkur farm, Kotwal reveals that he has to benefit financially from any deal. In a previous scene , you know just before the hotel Kanishka attack, when Jayaraj’s men play carom and are talking, they discuss why they were not taken to the meeting – “probably because he (Jayaraj) did not want to reveal how much he was earning from Kumar, lest they (his men) get greedy”. Both situations, the motive of gains is clear and well established – so its really disappointing to see Shetty, the aid getting into the plot for – abuse – in all fairness Shetty does say that he has lost his family, but, (sorry) somehow hearing it did not create the impact of Kotwal being so crazy and ‘mental’. He seemed paranoid, he seemed superstitious, yes but with himself. Where was the abuse then?
From the principles to the supporting actors, the cameos - must say star cameos, small or whole ensembles – they do what they are asked to do well and with flair. Chaitanya ensures we all say – “Oh what a film!!! Wonderful!!” one way or the other, but I have to ask why I was not sufficiently engaged or moved by Kotwal’s death. I waited for it with baited breath, to see this mammoth character fall, be butchered, to gasp at the result – really and metaphorically.
When I came back home and discussed the film with people who remembered those days, they all said how the public waited to hear where he (Kotwal) had disappeared off to. What happened to him? Kotwal for them was a larger than life figure, a celebrity of sorts, some one they feared and yet know was a mere puppet in the hands of politicians and bigwigs – a simple boy from Shimogga who dreamt of things beyond his reach, the hero of a tragic play – and his death therefore something to tell of. The murder as shown in the movie is perhaps true to Agni Sridhar’s account of the day. And he did have scores to settle with him and may be still carries a little bitterness towards the man, but what about what Kotwal Ramachandra was to the public. His death in all its irony was rather fast and done. He is beaten at his own game, and is caught when he is unprepared and contemplative- I know it seems like I am nitpicking may be I expected a grandiose exit for the character that has remained in public memory for so long. I don’t recall what Jayaraj says exactly at the funeral, but he perhaps is the only one who values the life.
The last question I require clarification for is why the director used a third voice to tell the story and not the voice of Sridhar who penned the novel? Atul Kulkarni’s voice after all resonated well, and I personally would have loved to see him in a few more frames.. But hey that’s just me.
Well, I will take great pleasure in revising my view the next time I see the film (which I think will be in the near future), but I earnestly hope this is part 1 of a trilogy. Is there hope to see what happened to Jayaraj and Oil Kumar? (What happened to their relationship post Kanishka?) Ashish Vidhyarthi has always been a treat to watch and learn from, so has Achutta, who perhaps is in his own 'golden age' right now – but the greatest surprise so far is in Sharath’s portrayal of Kotwal – the intensity and the nuances and what a comic – chuppa rustum. Overall, as I said, I am waiting for Part 2 – in the mean time you guys go watch it for yourself. It runs at Triveni and PVR.
Tata
- http://asterix786.wordpress.com/2007/12/14/km-chaitanya-director-of-an-underworld-film-speaks-out/ (for things you did not know about Chaitanya)
- http://indianmovies-gossip.blogspot.com/2007/11/aa-dinagalu-is-dj-vu-atul-kulkarni-is.html
- http://www.mouthshut.com/product-reviews/Aa_Dinagalu-925076027.html
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
A quality festival
| The festival of plays presented by Toto Funds The Arts showcased three very different versions of quality English theatre |
INTERESTING PLOT The Hare and The Tortoise was visually engaging
Toto Funds The Arts recently presented a festival of three plays at Ranga Shankara. TFA, Rafiki and Adishakti Laboratory presented works of Ionesco (Exit the King), Fugard (The Island) and an original play called The Hare and The Tortoise directed by Anmol Vellani, Rafiki and Veenapani Chawla respectively.
"Exit the King" by Ionesco presents no new surprise or twist. The king, Berenger (Sanjay Iyer) is a larger-than-life king who has lived 400 years. On the day of his death — when the play begins — however, he is no longer the king whose domain captured millions of people, but rules a failing kingdom. His only desire, however, is to live on forever, and he will barter his kingdom for longevity, even if it means living alone for an eternity.
What is special about the play is the way Ionesco connects death and its inevitability to the politics of the day. Berenger is very relatable to leaders of the past as well as the present. The people around the king also nicely represent society at large. Heightening the effect were some beautifully executed moments, such as the end, where Berenger's first wife Margarite (Suman) leads him into his after life. The production, for the most part, tried to stay true to the absurd and farcical nature of the original play, setting the play in an old jazz bar with contemporary techno music. Sanjay Iyer as the King Berenger brought great energy to the stage and occupied much of the limelight. His portrayal of the narcissist king, alternating crisply between bouts of pathos, enthusiasm, fear and confidence, was captivating. Suman's singing parts and the lighting also helped make the play memorable.
Athol Fugard's "The Island", performed by Sachin Gurjale and Anish Victor was possibly the highlight of the festival. Though highly verbose in its construction, the play manages to hold one's attention easily. Like most of Athol Fugard's plays this one too centres on the struggles of African men in the time of the Apartheid. Here two common men are trapped in a jail, for rebelling against the Apartheid. They have to perform a piece form the Greek play Antigone in front of their officers.
The play is beautifully written to show the conflicts between the heart and the head, between feeling and the reason - the same conflict in Antigone. Being personally right and politically wrong is true to the prisoners as to Antigone. Gurjale and Victor as John and Winston present this subtle yet strong similarity with much ease. The longing for freedom, the anxiety of a father, lover, friend and son, jealousy and angst are all evoked powerfully. What is also interesting is the way in which light has been used realistically almost like a character in the play. There are parts when the actors are submerged in darkness, like at the very beginning when the two prisoners work on the beach as a part of their punishment for rebelling in the prison.
It however was disheartening to see that play did not see a full house like the other two plays.What gives "The Hare and the Tortoise" dramatic shape is the question or notion of `the race'.
"The race began simultaneously, but I reached instantly," sums up the "way" that forms the central notion of the piece. "Are there answers outside knowledge?" is one predominant question setting the pace of the play. The play works through stories of characters like Ganapati and Kartik, the hare and tortoise, Ekalavya and Arjuna and Hamlet, winners and losers in a variety of tales. Visually the play is thoroughly engaging. The play is a combination of sketches that use a variety of media, and verbal and physical texts. Music and light are used beautifully to create surreal moods and images. The contemporary jazz music played during the performance is instrumental in defining the concept of "now" as opposed to the "past" that Hamlet is preoccupied with. Acrobatic movements and contortions of artists Nimi Raphel (as Arjuna and Ekalavya), Vinay Kumar (Hamlet, The Hare), Suresh Kaliyath (Ganapathi) and the animated voice work of Arjun Shankar and Arvind Rane, coupled with the deftly-played music of Suresh Kaliyath, Pascal Sieger, Arjun Shankar and Arvind Rane stunningly enhance the ensemble work.
© Copyright 2000 - 2006 The Hindu
Failed craftsmanship
Date:19/04/2007 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/mp/2007/04/19/stories/2007041901630400.htm
| The play Five, put together by workshop participants, disappointed at multiple levels |
DISPARATE ELEMENTS There were five stories in the play involving people from different walks of life
Join the Dot's recent performance of "Five" raises critical questions about the notion of performance, workshop productions and feedback. The play was put together by participants of previous workshops conducted by the group. The actors together created the scripts and rehearsed over four weekends to put up the Sunday afternoon performance for a full house at CFD's Nani Arena. Also, this was the first-performance opportunity for most actors on stage.
The name of the play, "Five", corresponds with the number of stories in the play. Is there a connecting theme between the stories? No. The stories are disparate and are of people from all walks of life. The narrator (Rahul George) introduces each of these stories, as the actors set the stage for the other scene. The five stories are somewhat like this — the first story "Love Lost" introduces the story of Andrew, a wildlife photographer and his love for Enzima, a tribal girl in a matriarchal tribal land, who chooses to stay with her tribal group called Mundugamo. Andrew leaves the tribal lands and becomes a writer. The second story, "Khel Khel Mein" tells the story of two brothers, similar to Cane and Able. The third story, documents the story of two MBA graduates trying to impact changes in their village, the fourth, beginning with a poem, tells the story of a physically challenged adult who begins to look at life differently and the fifth is the story of life situations and changes ina family of three.
All the stories are constructed by the participants themselves and there is no doubt of the singular potential of the actors, but the collection of plays failed in execution and disappointed on many fronts. The only story that stood out in content and performance was "Khel Khel Main". Both the actors playing the modern Cane and Able were powerful in their performances. Content wise, there were many glitches, for example, the wildlife adventurer in the first piece aims at a bird with a gun and shoots it to impress the woman he loves. The loosely weaved script and dramatic depiction threw up serious questions. It was disturbing to see villagers being depicted as a group of bhang smoking individuals, or the clichéd depiction of tribal people. Rahul George's performance as the narrator was clumsy. The performance was subsumed by a kind of humour that elicits immediate laughter from the audience, and dangerously tips actors into a trap of repeating the same till the very end of the sequence. The play, directed by Join the Dots team members Mahesh and Meenakshi, needs a lot of work, if it has to go in for repeat performances.
Great show
Date:30/03/2007 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/fr/2007/03/30/stories/2007033001790300.htm
| Performed again nearly two decades after it's debut, Mukhyamanthri nevertheless had a contemporary resonance |
SOME FAULTS Even a bang-on execution could not camouflage the glitches
Kalagangothri, one of Bangalore's oldest amateur Kannada theatre groups, recently performed one of 
their oldest and most popular plays "Mukhyamanthri" at Ravindra Kalakshetra. Translated to Kannada by T.S. Lohitashwa from the original Hindi text (written by Ranjit Kapoor) nearly two decades ago, the play has since been performed regularly since then by Kalagangothri. What's more, veteran actor Mukhyamanthri Chandru has played the protagonist in every staging of the play.
The play begins at the end of the story, with turmoil in the political circles of Udayachal state. The chief minister Krishna Dwayapalana Kaushal (Mukhyamanthri Chandru) loses the confidence of his party, at the end of his five-year term. He is, however, retained as "Caretaker" Chief Minister for a period of 48 hours, after which voting in the next elections begins. From the start, it is clear that Sudharshan Dubey, the president of the party, plots to overthrow Kaushal and become the next chief minister. But not wanting to give up, Kaushal launches a series of well-planned schemes to hold onto power. Directed by B.V. Rajaram, the play is a study of political intrigue, highlighting the strategies employed by the chief minister to win back confidence within 18 hours.
Perhaps the greatest testament to the play's storytelling is the ease with which audiences have been able to relate it to contemporary politics over the years.When the play was first staged, it was considered a commentary on the life of the then Chief Minister Devraj Urs. Now, the same is said regarding the present Chief Minister. This clearly speaks of the currency the play evokes even today, despite being written nearly two decades ago. Although it manages such a powerful universality, however, the play does not have many abstract political discourses and is rather fast paced in its movement, showing the most crucial day of the leader's life.
The cast is off and running from the beginning, working a nice staccato between them, despite the play being rather verbose. Mukhyamanthri Chandru as the Chief Minister easily holds attention as he segues from one conversation to the next with impeccable comic timing .
Kalagangothri Kitti performs well as the prodigal son of the Chief Minister, as do Srinivas Meshtru as Durgabhai, M.S. Vidhya as Suhasini and Krishne Gowda as Dubey.
However, even a bang-on execution could not camouflage some noticeable glitches. Many of the other artistes in the play, although having small roles, betrayed a lack of effort in both characterisation and delivery. Also, seeing actors turn to the wings for instructions was rather disturbing. These difficulties did not much reduce the effect, however, as audience members were heard holding forth on current political intrigues much after the curtains dropped.
© Copyright 2000 - 2006 The Hindu
The Original Last Wish Baby
Americans! This is a great topic to make play about, especially if the play resembles a Michael Moore or a Dubyaman commentary and is in the genre of black comedy. William Seebring's "The Original Last Wish Baby" is one such play and was performed recently at the Alliance Francais de Bangalore by Dramanon, a Bangalore based theatre group. The play is directed by Sharanya Ramprasad. The relatively new play by Seebring, tells the story of the capitalistic America that encashes on anything that is worth commercializing. In this case it is a miracle in modern times, of a baby born without a heart in Ohio, and the news of a woman in another part of the world delivering a heart, without really knowing she delivered it. The characters in the play are everyday people, and the play is a parody, on American life. It shows normal, everyday people as being manipulative, even in their well meaning acts, and the media as seeking to scintillate, even the smallest of acts, if it proves to provide those fifteen minutes of fame. If seen closely, the metaphor of the 'heartless baby' is quite an example in itself of an industrialized, corporate world, quite reminiscent of the literature from the industrialization period. There are also some really interesting debates in the script, like towards the end, the play highlights the issue of death. Subtly the question of brain dead people, are portrayed. In a restaurant scene, a man asks for a table for him and his brain dead, yet alive wife- it also moves into absurd frenzy when an anti – 'funaralist' cult demands right for extended life and elect the dead Ronald Regan as their leader. The lines and scenes fly easily without much lag in the plot. This however becomes the biggest setback in itself, as was seen in the recent performance. The play by itself is rather insidious in nature, in that it easily traps the performers into certain invisible traps.
The treatment of the play itself is an illustration of this factor, meaning that here, the satire or the spoof is misunderstood in its interpretation. All characters, leaving one had a rather 'Simpsonisque' treatment. The locale seemed more like Springfield rather than as Ohio, or any other part of America. The drunk in the bar (Vinoj Zacharia) evoked a lot of memories of Homer Simpson. The trap was exactly here, in creating a spoof about the American life the way Americans have already done it. The medical professors were shown as nerds and one particularly reminded of Eddie Murphy in the Nutty Professor. Also, what is noticed how one easily correlates "image consultants" to lipstick applying "gay men". Or that a sex worker, is sassy, and the Guatemalan maid is raunchy and loud. The play does not seem to be written to be performed stereotypically. There are many areas where these leanings could have been avoided, but one must admit, that such portrayal did provide laughter from a majority of the audience. One wonders if literal caricaturing of characters helped the performance, and so the question is, is this all that we can do with a black comedy about Americans? Play it the way Americans have played it?
The second trap is the accent. There were varying accents heard in the play. It seemed like the team could not take a calling on what kind of accents to use in the play or perhaps, it was probably to show a cosmopolitan culture in America, or may be not. Third, movements. All seem fine when the actors are moving to line blocking, but what does not fit in is the robot like movements at the end and beginning of each scene. If each of the actor is playing a certain American character, why not enter in the same way?
Even though the play presented many questions regarding the way it has been dramatized, some parts of the play demand a proper mention. The light (Harish Seshadri) and sound (Anirudh Kidambi) execution were smooth. The audio visuals were captivating. The original soundtrack (by Anuragh Shanker and Thanglian Khup) and the images that were compiled by Rahul Prabhu were well chosen, and portrayed a certain angst in the mind of the American playwright that the performance somehow did not show. The six actors who played up to forty roles managed their costume changes well, and in time. While five of the actors play the various characters in America, a narrator weaves a story between the scenes they create, sometimes providing assistance within a scene. Anand Ramprasad, as the narrator was good especially in his voice work, but it seemed he could have been used better in the play. The antics of other actors, Deepanjan Dey, Sitara Menon, Serena Punch, Suraj and Vinoj provided a great deal of laughs for most of the audience, but sometimes were too in the face.
The risk with performances such as this one is that usually audience laughter is taken in by the team as appreciation for good acting. Also the greater risk is that a good script still remains hidden.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Laughing all the way
Date:02/02/2007 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/fr/2007/02/02/stories/2007020201480300.htm
Yashwant Sardeshpande's play All the Best had the audience in splits
SOARING POPULARITY CHARTSAll the Best has seen nearly 450 performances in the country and abroad
Last Sunday's performance of Hubli based Guru Nataka Mandali's All the Best at the Kuvempu Ranga Mandira, Avalahalli, evoked memories of yesteryear play performances in Bangalore. It was a familiar scene: the open-air auditorium thronged with eager beavers, waiting for the early evening performance to begin. All the Best has seen nearly 450 performances in the country and internationally. It follows all the tricks of touring popular plays. It is a comedy set in the house of three bachelors, who come with their own set of mannerisms and characterisations. Chandru is a cook at his own local Chinese push cart, and is hearing impaired. Dilip works at a bookstore, and is speech impaired, and Vijay is visually impaired and works in a telephone booth. The three have their own ways of interacting with each other that make for a lot of laughter. The house has been designed to suit their special needs. There are two sets of calling bells, to suit the hearing and the visually impaired. In the midst of all this walks Mohini, a well-meaning, friendly woman, for whom all the three men fall head over heels. They are competing with each other to gain her attention. The confusions and the punch lines by the three actors generated most of the laughter.
The success of this play lies in the portrayal of relatable characters. The sets are simple and look neat. Foldable walls with built-in windows and doors, posters of Amitabh and Aishwarya Rai created the image of bachelor pads. The costumes were realistic too. Most of the actors did a good job, but Yeshwanth Sardeshpande as Chandru was a stand out. The good lighting and sound system added to the effect. Like most popular plays this one gets the audience high on laughter.
DEEPTHY SHEKAR
© Copyright 2000 - 2006 The Hindu
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Age cannot wither...
| Orange Sky's production of Cleopatra was strong on costume and sets though the performances were slightly unconvincing |
PASSIONATE QUEEN Cleopatra's costume was grand as befitting the royal everyone loved to hate
William Shakespeare's tale of love and deception along the shores of Nile and Rome, has captured the imagination of writers for centuries. Anthony and Cleopatra is as strong as its protagonists and is packed with intrigue, love and war. In a recent attempt, Bangalore-based Orange Sky presented their version of the famous play.
Adapted by Reshma Tonse and directed by Kanak Narayan Sen, Cleopatra was performed at the St. John's auditorium. The play was executed well, with only a few technical hitches. The scenes moved rather swiftly between Cleopatra's palace and Rome.
The stage is set to suggest these two locations with two Roman Coliseum like structures at the two ends of the front stage, and a pharaoh's chair at the centre for Cleopatra and the actions happen in the appropriate areas.
Most of the stage was used well. The music too, occupies scenes between Anthony and Cleopatra, but ended rather abruptly every time.
The costumes were grand. Cleopatra was dressed in shimmering gold, and the rest of the cast in black. Keeping a basic style of the toga, the actors were given different styles in black. One can understand the need for neutral costumes and colours to avoid costume changes especially with same actors playing two roles, Tonse plays Charmaine and the soothsayer and the three main male characters — Agrippa, Anthony and Octavius Caesar — merged with other characters.
Structurally, the production followed the main plot of Shakespeare's play.
So how is this play an adaptation? First, maybe in its attempt to recreate the classic to a modern audience, Tonse has retained the main characters in the play, doing away with more than a score characters in the original.
The director also suggests that the adaptation focuses on Cleopatra's (Sudarshana Gupta) emotional trials, caught in self-doubt, vanity and fear. The plot in the adaptation is not far from the original. So are the characterisations. The single flaw? The performance seemed rather dilute and unconvincing. The strength and resoluteness of Cleopatra even in her emotional shifts, vanity and diffidence is missing. Rajiv Gupta, as Anthony was his confident self, Jaiprakash stood out as Agrippa, and was consistent.
While none of the actors had any problems with lines, they too struggled somewhere with being convinced themselves. Sudarshana Gupta's work is apparent, nevertheless, her struggle to seem convincing as Cleopatra, only suggests that a play of Shakespeare, even if adapted, becomes in many ways both the best and the worst play for those who are working on it for the first time. Admittedly a difficult script such as this requires a lot of authorial and characterization support, otherwise faces the risk of showcasing good, potential talent, which ultimately does not touch.
DEEPTHY SHEKHAR
Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Jan 18, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
