Grinned Misi over his banaba-shake in the Odeon while he was throwing compliments at local divasto the right, and criticism at me to the left.
Bananashake in the centre,.
For him it was too dense, to much, less is more he said, did't like the costumes, there were far to many lights, too many changes back and forward between languages - he added, while I pulled an english rose and nodded and agreed.
Oppinions are very valuable, and you can not argue with them. At best you can challenge them, but I didnt have that on my agenda. I have been talking way too much lately I wanted to listen. And learn as always - the nerd I am.
I might want to challenge oppinions, modes of spectatorhip, traditional performer-audience relations with the work itself, I have no intention of arguing the preception of the performance.
What I definately would like to do is to share something, to show something.
Altough preception is a factor that I should have taken more into account, or is it the local context? Some people come with their ready-made ideas about how this cannonised text should be staged, people from the industry mainly they are, and perhaps that stops them from appriciating Sweet-meet (Mihaly, Szabados 2009) for what it is. They approach it from what it should be. What they would want it to be.
I changed the title, hoping that that audience would venture in the Shakespearian-unknown with us:
Wellcome the the unconsciouos of an underdevelopped character.
Let's see a few ways we might approach re-telling/remembering the story.
If this was still a tragedy, I would have called it Poison Bones, or Bloody Ribs or something.
This piece was made with love and care for you to enjoy.
Not to high-culture-tickle a select few.
Ok, I was a bit random here, but give me a break, this is a blog and spring just kicked in.