Social Buttons

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

In Context: Six Characters in Search of an Author



Six Characters in Search of an Author runs at BAM from October 29—November 2. Context is everything, so get even closer to the show with this curated selection of original blog pieces, articles, interviews, and videos related to the production. Once you've seen it, help us keep the conversation going by telling us what you thought below.

Program Notes

Six Characters in Search of an Author (PDF)


Read


Homepage
Théâtre de la Ville
For this theater, the goal “is not to run away from the world [but to] try on a new vision of things.”

Interview
"'The Impossibility of Theatre': An Interview with Emmanuel Demarcy-Mota (HuffingtonPost.com)
For the Six Characters director, the work is "a magnificent homage to the theatrical art that at the same time reveals, dissects, exposes [...] the limits of this art in the face of the real."

Article
On Six Characters in Search of an Author (Yale.edu)
Six Characters plays on the tension between a desire for the perfect illusion and a celebration of illusoriness.

Reading
“Pirandello Confesses” by Luigi Pirandello (VQROnline.org)
The author expounds on why he wrote Six Characters in Search of an Author.

Biography
Luigi Pirandello (NobelPrize.org)
In Pirandello’s plays, “the self exists to him only in relation to others [consisting] of changing facets that hide an inscrutable abyss.”


Watch & Listen 


Video
Six Characters in Search of an Author (YouTube)
John Hurt starred in this television version of Six Characters from 1992.


Worthwhile Words


The split between the “Actors” and the “Characters” in Six Characters seems at first to represent a division between “reality” and “illusion.” Yet, the “real” actors are specialists in achieving illusion, and the characters claim with some justification to be more “real” than reality. Like the modernists who celebrated the power of myth to transform the everyday, Pirandello celebrates the theater, which reveals the element of self-dramatization inherent in the roles people play in everyday life. Although their story contains a heavy dose of melodrama and therefore seems “unrealistic,” Pirandello does not simply treat the Characters with irony. Rather, he seems to celebrate the greater intensity of their dramatic self-representation as the basic impulse behind art. –Pericles Lewis

Now your turn...


So how did you enjoy the show? Likes? Dislikes? Surprises? Tell us what's on your mind in the comments below.

45 comments:

  1. Why does BAM send me emails asking what I thought of a show, before I've seen it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello, and apologies for the delayed reply! This may be part of a glitch in our system. The good news is, it can be easily fixed! We apologize for the confusion. Please contact us at info@BAM.org if you experience this again in the future. Thank you!

      Delete
    2. The acting was impressive. Thoroughly enjoyed the show.

      Delete
  2. Tonight's performance was breathtaking, which made the 20 minute uninterrupted cell phone alarm disruption of the climax all the more heartbreaking.

    I've seen so much at BAM this year but not a single event went unmarred by cell phone noise. It's crushing. Tonight's, by far, was the worst.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Never in my life have I been so upset leaving a performance. I really hope BAM comes up with new strategies for preventing cell phone disruptions.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I thought the performance exciting, the production wonderful, but the surtitles were very faint and my French wasn't up to the speed of the actors.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Excellent production

    ReplyDelete
  6. In brief, the supertitles were mostly invisible except when the stage was dark. In Act One when the director was in a tight spotlight, suddenly the words were a crisp clear white, but otherwise they were a blurred gray. I sat on the side and watched the action but couldn't follow (or even read) the rapid fire dialog. Good stagecraft, lots of actors yelling. A mixed bag...

    ReplyDelete
  7. The titles were unreadable , soooo faint, very frustrating.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Enjoyment marred by poorly visible surtitles that should have been simplified -- don't need every word. Center surtitles virtually invisible with any light on stage and those on sides were too small. In trying to see them then missed much of stage action. Agree mixed and disappointing bag in a performance I had been looking forward to.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I agree with all the comments on the titles. They were too long and too faint. We had excellent seats so we should have been able to easily read the titles.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Unfortunately, the contrast between the letters and screen on the supertitles was not enough to make reading very clear. The dialogue was so quick that deciphering it to keep up was impossible. It's really a shame as the production was done so well. I now need to read the play. I was unable to concentrate on the performance since I spent so much time trying to figure out what was being translated. The lady next to me had binoculars and also said she couldn't read the letters.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Felt as though l was reading a blurry eye chart at the opthomogists.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I felt sorry for anyone who didn't understand French ( as I do) . The few times I glanced at the supra-titles, they were blurred and illegible. The ones shown on the exteriors of the box seats were clearer but too tiny to read. Poorly done.
    That being said, although I understood the language, the play was virtually incomprehensible. A better title would have been " One Author In Search of a Play".
    IRene Bernstein-Pechmeze

    ReplyDelete
  13. Our group (French speakers and non-French speakers) enjoyed this wonderful play. All comments on the supertitles are accurate. For myself, a French speaker, I wished they had not been there since I felt distracted by them and would rather have not seen them. I wished BAM had the same technical capability as the Metropolitan Opera, where subtitles are available as an option in the seat in front of you. The play was fantastic and the acting excellent. So far one of the best fall BAM performances.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Excellent, riveting performance. But the subtitles interfered. Many were too faint, and some contained so much text that I could not finish reading one before the next one appeared. Often I missed the action on stage because I had to concentrate on the titles. We saw this group's performance of The Rhinoceros and had no problem with the titles -- I suspect because Ionesco's play is much less wordy. I agree with the suggestion that BM should install titles on the backs of the seats, like at the Met Opera house, so that one doesn't have to look up to read the text.

    ReplyDelete
  15. the staging was great and I like seeing the play again. however I am not sure about it in French, though it was not so disconcerting as Angels in America in Dutch.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Terrible production --worst acting ever --super titles hard to read--lighting was good that's it--the acting and directing quite awful especially a few of the leads---a play about the theatre and what is or is not acting should have better acting than this group exhibited!

    ReplyDelete
  17. I doubt the announcement of performance in French appeared on the website until after most of the tickets were sold. I would not have bought the tickets if I had seen that. I feel that I saw only half the show because I was reading. On a positive note, our seats at the top of the orchestra to the far left gave a good view of the subtitles. The staging of the show was good, with some very good acting. The amplification was a little obvious in places. The seats were uncomfortable. My daughter loved the show.

    ReplyDelete
  18. As an actress, I’ve always been naturally fascinated by this play but had never before had a chance to see it. Shortly into the performance I realized I’d been very foolish not to reread it before seeing a non-English production. I had the same problems already mentioned with the supertitles -- too dim and too long. Nevertheless, once I gave up on the titles, I was enthralled. I found the acting astonishing, and the spot-on enunciation gave me some clues, even with my rudimentary French. I also loved all of the very inventive staging and its beautifully precise execution, along with the terrific energy and pacing. I look forward to rereading the play, so my great evening in the theater will be extended.

    I also have to comment on the Harvey Theater, which I attended for the first time a couple of months ago. What a magical theater venue!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Fantastic performance, subtitles were a disaster (see previous comments which are very accurate). I have seen the play before in English and understand most French but found some sections impossible to follow.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I loved the play, and the acting, and staging! The sound design was fantastic. I found the super titles to be EXTREMELY difficult to read, in part due to their very high layout (possibly unavoidable) but made much more difficult by the very bright, stark lighting used on the stage and a slight lack of clarity and brightness to the over-stage super titles. Something to consider for the future. Thanks, BAM! I look forward to my next visit to the Harvey Theater.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Absolutely fantastic! Intelligent, ironic, subtle, passionate, deep, provocative, lively. Beautiful scenes, sounds, great actors.. perfect energy, big emotions! A pleasure to have it in French, and the theater itself is a lovely, cosy space with its onw character and energy. It made this rainiy day!

    ReplyDelete
  22. I thought it was a great production of a brilliant play that rarely gets produced well. I didn't feel like a creaky metatheater exercise, but it actually was an entertaining and captivating play. I read really quickly, but I didn't have issues with the subtitles and I was on the side towards the front.

    ReplyDelete
  23. The subtitles were not bright enough to read and many people had complained about that.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I congratulate the director and his entire team for this production. It qualifies itself as a true piece of "grand théâtre," which I haven't experienced for a while, in Paris and in New York. In addition to great acting and innovative interpretation of Pirandello, the stage design was especially impressive. It gives one hope that true theater (say, as Roland Barthes dreamed of in the 1950s) can still exist.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Wonderful performance (saw on Sat.), amongst the best I have seen in my 10 years attending BAM. Loved the acting, set and lighting, and Six Characters is one of my favorite plays (done much too little in NY).
    Agree with all about supertitles, but I coud follow enough with my high school French and the side titles worked. I assume with all the comments that BAM will figure this out. But even with the supertitle issues, this was a great theatrical experience. Much prefer Pirandello in French to another Ibsen in English. So thanks to the company and to all at BAM who put this show together.

    ReplyDelete
  26. By all means bring them back. they were outstanding!

    ReplyDelete
  27. Teriffic. Powerful. A must see!

    ReplyDelete
  28. No question - a terrific performance by an incredibly skilled cast and an outstanding production. Unfortunately, without much French skill, we were at a deficit. The super titles were woefully inadequate - impossible to keep up with the rapid dialog and somehow so low in brightness that made them often illegible. Happily we had read the play (in English) and basically knew the plot so we kind of kept up. Should have been in English with the same level of production.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I agree with many of the other comments. A very interesting and relevant play, well worth putting on at BAM. The acting and staging were excellent, the company were superb, but the surtitles were altogether inadequate: hard to read, not enough contrast, not bright enough, etc. My rusty French helped, but the dialogue is fast and intellectually challenging even in English. Another problem was obstructed view of the surtitles. We were in seats R22 and R24. Of those, the seat by the aisle had a pillar in front of it, so I could not see the surtitles at all - had to move up to the very back of the house looking down the aisle to get any view of the titles.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I was glad to find that the play is still relevant and absorbing after all these years. The production and sets were imaginative and interesting and the acting very good. The titles were illegible, at least for us up in the gallery, which I found really upsetting although I could understand most of the French. It is hard to believe that nobody in the theater took the time to check; probably they didn't want to have to walk up all those stairs!

    ReplyDelete
  31. Wonderful production of a very dated, very F-R-E-N-C-H play.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. . . . except that it's an I-T-A-L-I-A-N one.

      I didn't expect the supertitles to be so much of a problem, since I had had no trouble at "Angels in America," but in fact I agree with all the other comments here; I could hardly follow the play--ironic that the NY Times review said they were conveniently placed and easy to read, because they were not. In my dreams, BAM finds a mega-donor (not a Koch brother!) to install those Met-style subtitles, but I don't think it's really going to happen. I wonder if anyone views the titles from anywhere but center orchestra while the plays are in rehearsal?

      Delete
  32. I think it was a total waste of time and money……the titles were unreadable, illegible, and much too fast. I basically knew the plot…..but the titles were inexcusable. People sitting near me left after half an hour.

    ReplyDelete
  33. overly long and loud. lots of yelling and cackling -- a hamfisted production of what can be an interesting play.

    ReplyDelete
  34. As close to a perfect production of a great (and rarely produced) play as I could have hoped to have seen. While I might wish that I spoke French or didn't have to read the supertitles, once I gave myself over to the experience, I was, as someone above said, enthralled. Since it deals with questions of reality and identity, it seems quite appropriate that we all had different experiences - as voiced by the divergent opinions here. Pirandello was, after all, a precursor to the Theater of the Absurd - and this makes me appreciate that all the more.

    ReplyDelete
  35. How nice that you folks are inquiring..
    Actually although the production was terrific..
    it was hard to read the titles for a lot of the time
    because there wasn’t enough contrast between the
    words and the background,..i.e. the words read as
    gray not black…and we (my husband and I..as well
    as some other folks I saw) had to shield some of the
    light in order to get the required contrast back….
    Full disclosure: we were! pretty high up..but still
    felt a little like a punishment..not to see the text
    more clearly.
    Thanks for asking!
    Best,
    Julie Gross & (speaking for)
    Lawrence Loewinger..(my husband!)

    ReplyDelete
  36. I was lucky to have read the play before so the disaster with subtitles wasn't that devastating.
    My activists friends who where sitting at the gallery and couldn't see subtitles at all stopped by the person responsible for the light after the end of the performance asking WHY??
    The answer was the most amusing: I can do it as bright and contrasting as needed, - he said, - the way you see it is part of the director's instructions.
    Well, it certainly didn't help to appreciate the performance.
    Still, I don't regret coming all the way from Boston to see it. The artists - I'd like to single out the artist, who played the director - were very impressive. And the play, like its characters, deserves being staged and seen.

    ReplyDelete
  37. While you could tell this was a great production of a difficult play to mount, it was hard to follow the details of the story because the subtitles were not bright enough making them difficult to read and follow.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Had no idea how lucky my son and I were to be in the (partly obstructed) box seats - the supertitles were clear and bright. It dampens my experience to know that others could not share it. While I could not keep up with every word, I would rather have more than less. The two of us were completely captivated. I was struck by how much emotional power was extracted from what was essentially one continuous intellectual exercise. I felt forced to consider, with disquiet, what if anything was substantial in my own 'character'. The final effect, with the scrim first opaque and white to plunge us, with relief, back into 'our own' world, and then, suddenly, translucent to reveal the Characters, lingering, in their transcendent 'behind' world, was uncannily moving. I thought that Plato himself would applaud.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I had read this play many years ago in college and liked it so I was looking forward to finally seeing it performed. I had not realized that the performance would be in French with English subtitles, but was able to enjoy it in spite of the difficulties of following the quick dialogue while trying to read the subtitles. Knowing the general story really helped and the performance gave meaning and life to the play which greatly enhanced my appreciation of it.

    ReplyDelete
  40. TERRIBLE TITLES - TOO FAST..WHY NOT DO IT IN ENGLISH????

    ReplyDelete
  41. The production was outstanding and visually engrossing. That said, it was ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE TO READ A SINGLE WORD OF THE TITLES from the top rows of the gallery. In principle, BAM should refund the price of the tickets, as they were sold without proper warnings.
    --Bill Sweet
    347-403-0325

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.