La cura en Troya

Is theatre ever complete without the illusion it creates? If all the elements are there, but lacks the illusion, is it still theatre?

The play being reviewed is called "La cura en Troya" directed by Jorge Guerra performed at "Centro Cultural de la Universidad Catolica". The play is an adaptation of a play written by Seamus Heaney, an Irish Poet, which is based on the classic play "Philoctetes" by Sophocles.

In theatre, there is usually an illusion, which transports the audience to a fictional space, where the play occurs. This however, is critical to the audience in order to have a certain level of credibility towards what they are seeing, a fictional credibility if you will, and if this illusion isn't present, then the play wont work at all.

This is what I felt when seeing this play, because even if all the other elements where coherent to some extent, the lack of this credibility made me lose concentration on what I was watching.

One of the things that I felt uneasy about at first, and made me lose this credibility was the constant mention of an island, to make the audience believe that the play was happening on an island (Lemnos), but there was no hint whatsoever on stage that would give the impression of an island, and words themselves are not enough to actually create the illusion. To me the scenery were just white square columns to each side, and that was basically it. So by me not believing the setting of the play, everything else just didn't seem believable, it was like seeing characters act in the middle of nowhere for no apparent reason.

Another element that broke this illusion was the fact that at one point in the play, a table was put on stage, with two chairs. Given that the whole play was supposedly set on ancient times, and the costumes were all (except one) classic, I expected the table to be a bit rustic, or resembling that era, but instead it was a "Cafe table" and the chairs were also quite modern. So this clash between eras confused me a bit, and had me thinking. Usually these things have a purpose, but if there was one this time, it didn't get through. At least for me as an audience member. And the same can be said for the costume of Odysseus, which was that of a contemporary Yacht owner, and clashed against all the other costumes, which resembled Greek times.

Perhaps, these two elements, the lack of setting and the apparent incoherence of certain costume and scenery elements made everything that came after just seem far fetched, or that just didn't fit.

For example, at one part, an image of a volcano is projected on a long panel on the top of the stage, and the voice of Hercules is heard, while the actors remain still. It might be just personal taste, but firstly, the animation just didn't seem to fit the quite basic scenery and empty space, because it was detail-rich, and really contrasted the stage. So I think that the projection was if anything, unnecessary, because just the voice would've been enough, and would make more sense in terms of simplicity than a short video.

It seemed like a steep slope, where the first little mistake turned into increasingly larger consequences. The lack of setting gave in to a lack of credibility, which made almost anything that came after, slightly bogus. That, plus certain ideas that might not have come through to the audience, like the nature of Odysseus's costume, or the modern table just killed the Illusion for me. I was just seeing actors perform on a stage, not characters living on an island.

In my opinion, the play itself wasn't bad at all, I think that if the illusion had been created, everything else, would've had that underlying coherence that the play lacked. The acting was satisfactory, but again, if the setting was clearer, the acting would've just blended perfectly, because at times, even if i thought the acting was doing OK, the lack of setting made it look artificial. Compared to other plays weve seen this year, its fair to say that this one had a lot of potential to be an overall good play, but due to lack of certain elements, it just didn't work fully.

It is important to lure the spectator into a work of art, so that it can soak in and create some sort of reaction. The spectator shouldn't feel the obligation to make an effort to understand art, rather, let art guide him through an experience.